Disciplinary Board & Judicial Conduct Board - UNDER THE BUS?

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's documented and advertised goals are to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to safeguard the reputation of the courts.

Protecting the Public? That's great... um... but from WHAT are they protecting the public? What does this mean? I was clearly NOT protected. And there are many others who feel like me.

The Disciplinary Board consists of 13 members, of whom 11 are attorneys.

LAWYERS ARE PROFESSIONALLY FORBIDDEN TO TAKE ANY ACTION WHICH WOULD EXPOSE CORRUPTION OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY AND REPUTATION OF THE JUDICIARY, AND OF OTHER LAWYERS.

When you file any professional complaint against a lawyer or judge, your complaint is reviewed by lawyers. Lawyers who are professionally FORBIDDEN to take action which would expose corruption or adversely affect the integrity and reputation of the judiciary and of other lawyers.

YES, FORBIDDEN TO TAKE ANY ACTION. If they do, they are subjected to disciplinary action. (I am not certain if it is possible to request a non-lawyer investigator.)

The self-policed judicial branch of Pennsylvania government is prevented from taking any action to police itself. The Disciplinary Board and the Judicial Conduct Board are staffed with lawyers who must follow their twisted codebook. While failing to responsibly police itself, the Judicial Branch of Pennsylvania Government has become a delusional self-serving organization arrogantly determined to conceal, conspire and corrupt.

So we have the answer to that question... The Public needs protection from their aggressive maintenance and clandestine safeguarding of lawyers and judges. Their Rules of Professional Conduct which subvert and undermine any sense of justice; deny victims any explanation; retaliate with malice with the only possible escape being to return and be further victimized.

An Overview of THE PROBLEM

Lawyers and judges MUST report violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, EXCEPT WHERE the revelation of the corruption and crimes would negatively affect the reputation and integrity of lawyers and judges; or possibly cause their clients to lose; or expose their clients committing perjury or other crimes.

The high moral ground of the first phrase is rendered empty and meaningless after applying the three reasonable exceptions.
1) Protect the system.
2) Protect the client.
3) Do not self-incriminate.

So what has caused THE PROBLEM. Where do the three reasonable exceptions break to the point of undermining everything?

---

I went to Harrisburg. I knocked on doors. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Judicial Conduct Board. I wanted to speak to someone about what had happened to me. Something happened which can only be described as SERENDIPITY. The people I wanted to meet were unavailable. I wanted to speak to the people at the top of the organizations that ignored me, or their second, or third, or fourth. I wanted someone to see the face of their victim. They were unavailable also.

The people I met with did not turn their backs, hang up a phone, dismiss a complaint, ignore a request for help or parrot the NO JURISDICTION script.

My encounter with these people began AFTER the Attorney General'a office sent a man to meet me on a bench in a mall at the busy entrance to their office building. I squatted on the floor, while he wasted the predetermined amount of time, not listening, refusing to look at anything, and snarking remarks from the same script. Either I was being disrespected or I am expected to believe that Attorney General Kathleen Kane is taking complaints regarding corruption of the entire Montgomery County Judiciary and Courthouse in the middle of Strawberry Square.

This has been going on since 2007. Disrespect. Humiliation. Mockery. I have been forced to persevere while having to seek justice from the same judiciary responsible for injustice. As each judge sacrificed their integrity for the prior judges, they retaliated against their the victim for surviving. Showing respect to those who disrespect me does not diminish my dignity.

SERENDIPITY.
The Justice Center in Harrisburg seemed to provide the perfect environment. There were no false reports to security stations. There was no escort.
The people opened doors. They did not shout through glass.
They walked around glass walls, opened the door.
Greetings and introductions were exchanged in the same room.
Those contacted from hallway phones, did not dismiss the person seeking information.
They asked a man in the corner office to speak to the person in the hall.
He walked to the door and welcomed me in to his office to speak.
The entire emphasis was not focused on how to end the conversation.

I requested to meet with those at the top of the organizations. I wanted to explain how their system victimized me to the point of destruction. I wanted to assure them that IT DID HAPPEN. I wanted them to meet the victim. I wanted to present how, why, when where, who and what happened. I wanted to recommend a change so it would not happen again to another person.

Not one person was available. YET, the result of the day was the most successful day in years.

Genuine, honest and sincere conversations with interested, knowledgeable and responsible people. They had no idea of who I was. There was no liability to protect. They had nothing to cover-up. There was no secrecy, no whispers, no hiding. They listened to my story. They heard my story. When I presented the problem, they appreciated that I pointed to the cause and asked their advice to work on the resolution.

The header of this web site has said the same line since I started typing. "Every person in a position to help has acted improperly in direct violation of procedures and the law preventing the resolution of any matter… they each make the situation worse… NO ONE HELPS." On August 1, 2013, I had finally escaped and spoken to people who had not been manipulated into a liability. During the last meeting of the day, the realization that I had broken free from the manipulation hit me. It was emotional.

---

THE PROBLEM

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information applies across the full scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rule 1.6 on the surface seems reasonable. It maintains the integrity. It safeguards reputation. BUT, IT DIDN'T PROTECT THE PUBLIC because it didn't protect me. It prevents the me from information. It excludes me from the discussion. It undermined justice. It prevented justice. It clearly denied the Court of any appearance of impartiality. It created Ex Parte situations between the judiciary and the lawyers to the exclusion of a Pro Se litigant.

There is only one possible solution to the problem AND IT MUST be considered for immediate implementation into the Rules of Professional Conduct as this problem affects all Pro Se litigants.

1. Where one party in an action files an appearance to proceed Pro Se, RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION must be suspended for the duration of the matter. There can be no waiver of this suspension which is applicable to all persons who are subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

2. The 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION is unconstitutional as it effectively denies a Pro Se litigant of State and Federally protected Constitutional rights.

3. The 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION creates an administrative and professional burden upon the parties, agents, investigators, advisors and investigators involved in actions filed by Pro Se litigants.

4. In a nutshell, once you file to proceed Pro Se, you are excluded from any communication of lawyers errors or judicial when you go Pro Se, they can no longer speak with you about their 'errors'. If they have no errors, you survive unscathed.

If they have no 'secrets' before you go Pro Se, you need to be aware that should lawyer violate a procedure. When the lawyer violates that procedure, the judge is not permitted to discuss it with you. You ask about it. You are ignored. The judge is required by 1.6 to maintain confidentiality.

Then, the real nightmare begins. If you report it to the Disciplinary Board. They will not communicate with you about it. The lawyer at the Disciplinary Board is required by 1.6 to maintain confidentiality.

Every petition and complaint causes more confidentiality. The courtroom, the Disciplinary Board, the Judicial Conduct Board. Lawyers who must follow the code. You will not be able to hire a lawyer. They will repeatedly tell you to hire a lawyer as if it would change anything.

1.6 denies you every civil and constitutional right. Apparently, the lawyers confidentiality rule is more powerful than your Constitutional Rights, State Ruights, Human Rights and evbery procedure and law in the land.

Rule 1.6 is Unconstitutional to Pro Se Litigants. It must be addressed. Every Pro Se victim that watched their life fall apart... does the above make sense to you. The worse it got, the more you tried, the harder it got, and the more ignored your situiation. The problem is now solved.

I've got 8 years of litigation where this explains everything. Apply it to your situation and respond to this post. hit me on Facebook. And let's get to Washington... and get our families back.

There remains one question/issue/hurdle. I hope to have it addressed by Monday.

Tom Ball... Sorry, I didn't find it in time.

We are long past the time where someone should make the call, accept the liability, stop the attacks, and address the situation. It is not going away until it is addressed. Someon has top take responsibility. To have integrity. I have arrived. Give me your best offer and we can end the nightmare dfor people all over the USA.

---

---

Complaints are not reviewed. Not investigated. This is not a cynical concept. It is the reality documented in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Everyone dismisses people who complain about the system. No one wants to believe the courts are that screwed up that. Their victim is the only one who must believe in the justice system. The victim returns time and time again to only find that once victimized further injustice is inescapable.

Somehow the victim has hope. Those without hope do not survive. Those with hope get destroyed.

Investigators have falsely stated they have reviewed my complaint. Do they mean reviewed as in cut and pasted a few sentences from the document into their dismissal letter? They summarily dismiss the complaint without addressing any of the reported issues. There is no reason provided for the dismissal. They send a 3 page letter full of absolute disconnected nonsense which indicates they dismissed it because they did. THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO MAKE THEM REVIEW THE COMPLAINT - OR DO IT RESPONSIBLY.

You cannot appeal their dismissal. DUH! This information is useful. It will prevent you from wasting time. There is no way you could appeal a decision when you have absolutely no information of what actions they took. They are NOT going to tell you they took no action. Ignoring the complaint is NOT an action. If an appeal process would be permitted, every appeal would be a resubmission of the entire complaint. There is no explanation. NONE. This prevents further questions.

Investigator Alan J. Davis had used "quotes" around the word "unethical" in his dismissal letter.

It is very clear why disciplinary counsel Alan J. Davis used "quotes" around the word "unethical". The Rules of Professional Conduct require a special kind of "ethics" which clearly requires quotes to differentiate from real ethics.

In my opinion, Alan J Davis is an "idiot". BUT, a special kind of "idiot". See that. I learn quickly. I did it too!

His dismissal letter arrived within days of the complaint, and two days after I delivered the initial supporting documentation for each transgression. (Outlined Here) Alan misrepresents that "we have reviewed your complaint and extensive documentation in detail". Their investigative process requires another person do the same. Kudos for that incredible efficiency - two reviews of extensive documentation in detail in under 2 days.

Does this arrogant "idiot" have any credibility? Alan refused to meet with me for a few minutes to review the complaint. I was in the lobby of his office. He was there. He was not in any meetings. He refused to permit me to simply hand him the "extensive documentation". He "investigated" and dismissed the complaint in it's entirety without addressing any specific content of the complaint. He used a form letter which he previously used in May 2011, but for some reason he left out the warnings about publicly revealing the complaint.

Alan, a more honest response could have gone like this...

Dear Mr Healy, I am a "lawyer" and as such cannot investigate the crimes you have reported against lawyers and judges. If I did, the rules would require ME to be disciplined for doing so. This is my important "job" to protect the reputation and integrity of judges and lawyers especially those who have NONE! I did not wish to meet you personally, or speak with you because doing so would make me sad about my important job. It is easier for me to believe the victims of my dismissed complaints do not have faces, or families. Therefore, I ignore and dismiss, while endorsing and encouraging the continued retaliation against victims like yourself terrorized by inescapable injustice to eventual suicide. Very truly yours, Alan J. Davis Disciplinary Counsel

---

The following are some lines from the PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT I had to check and confirm to make sure this document was real. It is the most twisted set of self-erasing rules I have ever encountered. At ninety pages long, it is a remarkable distortion and perversion of professional responsibilities which promote, endorse, guide and conceal activities by an attorney which any reasonable person might consider unprofessional, inappropriate, or "unethical".

Integrity requires responsibility. Reputation is earned. Integrity based on sacrificing the integrity of others causes an inescapable injustice for the victim.

---

When a lawyer presents fraudulent information to the court, but does so at the request of the client. The lawyer is coerced into committing Fraud Upon The Court.
BUT, that's OK!

The disclosure of a client’s false testimony can result in grave consequences to the client, including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury. But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truth-finding process which the adversary system is designed to implement. See Rule 1.2(d). Furthermore, unless it is clearly understood that the lawyer will act upon the duty to disclose the existence of false evidence, the client can simply reject the lawyer's advice to reveal the false evidence and insist that the lawyer keep silent. Thus the client could in effect coerce the lawyer into being a party to fraud on the court.

