IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JUDGE RICHARD L. OFTEDAL IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFREY P. LAWSON HUSBAND, 2005DR001269XXXXNB AND FAMILY DIVISION “FH” KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON WIFE. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID CIRCUIT COURT: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.1230, and Request for Hearing The undersigned Intervenors, jointly and severally, on behalf of themselves and of all persons who have filed Notices of Intervention, seek leave to come and appear before this Court, and to have a full-and-open evidentiary hearing on the constitutional issues which they have raised. Kathy Lawson has provided Intervenors with the initial (file-marked and mailed December 18, 2009) and later resent copies of this Court’s “Order Setting Trial” (which was not served on any of the 14 intervenors, neither the two (Bertrand and Caliguiri) whose interventions were “stricken” on Notice of Intervention in Support of Constitutional Questions after Federal Court Dismissal under Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971) 1
Transcript
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
JUDGE RICHARD L. OFTEDAL
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
JEFFREY P. LAWSONHUSBAND,
2005DR001269XXXXNBAND FAMILY DIVISION “FH”
KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSONWIFE.
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID CIRCUIT COURT:
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.1230, and
Request for Hearing
The undersigned Intervenors, jointly and severally, on behalf of
themselves and of all persons who have filed Notices of Intervention, seek leave
to come and appear before this Court, and to have a full-and-open evidentiary
hearing on the constitutional issues which they have raised. Kathy Lawson has
provided Intervenors with the initial (file-marked and mailed December 18,
2009) and later resent copies of this Court’s “Order Setting Trial” (which was
not served on any of the 14 intervenors, neither the two (Bertrand and Caliguiri)
whose interventions were “stricken” on October 28, 2009, nor any of the other
twelve who had intervened as of that date.
Intervenors demand a hearing be set for at least 1-3 hours on
February 17-19, 2010 concerning their multiple Notices of Intervention
in support of Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s complaint to challenge the
constitutionality of Florida’s domestic relations courts: their existence,
Notice of Intervention in Support of Constitutional Questions after Federal Court Dismissal under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
1
procedure, and jurisdiction in light of Judge Kenneth Marra’s dismissal
pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The gravamen of
Judge Marra’s Orders in the two cases brought in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s
challenge to the jurisdiction of Florida Courts to hear Jeffrey P. Lawson’s Petition
for Dissolution of Marriage against her is that Florida Courts should have the
first fair shot at addressing these issues.
Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s position is that she (as a Respondent in this
case) has been trying to frame her constitutional challenge to the jurisdiction of
the Florida Domestic Relations Courts, including but not limited to the 15th
Judicial Circuit Court “Family Divison” “FH” for nearly five years now. She
started out with a very modest analysis and proposal which would have
reformed but not abolished the system (see “White Paper” attached as Exhibit
A, completed in or about summer 2006). As Respondent Kathy A. Garcia-
Lawson’s knowledge and awareness of the system has changed over time, all
her efforts have been rebuffed.
It is now Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s position and contention, in this case
and elsewhere, that the entire Florida Family and Domestic Relations Code
needs to be scrapped. The Intervenors, each jointly and severally, acting on his
or her own behalf, come into this Court to support and obtain a ruling on
Respondent’s Constitutional claims, and to ask this Court to declare and
adjudge that the entire Statutory Scheme of the Florida Domestic Relations
courts be declared unconstitutional as to its constitutional presumptions,
Notice of Intervention in Support of Constitutional Questions after Federal Court Dismissal under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
2
underpinnings and basic premises, and therefore that this Court abolish itself or
in the alternative abjure from further exercise of jurisdiction over any marital
dissolution, property division, or child custody case except to the extent allowed
by the common law pre-existing or external to the Florida Statutory Scheme for
Family organization and creation, whose existence is in and of itself offensive to
the separation of Church and State established by the First Amendment. It is
this constitutional interest in the dissolution, not of marriage but of the family
courts all together, which is the direct and immediate interest of each of the
intervenors. This direct and immediate and personal interest shared by each
intervenor in Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s demand for the abolition (by
declaratory judgment and subsequent injunctions against the further
enforcement) of the Florida Family Code which entitles each and every
intervenor in this case to intervene under (non-Family Code) Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.230.
Further operation of the Florida Family Courts will directly and
immediately infringe upon the rights of each and every one of the intervenors if
Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s petition is not granted. Intervenors specifically
concur with Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson to the degree that she has realized and
contends in her pleadings that there is (as a practical matter) no honor or
integrity among the practitioners in family law, and, as a theoretical and
constitutional matter, there is no constitutional authority whatsoever for the
existence or exercise of Domestic Relations jurisdiction by any state under the
First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, it
Notice of Intervention in Support of Constitutional Questions after Federal Court Dismissal under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
3
appears to the Respondent and to the undersigned intervenors that the Florida
Family Division/Domestic relation courts should be abolished, razed to the
ground, and power and freedom returned to the people.
