Superior Court - Per Curiam Obstruction

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Office

Sonya L. Healy	: NO: 1330 EDA 2013
	:
v.	:
	:
Terance Healy	:
	:

MOTION FOR REVIEW OF PER CURIAM ACTION

Regarding the Per Curiam Order dated 27, March 2014 where no briefing schedule had been provided to the Appellant, and where the Court of Common Pleas had failed to remedy their failure to deliver the court records and exhibits to the Superior Court.

The evidence is clear. Every action of the courts demonstrate the efforts to obstruct, misinform and misdirect made ‘lawful’ by Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct causing the denial of life and liberty and terrorizing every aspect of life.

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio issued a deliberately defective and void order. She clearly lacked jurisdiction. The act was NOT that of a judge. It was the act of the President of the County Bar Association.

A deliberate, intentional and malicious court order issued by Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio without jurisdiction has terrorized the litigant from the day it was issued. An action done without jurisdiction to conceal the actions of fifteen prior judges in the matter which have attacked their victim since 2007. After Rhonda Lee Daniele issued her secret order without jurisdiction.

There is no escape for the litigant. The court is mandated to terrorize and destroy the litigant ‘to protect the integrity of the courts.’

The County & Court then went to work to obstruct and deny the appeal of that order issuing further void orders based on the defective and void orders. Those who enforced the defective and void orders becoming involved in treason for doing so. The mandate for protecting integrity of those without integrity growing exponentially.

The Courts are mandated to obstruct and deny the victim ‘to protect the integrity of the court’. In doing so they became involved in the obstruction of justice.

Each court believing the litigant is causing their involvment in this crime. Not the ‘judge’ acting without jurisdiction… not the Courts which mandated their participation in the denial of justice. Each ignoring the US Constitution in the process of self-preservation and sacrifice of their own integrity.

The inability to accomplish anything with regard to the Appeal is caused by the courts, enabled by the court, endorsed by the courts, made ‘lawful’ by the courts.

The victim can do nothing to escape the game of “The order is not void until we say it’s void’. There have been over 80 attempts to have the court take the lawful action to void the order. Every attempt has been ignored.

The Superior Courts are mandated to obstruct and deny the victim ‘to protect the integrity of the court’. In doing so they became involved in the obstruction of justice. Their knowledge of the void and defective orders mandated that they address the issue. A mandatory action, not a discretionary issue for the court.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is mandated to do the same. The Supreme Court enacted the law and in doing so must follow it. This prevents the Supreme Court from repealing the law or addressing the injustice.

And so it goes, that every effort to prevent any interaction with the judiciary is the primary focus. It is essential to ‘protect the integrity of the judiciary’. The denial of justice to the litigant is a consequence. The continued peril and jeopardy of the victim is not a concern.

The actions in the letter dated 3/27/2014 are inappropriate. The Court has been notified of the pending litigation in Federal Courts which can provide the only escape from the nightmare created when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enacted the Rules of Professional Conduct into law.

I respectfully request review of this matter based on the fact that Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct results in the absolute denial of right and liberties protected by the United States Constitution and that the supporting staff of this Court cease from purposeful actions to deny justice in this matter.

AN ORAL ARGUMENT IS DEMANDED

Respectfully,



Terance Healy


NB: The game of the Prothonotary deliberately improperly captioning the matter is obvious and tiresome. Please correct all records and documents accordingly.

The matter has left the appellant homeless and destitute and forced to respond to the Courts. The appellant has no choice but to persist as he is not capable of suicide.