Lawyers cannot do ANYTHING to expose corruption, crime or fraudulent conduct if it undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
CORRUPT JUDGES MAY NOT BE EXPOSED AS THEIR ACTIONS EMBARRASS THE OTHER CORRUPT JUDGES.

Preserving Integrity of Adjudicative Process Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating or otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official or other participant in the proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence or failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.

Lawyers may not influence or secretly manipulate the judiciary's impartiality, UNLESS THEY DO IT IN A WAY THAT COMPLETELY SUBVERTS THE LAW AND CAUSES THE JUDGES ACTIONS TO BE HUMILIATING WHEN EXPOSED, EMBARASSING TO ANYONE WITH A SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, AND NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF ALL JUDGES.
Then, IT'S OK.

Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal A lawyer shall not: (a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law; (b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order;

The lawyer cannot be a witness to contested facts.
- When evidence was building which indicated to the Court that NO HEARING had taken place on the issue. Judge Page noticed that the testimony was indicative that a hearing had not taken place. When he asked Valerie Angst, AS A SWORN OFFICER OF THE COURT, she lied to the court with embellished coaching by Judge Page which assured that there was no evidence or record which could support her fraud.

Lawyer's lies protect them from disciplinary action from the judges they protect and corrupt.

Rule 3.7 Lawyer as Witness (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.

Lawyers may lie to ANYONE, at ANYTIME. It's REQUIRED where telling the truth will violate a secret.

HONESTLY, Can you believe this is a code of conduct for the LEGAL Profession??

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid aiding and abetting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

Lawyers MUST report the professional misconduct of lawyers, AND judges, UNLESS the misconduct results from manipulative actions by the lawyers planned in confidential conversations with their client. The reputation of lawyers, the integrity of judges, and the "confidentiality of their misconduct" MUST BE PROTECTED.

LAWYERS CRIMES MUST BE IGNORED TO PROTECT THE 'ETHICS" OF THE PROFESSION.

Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority. (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority. (c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or information gained by a lawyer or judge while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program.

Rule 1.6 Confidentiality

"approved lawyers assistance program" = IS THIS DRUG REHAB?

BREAK THE RULES AND SEE DISCIPLINARY ACTION. HA HA. NOT REALLY.
The history indicates that they only address the ridiculous complaints, usually from within their professional legal community, often for forgetting to take a class, or pay their professional registration fees.

Rule 8.4 Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

My absolute favorite twisted rule has got to be the most clearly designed to cover up any real disciplinary activity... and deliberately deny the information from the public. It won't even show up on the Courts web site which falsely suggests you can search attorneys who are admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, and obtain information such as an attorney's status or whether an attorney has been subjected to public discipline.


If a lawyer IS ACTUALLY disciplined by the Board
AND the lawyer admits and accepts the Disciplinary Penalty - suspension, sanction, etc
The Disciplinary Board will conceal ANY RECORD OF THE INFRACTION AND IT WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT INCLUDED IN THAT COOL SEARCH ENGINE THE COURTS MAKE AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO CHECK OUT THEIR LAWYERS.

You may have been wondering about those who do get disciplined. Read the Opinions. Suspended for missing a class or forgetting to update their registration. NOTHING REAL THERE. ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS.

If Valerie Angst got spanked for her deliberate actions which attempted to manipulate Judge Haaz into issuing an order without jurisdiction or authority, if she admitted it, IT WOULD BE KEPT SECRET. It would also delay the hearing until she wasn't suspended any longer.
Perhaps for 6 months, during which time the court fails to schedule the hearing; the court fails to respond to letters regarding the delay; and accrues potential DAILY penalties against the Defendant. AS LONG AS SHE ADMITTED HER MANIPULATIVE MISDEEDS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES, The Disciplinary Board would NEVER publicly announce the matter.

Now you might say, BUT the RULES say she must tell opposing counsel involved in pending litigation of the suspension.

Valerie Angst couldn't get disciplined where it would reveal the complicity of the judiciary in failing to inform the Defendant.
So they hide it, she lies, the judge is forced to covers for her. But the issue is exposed in court, on the record.
The Judge prevents Defendant from asking any question which would explain the delay and potentially expose the suspension.
The Judge absurdly orders a homeless Defendant, unemployed since 2007, to pay over $300,000 in penalties for non-compliance with a Court Order.
The Judge ignored that the Defendant had complied with THAT order, and all prior orders.
The Judge ignored the evidence that the order he was enforcing was Void Ab Initio. Admitting this would expose the malice of Judge Carluccio.
The Judge ignored that the Plaintiff had committed perjury during the hearing.
The Judge ignored that the Plaintiff had never complied with ANY Court Order.
The Judge ignored that since commencement of the matter each attempt to enforce Plaintiff's compliance with court orders was denied, ignored, dismissed or NEVER scheduled for a hearing.
Judge Page wanted to BURY the Defendant so deep in debt that he would never recover, lose hope and commit suicide.
Judge Page provided an opportunity for an Appeal to Superior Court because of his absurd order.
The new Appeal revealed the obstruction of justice and abuse of power under color of law by Judge Carolyn Carluccio who blocked the prior Appeal.
Then, Judge Page went ALL OUT - Abuse of Power under color of law, acting without jurisdiction, obstruction of justice, manipulation of court reporters, concealing exhibits presented during the hearings from the Superior Court.


The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's documented and advertised goals are to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession and to safeguard the reputation of the courts. They unashamedly fail to protect the public. They focus on maintaining integrity of the legal professionals who lack integrity. They safeguard the reputation of judges whose injustice and corruption shame the Court. They conceal endorse and contribute to a ever growing injustice which attacks the public one person, one family at a time.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct lacks ethics, legality or any sense of honor. It delivers an ever expanding injustice while ignoring its victims. It tolerates, creates and protects corruption. It guides a self-policing branch of Government to ignore law, denies rights, and abuses it's power without taking responsibility for it's complete failure to deliver justice while projecting an delusion of integrity upon itself to hide it's shame.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct - YOU CANNOT POLISH A TURD.

THE ONLY WAY OUT OF PENNSYLVANIA'S JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IS TO BRING IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE COURT RECORD

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sonya Healy	: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
(Appellee)	: 1330 EDA 2013
	:
v.	:
	:
Terance Healy	:
(Appellant)	:

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE COURT RECORD

COUNT ONE:
FAILURE TO DELIVER THE COMPLETE RECORD OF THE MATTER

1. Pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Prothonotary of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania was directed to provide the record for this matter being appealed before the Superior Court.

2. The Prothonotary failed to prepare and deliver the record by the date directed by the Superior Court. (June 28, 2013)

3. The Prothonotary has failed to deliver the complete record to the Superior Court.

4. The Service List of Record Documents transmitted by Mark Levy, Prothonotary on July 8 2013 includes reference numbers where documents have NOT been delivered.

5. The Service List of Record Documents transmitted lists documents which have not been delivered to the Superior Court on July 8, 2013 or July 11, 2013.

COUNT TWO:
FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE MATTER

6. Transcripts related to hearings on the matter have not been prepared and delivered to the Superior Court.

7. Requests for the Production of Transcripts pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure were requested (1) concurrent with the filing of the Notice of Appeal; (2) updated on May 15, 2013; (3) resubmitted on May 22, 2013.

8. Court Reporters have neglected to prepare and deliver the Transcripts as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

COUNT THREE:
INCOMPLETE TRANSCRIPTS ARE MISSING REFERENCED EXHIBITS

9. Transcripts which have been provided are missing referenced Exhibits.

10. This omission has been presented to the Court Reporters and the Court Reporters Office in Norristown. There has been no response or action regarding the missing documents.

Whereas, the Appellant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court address the issues presented and issue an Order
-requiring the Prothonotary to immediately Produce the COMPLETE record of the matter.
-requiring the immediate preparation and production of the transcripts for the matter.
-requiring the production of the missing exhibits referenced in transcripts.
which will permit this Appeal to proceed according to the schedule provided.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Terance Healy/s/
Terance Healy
Pro Se

c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sonya Healy	: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
(Appellee)	: 1330 EDA 2013
	:
v.	:
	:
Terance Healy	:
(Appellant)	:

PROOF OF SERVICE


I hereby certify that I am this 25th day of July, 2013 serving the foregoing

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMPLETE COURT RECORD

upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of Pa. R.A.P. 121:

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Sonya Healy
	c/o Angst & Angst
	Harleysville, PA

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Mark Levy, Prothonotary
	Montgomery County Courthouse
	Norristown, PA

Service by FIRST CLASS MAIL	Judge Garrett Page
	Montgomery County Courthouse
	Norristown, PA

July 24, 2013
Terance Healy
Pro Se
c/o 871 Mustang Road
Warrington, PA 18976

Paperwork Delivered - NOW INVESTIGATE

Once again, paperwork has been delivered... Matka Boska, there's always more paperwork.

Issue: Where are the Certificates of Service?

- Angst & Angst lawyers did not deliver the petitions to the Defendant
- Assured a lack of jurisdiction for the judge
- Lack of jurisdiction = Abuse of power under color of law

---

Issue: Where are the Scheduling Orders for the Hearings?

- No hearings are scheduled
- Court has no intention of holding hearings
- Prevents preparation by the Defendant

---

Issue: Secretly Cancelled Hearings

- Cancel hearings by email/praecipe to Court Administration WITH NO NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
- When caught (ON THE RECORD), Reschedule
- Cancel by email/praecipe AGAIN WITH NO NOTICE TO PARTIES
- Keep one hearing on schedule, if Defendant appears, prepared for all, cancel and call security.
- Keep one hearing on schedule, if Defendant does NOT appear, default DISMISS ALL PETITIONS. Failed Attempt.
- Ponder why Plaintiff did not appear even though they wrote to the court asking if the date was cancelled

---

Issue: The NEW Illegal Local Rule permits this to be done by email

- The certificate on the County Site corrupts security on local computers
- Grants access to all devices disks and peripherals
- The County site indicates the litigants who have permitted their computers to be corrupted
- Anyone can hack into the litigants computers to prevent email from delivery
- Attempts by the Court to create 'no shows' have been so clearly deliberate, now the Court can do so by email failure and blame their victim for not knowing about the hearing when their system clearly enables the action. DELIBERATE CORRUPTION BY DESIGN! ANY IT PROFESSIONAL COULD SEE THIS FAILURE TO THE PROCESS. NORRISTOWN WANTS TO CLEAR THEIR DOCKETS AND HAS THE CRIMINAL TOOLS TO DO SO. Ask Gabriele Drexler about email security.

---

Issue: Petitions have been withdrawn after Judge issues order granting EVERYTHING.

---

Issue: Extortion in the Court.

---

ISSUE: Pending Appeal of the Divorce Decree/Equitable Distribution

- Order May 9, 2011
- Reconsideration filed by Defendant June 6, 2011
- Reconsideration filed by Defendant June 9, 2011 as EMERGENCY
- NOT an Emergency on June 10, 2011 Schedule in due course
- June 23, 2011 - Reconsideration scheduled for June 14, 2011
- July 14, 2011 - Response filed by Plaintiff
- July 14, 2011 - Response filed by Plaintiff (Dup1icate)
- July 14, 2011 - Transcript Judge Carluccio admits to not having Junsdiction
- July 14, 2011 - Transcript Judge Cariuccio commits extrinsic fraud

The issues are procedural errors and extrinsic fraud.