On December 16, 2009, Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson received
an order including the following specific orders to which all intervenors object as
a facial violation of Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s fundamental rights, and as a
result, to be facially violative of the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments:
Judge Oftedal has ordered that Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson file with the
Court for purposes of a non-jury trial:
A. An updated financial affidavit.
B. A proposed parenting plan [under] Florida Statutes §61.12(2)(b)
(F.S.)
C. A proposed plan of equitable distribution of the parties’ marital
assets and liabilities.
D. A proposed child support guidelines worksheet.
Intervenors object to each and every one of these orders as follows:
A. This order requiring a financial affidavit is an unconstitutional order
because it is void for vagueness. The order does not define a
financial affidavit nor is there any constitutional authority for this
court to violate the Fourth Amendment by ordering a nonconsensual
search without a warrant supported by affidavit:
Notice of Intervention in Support of Constitutional Questions after Federal Court Dismissal under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The allowance, enforcement, or perpetuation of these orders is each one
a constitutional violation which offends and infringes upon the rights of each
and every one of the intervenors, not merely under the maxim that “none can
be free until all are free” but because the perpetuation of the Florida Domestic
Relations law and judicial system is a continuing threat to the life, liberty, and
property interests of each individual intervenor, whether he or she be currently
single, married, divorced, with or without minor children.
An old attachment circulated to newlyweds by the State of Florida
explained, “the State of Florida is interested in your marriage” (see Exhibit B).
For all and precisely the same reasons, the intervenors are interested in
stopping the dissolution of Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s marriage, but
additionally the intervenors are interested in the legal issues which are raised
by Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson in this case, which have never been raised before
(to the Intervenors’ knowledge) in any other case ever presented to any Florida
Court.
Notice of Intervention in Support of Constitutional Questions after Federal Court Dismissal under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
5
This is a case of First Impression, requiring that fundamental changes be
instituted affecting the cultural, economic, judicial, legal, political and social
fabric of the State of Florida
On or about October 28, 2009, this Court struck the Notices of
Intervention signed by Robert J. Bertrand and Donna Caliguiri, but all other
Intervenors Notices, including those of the undersigned, aside from Bob
Bertrand, have been ignored. Robert J. Bertrand in particular signs this Demand
for a hearing that his intervention be reinstated (and in particular requests
leave of court to appear by telephone at any hearing).
In the alternative, part A of Judge Oftedal’s order entered December
18, 2009, violates the Fifth Amendment because it is designed to facilitate
a government ordered taking of property without due process of law AND
amounts to an order to Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson to testify against herself
in a case which is governed by the “quasi-criminal” evidentiary standard
of “clear and convincing evidence” applied in Florida and elsewhere to all
Family or Domestic Relations cases.
In addition, part A of Judge Oftedal’s order violates the 7th
Amendment because Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has demanded a trial-by-
jury of all facts so triable at common law under the Seventh Amendment
(as of February 20, 2007) and this court, without justification, has
scheduled this for a non-jury trial and ordered respondent to testify
against her own interests without immunity or voluntary waiver of her
rights.
Notice of Intervention in Support of Constitutional Questions after Federal Court Dismissal under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
6
B. Part B of Judge Oftedal’s order violates the First, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments because the First Amendment forbids the
establishment of any religion and secures freedom of speech, and
just as the first amendment was incorporated to the States by the
14th, the Ninth Amendment also secured all undelegated powers to
the people, and the right to plan how to “parent” (i.e. educate,
nurture, and rear) one’s children is a fundamental right secured to
the people. A Court-ordered “parenting plan” is a violation of the
First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly
or association, and freedom of religion and Kathy Ann Garcia-
Lawson objects on grounds of religious freedom, as do all of the
intervenors.
C. All the objections to the financial affidavit listed above apply to this
order for a “proposed plan of equitable distribution.” Kathy Ann
Garcia-Lawson and Jeffrey P. Lawson had only one plan for their
property, which was joint ownership and management together
throughout their lives, and neither party has breached this
agreement, nor properly pled at common law any grounds for
recission or reformation of that agreement.
D. “A proposed child support guidelines worksheet” is objectionable for
all of the same grounds as asserted by the intervenors to parts A, B,
and C of Judge Oftedal’s order, and the Court’s threat of sanctions
for failure to comply with unconstitutional orders is precisely the
Notice of Intervention in Support of Constitutional Questions after Federal Court Dismissal under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)
7
kind of systemic threat to the freedom of all Floridians which causes
the undersigned intervenors here to appear and object.
On or about September 30, October 14, 2009, October 21, 2009, and
February 3, 2010, the following individuals filed Notices of Intervention:
Petitions in Intervention Filed: September 30, 2009
![JOHN GOODMAN, STATE OF FLORIDA, - eDCA Login · No. 4D14-4479 [July 26, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, ...](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5add99237f8b9a213e8cfdc8/john-goodman-state-of-florida-edca-login-4d14-4479-july-26-2017-appeal.jpg)
