| Annotations will appear in these boxes through the document. |
| TERANCE HEALY | Superior Court No.: 1330 EDA 2013 |
| V. | Common Pleas Court No.: 2007-12477 |
| SONYA HEALY |
| 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
No comments:
Post a Comment