Defective Order CANNOT be Final Order.

Period for filing an Appeal is 5 years.

- August 15, 2011 — Appeal filed by Defendant
- August 15, 2011 - Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Carluccio)
- August 15, 2011 — Transcript Requests
- August 22, 2011 - Order for Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal
- September 15, 2011 - Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal filed by Defendant
- September 19, 2011 - RESUBMISSION Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
- October 19, 2011 - Opinion by Judge Carluccio
(Neglects to address ANY relevant facts— suggests the Appeal is not filed timely and uses incorrect references for tolling the statute of limitations)
- The Prothonotary fails to forward the Appeal to the Superior Court Of Pennsylvania.

The Appeal is Pending

The Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is Pending

The Resubmitted Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is Pending
- KBR from Court Administration contacts the Defendant by phone and indicates she has been told to return the IFP to the Defendant
- There is no instruction from the Judge
- There is no request for additional information by the Judge
- There is no explanation from the Judge
- The documents have been filed properly
- The Judge has not ruled on the petition(s)
- Defendant suggests KBR return the IFP(s) to Judge Carluccio for action/instructions/scheduling

The Pending Appeal should stay any actions related to the order being appealed.

The Pending Appeal should stay any enforcement actions related to the order being appealed.

---

ISSUE: The Order of September 23,2011 Failure to conduct heariugs/permit testimony

The Protracted hearing on September 23,2011 was ordered on July 18, 2011

"A Protracted Hearing on Plaintiffs counter Petition for Sanctions filed July 14, 2011 is scheduled for Fnday September 23, 2011 fi-om 10 30 a: in until noon"

1.5 Hours were scheduled for the hearing.

NOW READ HOW THOSE 1.5 Hours get loaded up to the point where issues could not possibly be addressed. The judge had no intention of HEARING anything. The plan was to ignore and terrorize... All filings by defendant were necessary. Unfortunately, they were ALL ignored by the judge who demonstrated her fraud, corruption, conspiracy to deny justice and complete denial of civil, human and property rights. Judge Carolyn Carluccio decided to push her victim to suicide. And I wouldn't oblige. This INFURIATED her... and her stupidity and malice was documented, on the record and completely out of control.

The docket shows that there was no Certificate of Service for the Plaintiff Counter Petition for Sanctions filed 7/14/2011

---

On July 21, 2011 Defendant filed
PETITION REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY/RESCHEDULING REGARDING TUE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY

The Court had issued a verbal order into the record.
The transcript would not be available for weeks.
The Defendant believed be would be subjected to arrest for following the verbal order as the available printed documents indicated he must vacate the property.

Police were called when Defendant was photographing the Plaintiff's dissipation of assets August 2011 and September 2011. Just photographing my possessions being thrown away resulted in police being called. I was not on the property. I remained across the street, so police coulsd not say I had not vacated the property and arrest me.

On August 17, 2011, the Short List was scheduled for September 20, 2011

---

On August 15, 2011 Defendant filed (concurrent with the filing of a NOTICE OF APPEAL)
Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
On August 15, 2011, Defendant filed an Appeal of the Defective Order of May 9, 2011 (Divorce Decree & Equitable Distribution)

---

On August 19, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition Requesting the Scheduling of Outstanding Petitions

This Petition recapped the number of petitions which remained unheard by the Court

Since the August 12, 2010 discovery of a Secret Ex Parte, Undocketed and Undistributed Order issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele, Petitions submitted by the Defendant were no longer heard.

---

On August 30, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition Requesting Distribution/Docketing of Ex Parte Court Order
While seeking Police intervention of the Plaintiffs dissipation of Assets (which was denied), Defendant learned that Montgomery Township Police were requested by the Montgomery County Deputies to assist in ensuring that the Defendant had vacated the Property on June 9,2011

Montgomery County Sheriff Eileen Behr has CONFIRMED her deputies being dispatched to the house, BUT she has neglected to provide any information as to WHY, or at who's request they were dispatched. Sheriff Behr was surprised during our face to face conversation when the system also had no explanation for the deputies being dispatched. Though I had set her expectations when she asked for the information to be printed and delivered to her.

---

On August 31, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition Requesting Documents and Injunction Blocking Sale of the Home Until Appeal by The Superior Court of Pennsytvania Has Been Decided

Plaintiff was failing to provide any information regarding the Sale of the Home — a violation of Power Of Attorney
The Real estate Agent would not Provide any information
The verbal order of July 18, 2011 had ordered removal of the Defendant's property by the closing date of the home
Defendant was not disclosing that date
The Appeal had been filed and no action had been taken with regard to supersedeas or stays while the appeal is pending

---

On September 1, 2011 Defendant filed (AS EMERGENCY)
Petition Requesting Documents and Injunction Blocking SaIe of the Honie Until Appeal by The Supenor Court of Pennsylvania Bas Been Decided

---

On September 1, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition Regard Ing the Seheduling of Outstanding Petitions

---

On September 2, 2011 Defendant filed
Petition for the Recusal of Judge Carolyn Carluccio

---

On September 6, 2011, on the faxed Request of the Plaintiff, Judge Carluccio IMMEDIATELY continued the hearing scheduled for September 20, 2011 to September 23, 2011 to accommodate the Plaintiff's inability to appear.
- On August 17,2011 The DEFENDANT PETIflON REQUESTING AN IMMEDIATE STAY had been seheduled for September 20, 2011
- Closing Date for the house had been set on JuIy 24, 2011 and signed/accepted by Plaintiff on July 27, 2011
- The Closing date was scheduled for September 20, 2011
- Plaintiff intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date A violation of Power of Attomey Law
- Real Rstate Agent, Chris Grucella had dehberately and intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date
- Keller Wilhiams Real Estate has deliberately and intentionally prevented the Defendant from knowing the closing date
- Their conspiracy to commit the fraudulent sale of the home is undeniable
- It is not unreasonable to suggest that Plaintiff had rnformed Angst & Angst of her reason for being "unable to attend" on September 20,2011
- Angst & Angst were deliberately and intentionally creating an appearance of unpropnety for Judge Carluccio
- Judge Carluccio did endorse and encourage the an appearance of impropriety by her immediate response to the faxed continuance request without any opportunity for the Defendant to object

On September 23, 2011, whzle reviewing the above information, when the appearance of impropriety became undeniable and clearly evident, Judge Carluccio interrupted the Defendant's review of information LOUDLY denying any wrongdoingprior before the accusation had even been suggested let alone defiantly made.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio accused the Defendant of requiring 7 deputies around him because of him being intimidating. She neglected to mention her false report to the deputies office in May. The defendant quite clearly told her that HE was NOT intimidating, however, the truth and the law were very intimidating and as the law and the truth were clearly against her, she likely found that very intimidating.

As part of her continuance Order, the following petitions were additionally scheduled for September 23,2011. NO ADDITIONAL TIME WAS ALLOCATED.

PETITION REQUESTING AN 1MMDIATE STAY/RESCREDULING REGARDING THE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY(filed July 21, 2011)

PETITION REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PET1TIONS (filed September 1, 2011)

PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN CARLUCCIO (filed September 2, 2011)

Even though the three additional petitions were added for the date, NO ADDITIONAL TIME WAS ALLOCATED ON THE COURT SCHEDULE.

---

On September 12, 2011, the following petitions were additionally scheduled for September 23, 2011
PETITION REQUESTING DISTRIBUION/DOCKETING OF EX PARTE COURT ORDER (filed August 30, 2011)

PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SÄLE OF THE HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY TEE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED (filed August 31, 2011)

Even thougb the two additional petitions were added for the date, NO ADDITIONAL TIME WAS ALLOCATED ON THE COURT SCHEDULE.

---

---

On September 23, 2011, 1.5 hours have been allowed to hear the following petitions:

COUNTER PETITION FOR SANCTIONS (filed July 14,2011) 6 pages, 35 paragraphs

PETITION REQUESTING AN 1MMDIATE STAY/RESCREDULING REGARDING THE ORDER OF JULY 18, 2011 AS THE INCOMPLETE WRITTEN ORDER PLACES THE DEFENDANT IN JEOPARDY (filed July 21, 2011) 3 pages,9 paragraphs

PETITION REGARDING THE SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PETITIONS (filed September 1, 2011) 4 pages, 5 paragraphs

PETITION FOR THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE CAROLYN CARLUCCIO (filed September 2,2011)11 pages, 79 paragraphs

PETITION REQUESTING DISTRIBUTION/DOCKETLNG OF EX PARTE COURT ORDER (filed August 30, 2011) 1 page,4 paragiaphs

PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJIJNCTION BLOCKING SALE OF THE HOME IJNTIL APPEAL BY TUE SUPERJOR COURT 0? PENNSYLVANIA BAS BEEN DECLDED (filed August 31, 2011) 5 pages, 34 paragraphs

The following petitions remained unscheduled
PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (filed August 15,2011)

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (filed September 19,2011)

PETITION REQUESTING SCHEDULING OF OUTSTANDING PETITLONS (filed August 19, 2011)

YET ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2011

PLAINTIFF SONYA HEALY'S RESPONSE TO PETITION REQUESTING DOCUMENTS AND INJUNCTION BLOCKING SALE 0F HOME UNTIL APPEAL BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA HAS BEEN DECIDED
And;
COUNTERPETITION FOR JUDGE TO ORDER DISBURSEMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALES OF TEE MARITAL RESIDENCE AS WELL AS SANCTIONS FOR
DEFENDANT'S FRIVOLOUS FILINGS, AND DECLARATORY ORDER PROHIBITING ANY FURTHER FILINGS UNDER THIS DIVORCE DOCKET 9 pages, 70 paragraphs

Filed immediately before the hearing,
accepted/docketed by the Prothonotary on September 23, 2011 at 9:17 AM,
delivered to the Defendant at the beginning of the proceeding,
not properly served,
and withdrawn on September 28,2011 at 4:59 PM
SUPERCEDED ALL other petitions and prevented any testimony or presentation of evidence on the other petitions scheduled to be heard.

THEY ILLEGALLY SOLD MY HOME, THREW OUT ALL OF MY POSSESSIONS, CONSPIRED WITH THE JUDGE, AND REVEALED IT ALL IN COURT WHILE I WAS SURROUNDED BY 7 DEPUTIES THEY WANTED AN ANGRY REACTION WHERE THEY COULD JAIL ME.

Judge Carluccio wanted to beat me up, in public, on the record, in front of a packed courtroom. To bully a Defendant who had been robbed of everything except his integrity and his dignity.

Judge Carluccio wanted my suicide. I did not oblige. She was going to make me pay for forcing her to cover her fraud and corruption.

BUT THERE WAS MORE... Valerie Angst proceeded to blackmail the judge into giving her an additional $11,000.
- when showing the judge the invoices for attorney fees.
- A COPY TO REVIEW WAS DENIED THE DEFENDANT.
- A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WAS DENIED TO THE DEFENDANT.
- The Ex Parte Document exchanged between Valerie Angst & Judge Carolyn Carluccio was not provided to the defendant BECAUSE IT LISTED OUT THE EX PARTE MEETINGS AND CALLS WHICH SET THE STAGE FOR THE KANGAROO PROCEEDING.
- They were granted $14,000 where they had requested $3,000.

Remember, the matter was under Appeal. The Judge had acknowledged that on the record.

Remember, the lawyers REPEATEDLY FAILED to follow due process which prevents the judge from having jurisdiction. This was deliberate and intentional and designed to manipulate the judges. The tactic succeeded on ALL but one judge. He saw through it, REACTED APPROPRIATELY, AND THEN NEVER HELD THE HEARING, AND WAS REASSIGNED MYSTERIOUSLY AND INEXPLICABLY 6 MONTHS LATER. That was Judge Haaz - formerly of the Supreme Court of PA Disciplinary Organization.

YET, the judges have continued to retaliate against the Defendant, ME, for surviving their 8 years of terror. Attempting to protect the integrity of a judiciary which lacked integrity. And Boldly, Deliberately and Proudly demonstrated their lack of integrity because the next judge would cover for their failures and sacrifice his own integrity at that time. It's a slippery slope. Ask the 18 judges on the Montgomery County Bench. All but 2 lacked integrity. Judge Haaz as mentioned above, and Judge Dickman who passed away in 2007 - thought the notes on her orders seemed to indicate she knew the types of malicious and vexacious and destructive lawyers involved. Valerie Angst and Robert Angst.

Judge Carolyn Carluccio and the 17 prior judges in this mattrer had been manipulated into fraud, abuse, conspiracy and corruption by Angst & Angst. Lawyers who would throw them under the bus at the first opportunity. Each time they pointed out the judge's crimes. the judge recused or ordered against the Defendant.

No Judge has held the Plaintiff accountable for failing to follow EVERY Court Order. They had leverage. AND THEY WERE NOT AFRAID TO USE IT.

Judge Garrett Page = Abuse of Power / Intimidation / Conspiracy

Judge Garret Page issued an enforcement order for payment of over $300,000 to a Defendant who had been unemployed since 2007 and left homeless by a void order while failing to address the lack of jurisdiction of the void order based on a void based on a void defective order.

On Appeal, Judge Page initially ignored the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. After an entire day of judges refusing to hearing the IFP, Judge Page granted the petition. Judge Page then requested a concise statement of issued being raised on appeal. Upon being provided with that listing, Judge Page (without jurisdiction) revoked the IFP. There was no hearing. There was no explanation.

When asked for a hearing / explanation. Judge Page denied petitions for the same.

Unable to appeal a denial of an IFP because the Prothonotary would not accept an Appeal without an IFP. Judge Page intentionally issued orders without jurisdiction knowing there would be no way around his actions.

Judge Page, with full knowledge of what was being challenged in the Appeal, then contacted the court reporters and instructed them to NOT provide the transcripts for the hearings required for the Appeal to proceed. Judge Page was intimidating at least one of the court reporters who regularly worked with him. THAT reporter also neglected to submit exhibits along with previously transcribed transcripts.

Judge Page is acting to prevent the Appeal of his order, because it exposes the denial of access to the courts and the denial of an Appeal filed on August 15, 2011. That Appeal was blocked by Judge Carolyn Carluccio. Who refused to hear the IFP at that time, while acknoweledging the appeal and preventing transcripts from being produced at that time. At the time Defendant was appealing a defective divorce decree which left Defendant homeless and disposed of ALL of his property while conspiring with the Plaintiff and her attorneys to deny and delay hearings.

This all occurs after 8 years of divorce litigation where the Defendant has been denied prompt custody hearings, and denied any enforcement actions against the Plaintiff. Causing the Defendant to be in tremendous debt, and not being permitted to see his children for years.

Prior Complaints to the JCB have been ignored, not investigated and summarily dismissed while the judiciary continues to terrorize the Defendant. All actions designed to conceal the initial malicious order, kept secret for 3 years, issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele without hearing, without being distributed to the Defendant, and without ever meeting with the Defendant. That SECRET Order was used to leverage the judges to misdeed, which once discovered and documented resulted in their prompt recusal and the injustice being moved to the next judge's courtroom.


8 Years.

18 Judges.

ONE TERRORISTIC DIVORCE.

The inescapable injustice is documented.

Perseverance

I will not let myself be violated by the memory as I was violated by the actions of the courts.

"The invasion of privacy has gone too far" - Former President Jimmy Carter.

Oh, President Carter you have no idea of the damage they have done. Not just in the surveillance, but in the efforts to prevent their unconstitutional and unconscionable actions from being exposed.

I've had a few chances to speak with Former President Carter in the past. He was always a friendly and sincere man. No matter where the encounter took place Jimmy Carter was personal and genuine. Whether at Independence Hall in Philadelphia or an early morning in Chicago's O'Hare Airport, he was just himself.

A truly respectable quality. A truly respectable leader.

And in an age of political slander and dirty tricks, I am reminded of what was done to President Carter on his last day in office. They negotiated with terrorists in an attempt to humiliate the man. They failed.

You can never take away the quality of character demonstrated by President Carter. They only demonstrated how low they would venture using innocent people as political tools.

---

From Der Spiegel Online

NSA affair: Ex-President Carter Condemns U.S. Snooping By Gregor Peter Schmitz, from Atlanta 17.07.2013 – 13:59 Uhr Ex-President Carter: "The invasion of privacy has gone too far" The Obama administration has tried to placate Europe's anger over their spying programs. Not so ex-President Jimmy Carter: The Democrat Carter sharply criticized U.S. intelligence policy. The disclosure by the whistleblower Snowden was "useful." Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was in the wake of the NSA spying scandal criticized the American political system. "America has no functioning democracy," Carter said Tuesday at a meeting of the "Atlantic Bridge" in Atlanta. Previously, the Democrat had been very critical of the practices of U.S. intelligence. "I think the invasion of privacy has gone too far," Carter told CNN. "And I think that is why the secrecy was excessive." With regard to the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, Carter said his revelations were "likely to be useful because they have informed the public." Carter has repeatedly warned that the moral authority of the United States has declined sharply due to excessive curtailment of civil rights. Last year he wrote in an article in the "New York Times" that new U.S. laws have allowed "never before seen breaches of our privacy by the government."

"Great" Aunt Suzie

Woke up thinking of my 'Great Aunt' Suzie. To her my name was one syllable... 'Ternz'. We always had good laughs together.

She passed a few years ago.

She was one of the very few that kept in touch with me. Even though she was in Belfast and was thousands of miles away, she never let me feel isolated.

I miss her laugh.

Appeal Progress Report

Spent the day at Superior Court making copies of the files which were transmitted from the Norristown Prothonotary.

Always a game, or tactic, or demonstration of the inability for anyone in Norristown for follow rules, procedure and law. The files were to have been delivered to the Superior Court by June 28, 2013.

They were received on July 8, 2013 at Superior Court. The swagger of the Montgomery County Courthouse demonstrates the tremendous arrogance to believe that the rules do not apply to them.


There are also several missing items, exhibits, transcripts, etc... Of course they would not send everything. The Rules of Appellate Procedure don't apply to Montgomery County. Oy!

Void, lack jurisdiction, lacks power, is fraud... can be attacked ANYTIME.

It is a simple concept. How difficult could it be to get an error corrected? I've been trying to be heard since May 2011. BUT, I had to wait for a petition that I could respond to.

The tricky part is getting in front of a judge. The phrase "provided the party is properly before the court". is an important one.

When Judge Carluccio was notified in writing in a petition AND an emergency petition, ... I wasn't able to get 'properly before the court.'

When Judge Carluccio refused to hold a hearing on her void order... I wasn't able to get 'properly before the court.'

When Judge Carluccio held a short list conference where she ridiculously listened to the title of the piece of paper and completely ignored the content of the document, ... I wasn't able to get 'properly before the court.'

When Judge Carluccio held the bully session on September 23, 2011, ... I wasn't permitted to testify or present any information about the void order... while Judge Carluccio issued a third void order. I wasn't able to get properly before the court.

Properly before the court in July 2012, Judge Haaz addressed the deliberate actions of Angst & Angst which would cause a lapse in jurisdiction. Judge Haaz recognized that the issues would not be resolved in a short list conference. He ordered a hearing which was never scheduled.

However, when Judge Page conducted the hearings in February 2013, I was FINALLY properly before the court and the issue of the void order was very relevant to the petitions being discussed. Judge Page IGNORED the challenge to jurisdiction and ordered an absurd enforcement of a void order based on a void order, based on a void order, based on a defective divorce decree.

The issue is that while they deny me access to the courts, there is no way to retroactively provide jurisdiction to the defective divorce decree. So the delays only serve to harass, intimidate and threaten while my life passes by waiting for justice. I persevere.

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 ( C.A. 7 Ill. 1999).

MAGLOCLEN - How the Gov't shares that surveillance data.

Agency best kept secret in law enforcement
Shrouded in anonymity, a crime-fighting government agency has had its headquarters in Newtown Township for nearly 20 years.
By LAURIE MASON

Prosecutors in Michigan and Kentucky know about it. So do police officers from Canada, New York and Ohio.

Detectives from more than 700 law enforcement agencies from all over the Northeastern United States journey to Newtown Township to use it every day. Its employees have helped solve some of the highest profile crimes of the past two decades.

Yet MAGLOCLEN gets none of the credit.

And that's just the way the agency, located in a nondescript brown building in the far, far back corner of an industrial park off Newtown-Yardley Road, likes it.

MAGLOCLEN stands for Mid Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network, a little-known arm of the federal government. It has quietly played a part in some of the most infamous crime investigations in recent memory.

The agency's walls are lined with photos, charts and graphs used at the trials of convicted killers. They include millionaire eccentric John DuPont, who murdered Olympic wrestler Dave Shultz on his estate in Delaware County, and Arthur Bomar, who raped and murdered co-ed Amy Willard during a carjacking on the Blue Route in 1997.
Reports detailing the inner workings of Jamaican and Russian organized crime sects, as well as the latest statistics on prison gangs and satanic cults, lay in neat piles on countertops.

In super cool, air-conditioned laboratories, 6-foot tall computers - including a database stuffed with the names of the most-wanted criminals in the United Sates and beyond - beep and whir behind locked glass doors. In every office, tall dividers block desks from view as hushed voices discuss unsolved crimes.

A massive conference room can be glimpsed from the hallway. It contains hundreds of chairs ready for one of the 60 training sessions that MAGLOCLEN hosts for police officers each year. Topics covered at these member-only conferences include computer forensics, money laundering, and the proper use of surveillance devices.

Visitors from the media are rare - and most rooms are off-limits. The agency's written reports, with tantalizing titles such as "Domestic Threat Groups" and "Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs" are not public record and therefore not furnished to reporters.

MAGLOCLEN's secrets are shared only with law enforcement officers from the agency's list of members, which include the Bucks County District Attorney's Office and most local police departments.

MAGLOCLEN holds no press conferences and will not answer questions from the general public. It is there solely to serve its members, says spokesman James Gallagher, the agency's first deputy executive director.

"We like to keep a low profile. It's our member agencies who do all the work, so they deserve all the credit when a crime is solved. We're just a service agency," he said.

One of six in nation

Founded in 1981, MAGLOCLEN is one of six government-funded Regional Information Sharing System agencies that share a $20 million annual budget. Eight states - Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, Maryland, Michigan and Indiana - as well as the District of Columbia and two Canadian provinces, are served by MAGLOCLEN.

There are five other regional RISS offices throughout the nation.

RISS began in 1974, following a crime wave by a group called the Dixie Mafia, Gallagher explained. The gang, a band of Southern-bred armed robbers, was terrorizing victims in several states. Unable to catch the robbers on their own, a group of law enforcement officers from different agencies took the unprecedented step of sitting down together to share clues.

"That wasn't really done back then, and to some extent is not done today. It was and still is a very parochial business." Gallagher said.

But the Southern cops' efforts paid off, and the Dixie Mafia was shut down. Soon after, Congress mandated that an information-sharing network be created and RISS was born.

Newtown Township was chosen as the MAGLOCLEN site because of its close proximity to I-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, as well as its centralized location between New York City and Washington, D.C.

The agency's executives are former law enforcement officers, and the FBI and the U.S. military trains much of the staff. Security is nearly as tight as the Pentagon, and staff applicants must pass a battery of background checks.

"It's quite extensive," Gallagher said of the checks. "We go way back into their lives."

HELPING LOCAL POLICE

MAGLOCLEN employees assist law enforcement agencies nationwide.

Much of MAGLOCLEN's services are handled by phone and computer. Members from all over the nation call the office daily seeking information on suspects and crime trends. Information and updates also are sent out over an Intranet, a secure e-mail system shared exclusively by member government agencies.

MAGLOCLEN agents also hit the road each week, assisting at crime scenes or gathering information to share with members.

The agency's work can be seen every day in Bucks County courtrooms. Aerial shots of crime scenes and accident reconstruction sketches are refined and drawn to scale at MAGLOCLEN, then made into huge posters. The posters, photo montages of suspects and hierarchical charts that organize drug gangs from the kingpin on down, are designed to make evidence more easily digestible to jurors.

"You can have a wealth of evidence, but it's of no use if the jury doesn't understand it. That's where photos and charts come in handy," said Steve Tori, MAGLOCLEN's analytical staff supervisor.

But by far the most requested service of MAGLOCLEN staff is help with computer crimes, Gallagher said.

"There's been a great surge in these crimes over the last decade," said Gallagher, "but our staff has been able to keep up. It's a very technical and legally complicated issue."

So complicated that the slightest mistake can ruin a case.

In a child pornography investigation, for example, police must be careful to make a mirror image of the computer hard drive and not touch the actual information because it is evidence.

Since a computer can't be cross-examined, prosecutors come to MAGLOCLEN to learn the legally correct way to glean information from the machines. One wrong move, Gallagher explained, and a computer case could be thrown out of court.

MAGLOCLEN staffers also teach technical nuances, like the proper way to seize a suspect's computer.

"We once had a case where the officers picked up the machine and carried it out the door, not knowing that there were magnets lining the doorway. All the information was erased," Gallagher said.

MAGLOCLEN employees won't discuss specifics of local cases they've helped solve, but Gallagher said the agency has been involved in many high-profile Bucks County cases. Staying out of the limelight helps its staff do the job better, he explained.

"We don't want the headlines. In fact, we try to stay out of them," Gallagher said. "We do our best work behind the scenes."

Monday, September 11, 2000 [The published date is NOT a typo.]

Attorney General investigating corruption

July 15, 2013

Kane behind ouster of judge from corruption role

Selected Quotes from PhillyNews.com article by Angela Couloumbis and Craig R. McCoy.

"In a bitter and secret legal fight, state Attorney General Kathleen Kane has succeeded in ousting the judge who has long overseen corruption investigations in Pennsylvania, The Inquirer has learned."

Could this be why no one has investigated my case?

"After a conflict that had been roiling since she took office in January, Kane took the unusual step of asking the state Supreme Court to remove Judge Barry F. Feudale as the supervising grand jury judge in Harrisburg. Kane told the high court in April in sealed papers that the judge was no longer fit to run a grand jury."

"The dispute is part of a larger struggle, between the new attorney general and her office's old guard of career prosecutors, that has spilled over into how several high-stakes cases are being handled - including a probe into political corruption in several counties, Philadelphia among them, according to people familiar with the situation. The scope and specifics of that investigation could not be learned."

"In May, the Supreme Court ruled in Kane's favor. The court's order did not bar him from serving as a judge, but removed him from the grand-jury position. The order was sealed and has not been made public."

"Judge Feudale worked as a "floating" senior judge, assigned by the Supreme Court to hear cases in 63 of the state's 67 counties. Over the last 12 years, chief justices have appointed him to preside over a series of investigating grand juries. Judges in that role are crucial players, refereeing fights over subpoenas or evidence and even putting a personal stamp on the outcome."

So this is a man who can prevent an investigation into corruption by guiding a grand jury to ignore injustice and corruption.

I hope and pray that Attorney General Kathleen Kane is reading this web site and recognizing the level of corruption and injustice being delivered upon the people of Montgomery County by a completely malicious judiciary determined to conceal their criminal abuse of power under color of law by continuing their actions to obstruct justice.

And... I am not the only one, there are other victims. Thankfully, their lives have not been as obliterated by injustice and failure to resolve issues which are repeatedly ignored, denied and delayed.

What made an entire judiciary decide that because of a divorce (and no other reason) one person should be victimized and lose every aspect of life with little hope or future of escaping their malice. Because of the simple reason that I recognized the injustice, identified it, documented it, survived it. I should be destroyed because they failed to do their job.

My sons have been denied their father, and the extended family. My family has suffered enough, but the judges won't stop the terror of their injustices until they attain my suicide which regrettably I have learned I am not capable of providing for them.

I have been pushed so close to suicide, at so many times. I understand it. I know it. I only wish I was capable of it and could have put my misery to an end. Instead, I live each day to be further victimized.

There's never been any walking away. When that was attempted, they came for me again, with more fraud and lies. AND ANOTHER NEW JUDGE. Who is now in the process of acting without jurisdiction to manipulate the court reporters to ignore requests for hearing transcripts. Their team grows and grows.

Judges have power which when abused can incriminate those who attempt to enforce their corrupt and void orders. So Judge Garrett Page compels the court reporters to inaction. Judge Page does so with a void order where he lacks jurisdiction. When queried on the ex parte order issued without any proceedings, Judge Page refuses to respond; or provide reasons for his actions; and refuses to hold any hearing on the matter.

The entire matter is being raised to the Superior Court Of Pennsylvania, where I am certain they will recognize the lack of jurisdiction and the judge's refusal to address their lack of jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction, the judge has no authority.

The Superior Court Judges are going to wonder, WHY ARE THE COMMON PLEAS JUDGES FAILING LIKE THIS?

JURISDICTION is basic. It must be addressed. It is simple to address.

Ignoring the lack of jurisdiction is indicative of larger abuses. It is those other abuses which became terroristic in scope and determination to obliterate an innocent victim of corruption.

To the Court Reporters:

Message to the Court Reporters:

Please advise the court reporters that I plan to file a complaint with the Superior Court regarding their deliberate failure to produce the transcripts as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

I will additionally be filing federal suits against each for their participation in the obstruction of justice and denial of due process which they have chosen to become involved in.

Judge Page lacked jurisdiction and engaged in intimidation tactics to prevent justice in this matter.

Please advise your reporters accordingly.
Terance Healy
www.work2bdone.com/live

Email Exchange Regarding Court Reporter Preparation of Transcripts. 1. On April 30, 2013, upon receipt of the Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Appellant/Defendant filed the document with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-391 ) ( EXHIBIT A ) 2. Appellant/Defendant then went to the Court Reporters Office to arrange for the production of the transcripts for the matter. Appellant/Defendant met with P. Fajardo, and also met briefly with Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter.. 3. Appellant/Defendant was traveling to Florida the next morning to attend the funeral of his father who had passed away on April 28, 2013. ( EXHIBIT B ) 4. During his time in Florida, Appellant/Defendant contacted P. Fajardo by telephone to update the list of transcripts necessary for the Appeal. 5. On May 15, 2013, upon his return, Appellant/Defendant filed with the Prothonotary a Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” listing the transcripts necessary for the Appeal. ( #2007-12477-394 ) The Notice included a signed copy of the Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 6. On May 15, 2013, a copy of the time-stamped Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” was emailed to P. Fajardo in the Court Reporters Office. ( EXHIBIT C ) 7. On May 15, 2013, P. Fajardo acknowledged receipt of the listing, and accepted responsibility to notify the appropriate Court Reporters. ( EXHIBIT D ) 8. On May 16, 2013, the Court Reporters' Office was thanked by the Appellant/Defendant, and exhibits missing from the official transcript for February 11 & 20, 2013 were raised as a concern. (EXHIBIT E ) 9. On May 16, 2013, P. Fajardo indicated that the Appellant/Defendant would be contacted if any further information was required. ( EXHIBIT F ) 10. On May 19, 2013, the Court Reporters' Office was thanked by the Appellant/Defendant who inquired as to when the transcripts would be available to review. ( EXHIBIT G ) 11. On May 20, 2013, P. Fajardo indicated that my inquiry would be forwarded to the individual court reporters. ( EXHIBIT H ) 12. On May 20, 2013, Appellant/Defendant was contacted by Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter, by telephone. Byron indicated that Judge Page had contacted the court reporters with instructions to NOT prepare the transcripts. 13. On May 21, 2013, Appellant/Defendant wrote to the Court Reporters Office requesting that they continue to work towards producing the hearing transcripts, as there had been no information shared by Judge Page; no contact between Judge Page and the Appellant/Defendant; no hearing or conference had been petitioned; no hearing or conference had been scheduled; no hearing or conference had been held. ( EXHIBIT I ) 14. On May, 21, 2013, Appellant /Defendant received via email the transcript for a brief proceeding held on January 17, 2013. The Court Reporter additionally filed a copy of the transcript with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-397 ) ( EXHIBIT J ) 15. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed P. Fajardo requesting the name of who had added the transcript for the brief proceeding on January 17, 2013 to the list of transcripts to be produced. ( EXHIBIT K ) 16. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant resubmitted the Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” to clarify the transcripts required and the associated Court Reporter for each hearing. ( #2007-12477-398 ) ( EXHIBIT L ) 17. On May 22, 2013, P. Fajardo responded to my email with a courtesy copy of a Court Order signed by Judge Garrett D. Page on May 21, 2013. ( EXHIBIT M ) 18. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant acknowledged the email and the order, further calling attention to the courts lack of jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction was further compounded by the pendancy of a prior appeal which had been deliberately neglected by the Prothonotary. The Prothonotary failed to prepare and forward the matter to the Superior Court after the August 15, 2011 Notice of Appeal. The email additionally pointed out the overall injustice and corruption which has interfered with every aspect of the matter since 2007. ( EXHIBIT N ) 19. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant assembled and posted the issues regarding the Order of May 21, 2013 to his web site, and opened up discussions with friends about how to address the issues. ( EXHIBIT O ) ( www.work2bdone.com/live ) 20. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed the Court Reporter who had transcribed the January 17, 2013 requesting the name of the person who requested/authorized the transcription of the matter. ( EXHIBIT P ) 21. On May 23, 2013, the Order of May 21, 2013 signed by Judge Garrett D. Page was filed and docketed with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-399 ) ( EXHIBIT Q ) 22. On May 23, 2013, the Court Reporter indicated via email that Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter, had instructed her to transcribe the proceeding from January 17, 2013, and that she believed that it was at the request of Judge Page. ( EXHIBIT R ) 23. On May 23, 2013, the Court Reporter followed up her email with another indicating that as a result of the Judge's recent Order, I would be expected to make arrangements for payment for the transcripts prior to them being transcribed and produced for the Superior Court. ( EXHIBIT S ) 24. On May 24, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed the Court Reporter to clarify the issues involved. In a follow up email, Appellant/Defendant further indicated that Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to revoke his Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and it appeared as if Judge Page was attempting to prevent the record from being delivered to the Superior Court. ( EXHIBIT T )

COURT REPORTERS HAVE EACH INDIVIDUALLY CORRESPONDED DIRECTLY INDICATING THEIR REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE TRANSCRIPTS.

Illegal Surveillance and Intrusion

The true problem with illegal surveillance and intrusion in American's lives is not just what is seems on the surface.

It is is how it is being shared. Centers are in place nationwide to share the data being collected. MAGLOCLEN and RISS.net are examples.

And then there is the private investigators who are former law enforcement and also a part of the data exchange network. They can do evenm more to intrude into your life. When you catch them, law enforcement does nothing to prosecute or end the intrusion. They ignore your report and encourage, endorse and permit the intrusion to continue.

The more you discover, the more the cover-up becomes a necessity.

There is no escape. They will destroy you. You cannot win. Anyone who knows about the capabilities also knows the level of destruction which can be inflicted by this organization. They destroy people for trying to survive their tactics.

They interfere in justice. They corrupt and pervert every aspect of American life. But, it is very American to pretend that they have no affect. Americans will ignore it. They will mock it. Should t.hey discover they are caught in it. They learn their mistake too late.

Snowden was not affected by it... and recognized the damage that was being done. He is a hero.

Montgomery County. No Civil Rights. No Law.

When the actions of those who offer protection from terrorists become worse than the terrorist actions...
Don't become the terrorist.

Sometimes... more often.

Some nights I wake up in the middle of the night and it hits me... HARD... 8 years of my life trying to survive the constant fraud, injustice and litigation.

Where 18 judges decided it was ok to violate law and procedure to attack me. ... and I fall apart.

What could possibly motivate them? Why does no one stop them?

I just wonder what motivates A TEAM to destroy every aspect of a persons existence.

Isolate them from everyone. Cripple them emotionally. Attack every thought. Annihilate everything around them... and then not permit them any escape or comfort.

After 8 years it is absolutely criminal.

And there is no one to rescue me no matter how loudly i beg for help.

Imagine being terrorized for 8 years of your life... and no opportunity to escape... and no one doing anything on your behalf to help. ... watch my destruction.

Jurisdiction... a necessity ignored.

Jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to decide a case; to render a decision that will be recognized and enforced by authorities and other courts.

Jurisdiction
- Requires the court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
- Requires the court have jurisdiction over each party to the action
- Requires due process of law - the appearance or service of process (notice of pendency of the lawsuit) before the defendant can be personally bound by any judgment.
- If the defendant has not received proper notice, the court's power to adjudicate is imperfect.
- Defective service of process goes to lack of notice.
- Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Challenging Jurisdiction - MUST BE ADDRESSED BY THE COURT.

Judges who ignore questions of jurisdiction, likely lack jurisdiction and have acted improperly, or criminally. Judges who repeatedly fail to address the lack of jurisdiction are abusing their power under color of law.

Deliberately ignoring a lack of jurisdiction when properly before the court is an abuse of power under color of law.

The judges have had plenty of opportunity to indicate the requirements of jurisdiction for their [void] orders.
They have NOT addressed their jurisdiction because doing so would reveal their corrupt actions.

I have indicated the failures in regard to jurisdiction. THIS HAS BEEN IGNORED.

For presenting the criminal lack of jurisdiction and the malicious retaliation of the judges when confronted with the errors, I have been destroyed and my civil rights further eliminated. The failures grow, and the corrupt abusive actions of the judges become more and more blatant.

Appealing their void orders and the malicious orders attempting to enforce void orders has lead to further injustice where judges have acted without jurisdiction while jurisdiction rests with the Superior Court. Those actions illegally and unethically prevent the matter from being prepared and transmitted to the Superior Court. Effectively denying access to the courts. A a court which has refused to hold hearings and prevented and ignored due process and procedure is not going to permit a higher court to review their intentional errors to the most basic concept of jurisprudence. It's called ABUSE. It is a crime.

Prosecuting a corrupt judge is rare... and their terroristic retaliation to a challenge causes an inescapable misery which leads many to suicide.

When it is the corruption and lack of integrity caused by the entire judicial bench. Life becomes torture. A nightmare of injustice and unending litigation with no opportunity for judicial review.

Judge Garrett Page: criminal abuse of power under color of law

Judge Garrett Page was provided the opportunity to not accept the assignment of this matter. He chose poorly.

I had questioned the reassignment of the case from Judge Haaz.
EMERGENCY OBJECTION TO THE REASSIGNMENT OF THIS MATTER / PETITION TO ENFORCE THE SCHEDULING ORDER OF JULY 10, 2012

Judge Page came into the matter with more advance information than any other judge since 2007.

Judge Page was offended by my Objection to the Reassignment. I explained to him that it was not personal. 1) There had been no reason provided for Judge Haaz not holding the hearing he ordered.
2. There had been no reason provided for Court Administration failing to schedule the hearing before Judge Haaz.
3) The matter had been before 15 judges already. It is reasonable to request an explanation for the arbitrary reassignment to yet another judge.
4) No acceptable explanation was offered.

It would take a judge with a great deal of integrity to be able too handle the issues involved in the matter. Since 2007, I have given each judge the benefit of the doubt. Each judge failed immediately... with one notable exception. Judge Haaz. Judge Haaz effectively and immediately addressed defects in due process when presented to him during the short list conference in July 2012. It seemed that the pending stalled Appeal was preventing the hearing from being scheduled. Jurisdiction remains with the Superior Court until the Appeal is decided.

Judge Page failed quickly, demonstrating poor and careless organizational issues, and his bias to dismiss the Pro Se Defendant even when the facts are clearly on the court record. Judge Page went on to recognize that hearings had NOT taken place before Judge Carluccio. When he came to that realization, he and Valerie Angsgt began a little dance. He accepted and encouraged her misinformation. He coached her through a few statements, as Judge Page needed to protect the 'integrity' of Judge Carluccio's invalid orders.

Problem is that there is no protecting a void order which lacked jurisdiction. There is no way to make up for the lack of jurisdiction, the lack of hearings, the lack of due process, etc. The Orders are Void Ab Initio. After the hearing, in his absurd Order, Judge Page neglected to address any of the issues I presented regarding jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction is necessary. Jurisdiction has tangible elements which must be in place to permit the judge to conduct hearings and issue orders. Without jurisdiction, the judge is powerless and prevented from issuing an Order. If the judge had jurisdiction, it could be presented in minutes. When they fail to address their jurisdiction, they perpetrate a fraud and create a conspiracy which eventually involves more and more people in their crimes.

Judge Carluccio did not have jurisdiction to issue the Divorce Decree. She was informed of the fatal defect... AND IGNORED IT. The Equitable Distribution Order written by Judge Carluccio cannot stand without a Divorce Decree so the Equitable Distribution Order is VOID AB INITIO.

BUT, Judge Carluccio was dishing out unfair punishments and irreparable damage to the target of her maliciously biased orders. Judge Carluccio had secretly cancelled hearings AND GOTTEN CAUGHT. Judge Carluccio had made false reports to the courthouse deputies in an attempt to intimidate me. Judge Carluccio had 'made ridiculous things up out of thin air' committing fraud in her own courtroom. Judge Carluccio was not going to permit the resolution of any matter raised by the Defendant. She was determined to do what SHE WANTED TO DO without regard to civil rights, due process or the law. She was the judge and she could abuse the power of her office to compel other people to enforce her invalid/void orders. In doing so she made county personnel a party to her crimes. Judge Carluccio's fraud and abuse also causes her to forfeit her judicial immunity... AND ALSO FORFEIT THE IMMUNITY FOR THE PRIOR JUDGES.

Judge Carluccio made a complete mess out of everything and further obstructed justice, denied access to the court, and illegally blocked an Appeal of her void order from being sent to Superior Court. She began a cascading series of illegal actions based on her invalid and void orders. By continuing the abuse, she terrorized the victim of the court's deliberate injustice. She ordered her target to be homeless, prevented him from obtaining his possessions, and deliberately ignored petitions filed with the court to address the impending irreparable damage. This after 6 years of constant litigation and the complete denial of any custody or visitation (without explanation or reason).

The actions of Sonya Healy and Angst & Angst to involve more and more people in their criminal actions leads them to interpret that they would never address the injustice and face prosecution when the team harassing and terrorizing the one person is SO huge. Every County Department, realtors, title search companies, insurance companies, so many people have deliberately kept me uninformed. It suggests there is yet another secret order which requires people to ignore any request for information.

Judge Carluccio further issued an Order preventing the Defendant from addressing any of her prior malicious actions. While the Appeal was sitting in Norristown and NOT BEING PREPARED FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT, I was prevented from addressing the abusive and criminal actions of the judiciary to conceal their injustice.

One important thing to remember is that Judge Page issued his $300,000+ Order knowing that I had followed all of the prior orders and had testified to the exact date and time the items in question were delivered to the location ordered verbally on the Record by Judge Carluccio. I also have in my possession the hand written document from Judge Carluccio which was greatly expanded by Valerie Angst and Peggy before placing the photoshopped signature of Judge Carluccio on the Order.

Judge Page ignored all of the evidence. He proceeded with apparent intent to bury me so deeply in debt that I would never recover. Note: Ordering a homeless person who has been unemployed since 2007 to pay over $300,000 to the person who deliberately and criminally manipulated corrupted and polluted the entire judiciary is clearly intended to bury the victim in debt so deep that he will never escape. At my highest full salary, the amount would be greater than 5 years salary. Imagine that? For something which they lied about. And where they neglected to produce the verbal part of the order.

When the absurd Order was appealed, Judge Page was forced to play along and GRANTED the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis(IFP). I had spent an entire day attempting to have a judge hear the IFP. No judge would hear it.

IT WAS REALIZED THAT THE EARLIER APPEAL WOULD ALSO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT... AND MAKE AVAILABLE THE TRANSCRIPTS WHICH CLEARLY DOCUMENTED THE TREMENDOUS INJUSTICE AND THE JUDGE'S FRAUD.

Judge Page then, WITHOUT ANY PROCEEDING, revoked the Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. He further notified each of the Court Reporters to NOT PREPARE the transcripts required and requested.

Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to revoke his order granting the status. BUT, HE DID IT. In doing so he has made each of the court reporters a party to his criminal obstruction and denial of access to the courts.

I could not appeal the revocation because I would need the Pauper status to file that appeal. There had been a rule change that further blocked the filing of the Notice of Appeal document without the IFP in place. When they revoke your IFP, and you need an IFP to proceed, the court has deliberately prevented access to the higher courts.

Judge Page was also covering his own judicial errors. He wrote an opinion which is laughable in that it also fails to address the very specific issue of jurisdiction. It suggests that Judge Carluccio must have had jurisdiction because she issued her order. THEREFORE, there is no need to examine the issue of jurisdiction. He digs deeper and comes up with statements which are almost as crazy as Judge Carluccio's 'if it is not circled' fraudulent misrepresentation.

When I point out that my rights are being denied and request explanations and hearings, Judge Page has now DENIED those petitions WITHOUT HEARINGS. Clearly now dealing with a judge without integrity criminally abusing the power of his office under color of law to obstruct justice and deny access to the higher courts.

At what point did Judge Page lose his integrity? At one point he suggested he had integrity.

Bear in mind, I have no choice but to defend against the injustice. There is no escape from the constant intrusions. Surely, the judge had to know I would appeal his absurd Order. BUT NOW AN Appeal WOULD EXPOSE JUDGE CARLUCCIO AND THE OTHERS.

Prior to the February hearing when I requested a continuance due to the failing health of my father who has since passed away. I had escalated the written request to Judge Page's attentioon with a phone call. Judge Page failed to respond all day and had a member of his staff call and say I had to appear for the hearing. I begged the person to have him reconsider. Judge Page personally called from his own cell phone and ORDERED me to be in his courtroom at 9:00 AM the next morning. As the hearing was scheduled for the afternoon, I was under the impression Judge Page simply wanted to meet me before permitting the continuance.

BUT NO. Judge Page was being a 'dick'. He thought the hearing was scheduled for 9:00 AM. He had no intention of considering the continuance. He wanted the proceeding to occur without regard for my family emergency.

AND, Judge Page didn't even show up at the Courthouse til close to 10:00 AM. I had none of my paperwork with me, and Angst & Angst were unaware of the judge's rescheduling to 9:00 AM. Judge Page was now basically embarassed into continuing the hearing. Not for any compassionate reason. Simply because of his own carelessness.

The handwriting was on the wall. I know the drill. Each judge is slightly different. Judge Page was going to attempt to prevent exhibits and evidence at the hearing. I had to be as over-prepared as possible. At the hearing, I made sure all exhibits were submitted. I recall thinking that Valerie Angst had taken NO ACTION to respond to the lack of jurisdiction. She ignored it. I recall thinking that would be problematic for her on Appeal. Generally, if you neglect to address an issue in the hearing, the issue may not be raised/defended during the Appeal. So I kind of knew things would go against me with Judge Page, BUT the Appeal process could not be ignored and blocked AGAIN.

Yet, here we are. Judge Page is creating needless drama by issuing orders without hearings where he lack jurisdiction during a pending Appeal. And until he proves that his court has jurisdiction, he is simply helping to build a clearcut Federal case.

What do they gain by terrorizing me? Don't they realize I have no other choice and must persevere through their harassment intrusion and terror. It would seem they become angry as I am forced to point out their corruption and failures which subject me to incredible injustice. What do they expect? Seriously, They annihilated every aspect of my life... Did they think I would disappear quietly into the night? That's not gonna happen.

{Judge Page's actions have been reported to law enforcement authorities. Had they acted when the crimes were first reported in 2007, things would have gone differently.]

Judge Page's Absurd Opinion (ANNOTATED)

Read Non-Annotated Version here

Annotations will appear in these boxes through the document.

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
FAMILY DIVISION

TERANCE HEALY	Superior Court No.: 1330 EDA 2013
V.	Common Pleas Court No.: 2007-12477
SONYA HEALY

OPINION

Page, J.

June 28, 2013

There is an essential flaw in Judge Page's Opinion. The THING he fails to address. He fails with deliberate determination. It was presented to him several times. Yet, he ignores it. - The Divorce Decree is Void Ab Initio (from the get-go) because it is defective. - Orders which have fatal procedural defects are void. - A void my be challenged at any time. - Void Orders may be appealed up to 5 years after issuance. - I was within the proper time frame for the appeal. They just prevented it. Judge Carluccio had an opportunity to address her error, and she refused with a vengeance. The fatal defect [an intentional action by the Angst's] was not planned when Judge Carluccio was writing up her tremendously biased and destructive order. Judge Carluccio WAS intentionally attacking the Defendant in her Equitable Distribution Order. EVERYTHING about it lacks logic, law or any sense of compassion. Her intent was to devastate the victim of years of terroristic litigation because he had survived and documented the injustice and abuse. Equitable Distribution Orders CANNOT be appealed as the are the 'decisions' of the judge. The defective Divorce Decree voids the Equitable Distribution Order. As a result, the maliciousness of the Equitable Distribution Order becomes evidence of extreme malice and bias, and not just 'sour grapes'. On July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio REFUSED to review the document with the fatal error. The fatal error was documented. Judge Carluccio had read it. She refused to hold a hearing on the issue. In failing to address the defect, she permitted the Plaintiff to do further damage, commit further crimes, involve additional parties in the conspiracy, and to exact irreparable harm. When I attempted to present the flawed document which causes the defect on the record, I was prevented from doing so. Judge Carluccio interrupted and then would not let me speak. She refused to witness the flaw on the record. Her failure was intentional. Her actions abusive and criminal. It's in the transcript. It is on the record. Judge Carluccio is incredibly stupid. Judge Carluccio failed to recognize that Valerie Angst would throw her under the bus, just as she had done with the other judges who had been manipulated. Judge Carluccio's lies are fraud when delivered from the bench. Judge Carluccio's fraud exposes a liability for prosecution... not just for her, but for the preceding judges who she has acted to protect. Judge Carluccio made an incredible mess of things which will not be easy to clean up. And her efforts to conspire, conceal, terrorize and harass me became stronger and more harsh. Her malicious injustice is no reason to ignore the law. Her evil intent is no reason to ignore my rights. You will likely notice they refuse to address the issues and write in circles all around it.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant, Terance Healy ("Appellant") appeals from this Court's April 3, 2013 Order which granted Appellee's Petition to Caiculate Defendant's Penalty and to Reduce his Share of the Marital Estate by his Penalties.

WRONG. I am appealing the judges complete failure to address the enforcement of a void order based on a void order based on a void order.

On February 11, 2013 and February 20, 2013, this Court held a two-day protracted hearing on Plaintiff's Petition to Calculate Defendant's Penalty to Enforce his Share of the Marital Estate, Defendant's Response and Counter Petition, and Defendant' s Emergency Objection to the Reassignment of this Matter/Petition to Enforce the Scheduling Order of 7/10/2012.

Judge Page's Absurd Order fails to address ANY issue Defendant raised in the documents/testimony presented.

After the parties' protracted hearing, this Court issued an Order on April 3, 2013 which calculated Appellant' s penalty for his failure to return listed items in the Court' s September 23, 2011 Order. Pursuant to this Order, Appellant was fined $500.00 per day for his disobedience of the Order. (Order (2007-12477) seq.3 52)). Appellant failed to return the specified items for 511 days, thereby making his total calculated penalty by this Court
$255,500.00 plus $5,016.50 for attorneys' fees. (Order (2007-12477) seq.387)). Appellant's share of Appellee's retirement account and Appellant's share ofthe marital residence in the amount of $180,710.58 was deducted from his total penalty of $311,716.50. Id.

I had delivered the items as instructed in the verbal part of Judge Carluccio's Order. The Judge refused to order the transcript. The transcripts would demonstrate Judge Carluccio's EXTREME malice on September 23, 2011. And also the extortion on the record by Valerie Angst./td>

On May 16, 2013, Appellant filed the instant appeal. On May 17, 2013, Appellant also filed a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.

Those Dates are WRONG. Order issued April 3, 2013. Appeal was filed on April 26, 2013. Concise Statement on May 17, 2013.

ISSUES

Appellant raises the following issues on appeal which have been summarized since said issues overlap:

It is easier to read the complete issues in the Concise Statement of Errors Complained of On Appeal.

1. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter since the court's April 3, 2013 and September 23, 2011 Orders were issued while the court lacked jurisdiction during a pending appeal filed on August 15, 2011.

2. The trial court failed to address the void orders of September 23, 2011, July 18, 2011, and May 9, 2011.

3. The trial court failed to address outstanding petitions filed by Appellant.

4. During the protracted hearing, the trial court committed procedural errors such as not permitting the opportunity to schedule witnesses, unclear scheduling orders, not permitting testimony regarding the failure to conduct the hearing as ordered by Judge Haaz, not permitting equal time for Appellant to testify and present all related exhibits, coached opposing counsel, failed to give Appellant a copy ofthe transcript from a prior protracted hearing, failed to consider Appellant's ability to pay when it rendered its April 3, 2013 Order, permitted Appellee to commit perjury, failed to permit Appellant to proceed In Forma Pauperis, did not address the failure of prior judges to conduct hearings on petitions previously filed with the court, did not permit Appellant to present evidence on Federal issues, and issued a ruling for over $300,000 based only upon the testimony of Appellee.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Issues pertaining to jurisdiction are pure questions of law, and an appellate court's scope of review is plenary. In re B.L.J., Jr., 938 A.2d 1068, 1071 (Pa. Super. 2007).

Jurisdiction is an essential part of judicial authority to issue rulings in a matter. Questions of jurisdiction must be addressed. AND, I am not questioning the Superior Court's jurisdiction to review the Appeal. I am questioning Judge's Page's failure to present the reason he has jurisdiction. Which he won't do, because he can't, because he doesn't have jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

A. THIS COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PROTRACTED HEARINGS ON FEBRUARY 11, 2013 AND FEBRUARY 20, 2013 SINCE APPELLANT HAD NO PENDING APPEAL IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT.

A Notice of Appeal had been filed on August 15, 2011. The Prothonotary failed to transmit the Appeal to the Superior Court. Judge Carluccio had been served with the Appeal. Judge Carluccio had ordered a Concise Statement be produced. There actions are in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. If there is no appeal, why are the appellate procedures being followed? The failure of the Prothonotary to send the Appeal to the Superior Court does not negate the existence of the appeal. Judge Carluccio's deliberately refused to hear the Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Judge Carluccio also wrote a ridiculous Opinion saying the Appeal was filed too late and included invalid references to support her misinformation.

If I were wrong, you can be sure they would have let the Appeal go forward. They deliberately blocked and prevented the Appeal from getting to the Superior Court. {NOTE: They are doing the same with the collateral information on this Appeal.]

During the protracted hearing held on February 11, 2013, Appellant argued that Appellee's Petition to Calculate Defendant's Penalty to Enforce his Share of the Marital Estate should not have been heard by this Court since there was an appeal pending in the Superior Court based on a defective Divorce Decree. (N.O.T., Hearing on Plaintiffs Petition for Contempt, 2/11/13, p. 6-10). Specifically, Appellant argued that the appeal was filed on August 15, 2011 and that the appeal was not properly forwarded by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas to the Superior Court for review. Id. at 7.

On August 15, 2011, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in response to Judge Carluccio's May 9, 2011 Order granting a Divorce Decree and Equitable Distribution. Appellant's Notice of Appeal stated that Judge Carluccio's May 9, 2011 Order became a final order on July 18, 2011. On August 22, 2011, Judge Carluccio issued a Concise Statement of Matters complained of on appeal which directed Appellant to file said statement within 21 days ofthe date ofthe Order's entry on the docket pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(B). (Order (2007-12477) seq.333)).

Appellant's argument that Judge Carluccio's May 9, 2011 Order became final on July 18, 2011 is meritless. However, the July 18, 2011 Order merely directed that there shall be an exchange of requested items between Appellant and Appellee and that a protracted hearing was scheduled for September 23, 2011. (Order (2007-12477) seq.320)). The May 9, 2011 Order itself was a final and appealable order from which Appellant should have properly appealed
within 30 days after the entry of said Order. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (2013).

As the May 9, 2011 Order is procedurally defective, it is void. Void Orders are not subject to the typical time constraints.

Further, Appellant's claim that this Court lacked jurisdiction due to the pendency of an appeal from Judge Carluccio's May 9, 2011 Order is precluded by the collateral estoppel doctrine. Under the collateral estoppel doctrine, an issue of law or fact is precluded from being re-litigated once it has been finally adjudicated. Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309, 313 (Pa. 1995). On July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio addressed Appellant' s Petition
to Vacate Order of May 9, 2011. In this Petition, Appellant claimed that Judge Carluccio lacked jurisdiction to issue a Divorce Decree. Judge Carluccio, however, ruled that her May 9, 2011 Order was final and that Appellant failed to appeal within 30 days ofthe date ofthe Order. (N.O.T., Defendant's Petition to Vacate Order of May 9, 2011, 7/18/11, p. 5). As a result of Judge Carluccio's ruling on July 18, 2011, Appellant was properly precluded from
raising the same issue before this Court during his protracted hearing on February 11, 2013.

Collateral Estoppel does not apply when there has been no hearing. Judge Carluccio had refused to hold a hearing on the issue and prevented testimony or exhibits relating to the procedural defect.

Additionally, Appellant asserts on appeal that Judge Carluccio's May 9, 2011, July 18, 2011, and September 23, 2011 Orders were void and unenforceable. However, Appellant failed to file a timely appeal from each of these final Orders pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 903. Therefore, Appellant's failure to follow the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure rendered his appeal improperly filed, this Court had jurisdiction to hear Appellee's Petition to Caleulate Defendant's Penalty to Enforce his Share ofthe Marital Estate and issue a subsequent order, and the May 9, 2011, July 18, 2011, and September 23, 2011 Orders remain valid and enforceable.

The Appeal was filed timely. The Rules of Appellate Procedure were properly followed. If I had not followed the rules, would it make more sense to point to the failure instead of making a broad incorrect generalization? DUH.

A party may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal if granted leave by a lower court. Pa.R.A.P. 551. On August 15, 2011 Appellant filed a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis concurrent with his Notice of Appeal. In this current appeal, Appellant argues that the lower court failed to allow hirn to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Appellant's argument is meritless since his Notice of Appeal was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the order
from which his appeal was taken. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (2013). Therefore, his Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was also untimely filed.

Repeating misinformation does not make it relevant or applicable. Where the judge lacked jurisdiction, juriodiction cannot be granted retroactuvely.

B. THIS COURT WAS PROPER IN CALCULATING APPELLANT'S CONTEMPT AMOUNT BASED ON JUDGE CARLUCCIO'S SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 ORDER.

The Coordinate Jurisdiction Rule prohibits judges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case from overruling each other's decisions. Ryan v. Berman, 813 A.2d 792, 795 (Pa. 2002). This rule will only be disregarded in exceptional circumstances where there has been a change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice. Id. The purpose of this rule is to protect the settled expectations of the parties, insure unifonnity of decisions, maintain consistency during the course of a single case, effectuate the proper and streamlined administration ofjustice, and bring litigation to an end. Id.
Appellant's challenge to his contempt fine should have bcen appealed from Judge Carluccio's September 23, 2011 Order since Appellant's penalty was derived from this final and appealable order. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5105 (2013). Further, this Court considered Appeliant's ability to pay his contempt fine imposed by the September 23, 2011 Order and allowed Appellant's marital share to be deducted from his total contempt fine, thereby reducing the total penalty'. Therefore, based on the Coordinate Jurisdiction Rule and Appellant's failure to properly appeal Judge Carluccio's September 23, 2011 Order, this Court properly calculated Appellant' s penalty.

There was already an acknowledged pending appeal that Judge Carluccio was ignoring to exact her malice. Filing another would have been vexatious. ALSO, I had been ordered to NOT file anything on any issue which had dated before September 23, 2011. Another Civil Rights violation. How much beating up was I supposed to endure? There was NO LAW and NO ESCAPE. Void ORders are Not enforceable. I still pl;aced the items where I had been instruicted, this whole event was a sham meant to bury me. Remember there had been no hearings.

C. THIS COURT PROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT'S ARGUMENTS ASSERTING FEDERAL ISSUES.

A court of common pleas has unlimited original jurisdiction except in cases where exclusive original jurisdiction of an action or proceeding is vested in another court of Pennsylvania. 42 Pa.C.S. § 931(a) (2013). Here, Appellant's claim on appeal is that this Court denied information regarding his Federal issues at the time of his protracted hearing. This Court's ruling not to address Appellant's Federal issues was proper in light of 42 Pa.C.S. §
93 1(a).

Judge Page had indicated that he did not wish to hear about the federal crimes of the prior judiciary. iF THE COMPLETE DENIAL OF HEARINGS IS NOT A MANIFEST INJUSTICE WHAT IS?

D. THIS COURT PERMITTED EQUAL TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO TESTIFY AND PRESENT ALL RELATED EXHBITS.


Appellant contends, on appeal, that this Court failed to permit equal time for hirn to testify and present all related exhibits. During the protracted hearing, Appellant persistently tried to testif' to matters which were moot and beyond the jurisdiction ofthis Court. First, Appellant's claim that there was a pending appeal from the Court's May 9, 2011 was meritless since Appellant failed to file a tirnely appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903 (2013).
Second, Appellant's argument that his Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was never ruled upon also lacked merit since Appellant filed this Petition concurrent with an untirnely appeal. Therefore, there was no pending appeal for Appellarit to proceed in forma pauperis.

However, in Iight of Travitzky v. Travitzky, 534 A.2d 1081, 1085-86 (Pa. Super. 1987), this Court does not oppose a remand ofthe case to further determine Appellant's present ability to comply. This is despite the coordinatejurisdiction ruling which would require otherwise.

Lastly,Appellant was barred from litigating any Federal issues since this Court is a court of common pleas and has no original jurisdietion over Federal issues. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 931(a) (2013). Accordingly, Appellant was not permitted by this Court from testifying and presenting any evidence as to these issues. As to all other issues properly before this Court, Appellant was given sufficient time to testif'y and present evidence.

E. THIS COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED APPELLEE'S TESTIMONY IN CALCULATING APPELLANT'S TOTAL CONTEMPT AMOUNT.

A finder of fact is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility ofwitnesses. Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 39 (Pa. 2011). Here, Appellant asserts that this Court permitted Appellee to commit perjury and issued a ruling on his contempt based solely on Appellee's testimony. Pursuant to the Court's September 23, 2011 Order, Appel1ant was required to retum the following items to
Appellee: 1) crosscut saw, 2) 50% of family pictures, 3) Delacroix "Olympies" painting, 4) dishes, crystal and glasses consisting ofNontake china collection and all dishes, crystal and glassware that were located in the china closet and buffet that were in the marital residence, and all other crystal, china, and dishes removed from the marital residence, and 5) the ottoman to oversized green chair. (Order (2007-12477) seq.352)). Appellant was fined $100.00 per day for each day he failed to comply with this Order beginning on September 27, 2011. Id.

At the protracted hearing, Appellee testified that she Set up a separate IRA rollover account for Appellant pursuant to the Court's May 9, 2011 Order which required Appellee to make a lump sum payment of $ 108,335.00 to Appellant. (N.O.T., Hearing on Plaintiff's Petition for Contempt, 2/11/13, p. 47-48); See (Order (2007-12477) seq.304)). However, at the time ofthe hearing, Appellant had not effectuated the necessary paperwork for Appellee
to complete the transfer. Id. at 49. Further, Appellee testified that Appellant did not return the items Iisted in the Court's September 23, 2011 Order. Id. at 54.-55. At the hearing, this Court was the fact finder and was free to believe all of the testimonial evidence presented by Appellee and determine that her testimony was credible. See Samuel-Bassett, 34 A.3d at 39. Therefore, this Court acted properly in granting Appellee's Petition to offset Appellant's penalty by his share of the marital estate due to Appellant' s failure to execute the documents required for Appellee to complete the IRA transfer and Appellant' s failure to abide by the September 23, 2011 Order requiring Appellant to retum certain items to Appellee.

F. THIS COURT'S SCIIEDULING ORDERS WERE CLEAR AND APPELLANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SCHEDULE WITNESSES.

This Court's scheduling orders were clear and gave Appellant notice as to the time, dates, matters to be heard, and location ofthe parties' protracted hearing on February 11, 2013 and February 20, 2013. See (Order (2007-12477) seq.369)); (Order (2007-12477) seq.372)); (Order (2007-12477) seq.376)); (Order (2007-12477) seq.377)); (Order (2007-12477) seq.378)). In the weeks leading up to the protracted hearing, Appellant called this Court's chambers several times and mandated changes to the above-cited Orders based on lack of clarity. Although this Court's original Orders were clear and specific, changes were made to accomrnodate Appellant's trivial requests. Therefore, any argument on appeal that this Court's scheduling orders were unclear is without merit.

Further, Appellant's argument that this Court did not allow hirn to schedule witnesses is also unfounded. This Court has no role in a litigant's ability to schedule witnesses and does not participate in such matters. Accordingly, it was Appellant's duty to ensure the scheduling of any witnesses he intended to call at ihe time of the protracted hearing.

G. THIS COURT WAS PROPER IN NOT ADDRESSING APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT PRIOR JUDGES FAILED TO CONDUCT HEARINGS ON HIS PETITIONS FILED WITH THE COURT.

On July 18, 2011, Judge Carluccio held a hearing on Defendant's Petition to Vacate Order of May 9, 2011, Defendant's Petition to Schedule Unresolved Claims, and Defendant's Emergency Petition for Injunction. During this hearing, Judge Carluccio stated that all of Defendant' s petitions filed before the date of said hearing were moot since they were all previously addressed by the Court. (N.O.T., Defendant's Petition to Vacate Order ofMay 9, 2011,
7/18/11, p. 17). As a result, Judge Carluccio stated that she would enter an order precluding Appellant from fihing additional frivolous motions which alleged issues that were previously addressed by the Court. Id at 17-18. Accordingly, on September 23, 2011, Judge Carluccio entered an Order which prohibited Appellant from fihing further petitions and motions regarding events that occurred prior to the date ofthis Order. (Order (2007-12477)
seq.352)). Therefore, based on the collateral estoppel doctrine and the clear language in Judge Carluccio's final order, Appellant's argument that the Court failed to hear any outstanding petitions was not properly before this Court on February 11, 2013 and February 20, 2013. See Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309, 313 (Pa. 1995).

H. THIS COURT PROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT FOR ANY PRIOR PROCEEDING.

A party is required to request a copy of the transcript of a proceeding with the court reporter for the proceeding, the cierk of the trial court in which the proceeding took place, or in open court. Pa.R.J.A. 5000.5 (2013). Here, Appellant made a request for a copy ofthe transcript for a prior proceeding in open court during an unrelated hearing. However, Appellant failed to timely make his request and further, Appellant was denied the ability to file any further motions based on issues previously addressed by the Court. See (Order (200712477) seq.352)). Therefore, Appellant's request for the transcript for any prior proceeding was moot since the request was based on matters already heard by the Court. This Court reasonably granted Appellant' s request for transcripts pertaining to the protracted matter before Judge Page on February 11, 2013 and February 20, 2013.

I. THIS COURT PROPERLY DENIED APFELLANT'S REQUEST TO ADDRESS ANY EX PARTE ACTIONS OR ALLEGED MISCONDUCT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE'S COUNSEL.

Pursuant to the collateral estoppel doctrine and Judge Carluccio's September 23, 2011 Order, this Court properly denied Appellant's request to address any ex parte communication or misconduct on behalf ofAppellee's counsel since this was a matter previously addressed in Appellant's September 14, 2010 Petition Regarding Ex Parte Communications by Defendant. The Court's September 23, 2011 Order explicitly states that Appellant was prohibited from fihing any further petitions which contained issues that were previously addressed by the Court. (Order (2007-12477) seq.352)). Therefore, this Court was proper in denying Appellant's request to address any alleged ex parte communications by Defendant's counsel.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, this Court's April 3, 2013 Order caleulating Appellant's contempt fine should be AFFIRMED.

Judge GARRETT D. PAGE