IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. v. CASE NO DR001269XXXNB

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF JEFFREY P. LAWSON, Husband Petitioner, v. CASE NO DR001269XXXNB KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, Wife Respondent. / RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REITERATION OF AUTOMATIC 11 U.S.C. 362 STAY in BANKRUPTCY and MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS COMES NOW the Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, pro se, with this Response to Order to Show Cause, Reiteration of Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy, and Motion to Stay pursuant to Fl. Rules of Civ. Proc. Rule (b) to move this Honorable Court to stay any and all further proceedings in the trial court pending the outcome of Respondent s NOTICE of APPEAL. There are many strange contradictions inherent in the Court s Order. For example, in the December 16, 2009, Order Setting this Case for Trial, Respondent was informed that no further Motions for Continuance would be considered or entertained by the Court, but in the Court s latest order of February 19, 2010, the Court observes that Respondent/Wife has not.requested an extension of time in which to comply with the Order. In accord with the Court s apparent change of heart, Respondent now requests additional time (after the expiration of the automatic stay in Bankruptcy) to fully brief all constitutional issues and file amended pleadings leading to a jury trial on constitutional questions including but not limited to the legitimacy of the statutory scheme underlying Florida marriage and dissolution procedures. Furthermore, the court states that certain documents are required and ordered Respondent/Wife to "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& "

2 prepare and file those necessary and required documents, without addressing the Respondent Wife s objections filed February 16, 2010, that it is constitutionally impossible to order anyone to create evidence to be used against them in any judicial proceeding, because such creation necessarily violates either the Fifth, Thirteenth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments. MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL & 11 U.S.C. 362 Automatic Stay Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson s Notice of Appeal of Non-Final Orders Pursuant to Florida Rule 9.130, Fla. R. App. P. is filed simultaneously, today, on Thursday, February 24, 2010, in this Honorable Court. The Court should also receive a Motion for Leave to Intervene by Respondent s Trustee with his supplemental suggestion of bankruptcy. Even standing alone, appeals of non-final orders can warrant a stay of lower court proceedings because the mere exercise of jurisdiction over the parties and subjecting them to the judicial process interferes, at least theoretically, with the appellate court s disposition of the order pending review. See Fla. R. App. P (a)(1), (d). However, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson s Notice of Appeal does NOT stand alone. Ten days earlier, her Notice of Appeal was preceded by her trustee s February 16, 2010 filing of bankruptcy in relation to the LAWSON FAMILY TRUST, an eligible business trust designed to operate as the management company for Respondent s investments including claims and interests in real estate and funds located outside of the State of Florida. The entry by this court of any order which would have any direct or indirect impact whatsoever upon Respondent s estate (the Lawson Family Trust) is absolutely forbidden by 11 U.S.C "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& #

3 RESPONDENT OBJECTS TO ORDERS TO CREATE EVIDENCE The Palm Beach Circuit Clerk s Docket Sheet for this case clearly shows that both the Respondent s Suggestion of Bankruptcy and Objections to the Trial Setting, (filed February 16, 2010) were received and properly docketed in this 15 th Judicial Circuit Court. However, the Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed Against Respondent/Wife for Failure to Comply with Order Setting Case for Trial, entered and filed by Judge Richard L. Oftedal on Friday, February 19, 2010 appears strangely deponent and defective in that it omits reference to both of these documents filed by Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson on February 16, The Suggestion of Bankruptcy with reference to the Chapter 13 case filed in Austin, Texas, and pending before Judge Chris A. Gargotta, and (more importantly) Kathy Ann Garcia- Lawson s Objections to the Order of December 16, 2009, were both filed in response to this Court s Order Setting Case for Trial. However, Respondent specifically objected on February 16, 2010, and her Trustee has filed papers as of even date, protesting the legitimacy of any legal authority by which this Court not only set trial without ruling on the Respondent s Constitutional Objections to the existence and exercise of jurisdiction by this Court, but simultaneously ordered the creation of documents, the sole purpose of which was and is and could only be, to be used in evidence against her. DOES AN ORDER TO CREATE DOCUMENTS VIOLATE THE FIFTH OR THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? Just as the Fifth Amendment protects a private person from takings of life, liberty, and property without due process of law (if in punishment for a crime or tort) or without just compensation (if taken for public use and purposes), the Thirteenth Amendment "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& $

4 likewise prohibits involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. What exactly IS this Respondent s crime? She accepted a state marriage license, the state having failed to disclose that it was a one-way ticket to state management of her life by and through the divorce courts. Does the Court believe that the Respondent s uninformed and innocent purchase of the Florida State marriage license is reason enough to compel the Respondent to submit all the rest of her life to state-planning? This respondent rejects that hypothesis as an unconstitutional taking of her liberty (and property) without due process of law and an imposition of a condition of involuntary servitude without proof (nor even any allegation) of criminal conduct on this respondent s part. With specific reference and regard to the creation of two evidentiary documents regarding her parenting plan and child support arrangements, Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson would assert that she, although neither poor nor a member of any discrete or insular minority, like Rosa Parks quite simply refuses this Court s offer of a seat at the rear of the bus. Respondent knows that this Court has ordered Respondent to agree with and submit to its intended exercise of authority over her. The Court has done so by asking the Respondent to accept and wear all the badges and incidents of servitude (specifically to this Court and generally to the State of Florida), which accompany involuntary acquiescence in these domestic relations proceedings. In an ordinary criminal case, an accused cannot be compelled to confess or create evidence against him or herself under the Fifth Amendment. Modern statutory domestic relations litigation in Florida, by definition, is quasi-criminal in nature, to be judged by the intermediate standard of proof known as clear and convincing evidence (higher than the civil preponderance of the evidence but lower than the criminal beyond "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& %

5 reasonable doubt ). Having been accused to date of no wrongdoing except her refusal to accept, agree with, consent, or otherwise submit to this Court s jurisdiction, Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson does not see how or why any Constitutionally legitimate authority can be invoked against to compel her to create evidence whose sole purpose is to be used against her to achieve an end result which she does not consent. Whatever the theoretical or ideal end result of marriage dissolution proceedings in Florida may be, the practical result of marital dissolution under current de facto Florida Law is that Respondent s world will be torn asunder without respect for Respondent s constitutional rights or her rights at common law. Respondent s world is the 22-year old product of a genuine (and ongoing) business and investment partnership, whose terms were based on a series of express and explicit oral and written contracts and agreements with her husband Jeffrey P. Lawson. This is the financial side of dissolution, on the one hand. But on the other is that she and her daughter will find imposed upon them by the State of Florida a regime of divided living and residence which they do not desire, and which they find repugnant. THIS COURT SEEKS TO LEGITIMIZE ITS EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION THROUGH SOLICITATION OR EVEN COERSION OF CONSENT? Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson quite simply refuses to dignify these proceedings with any cloak of legitimacy springing from her consent or acquiescence. She contends that the existence of Domestic Relations Courts in Florida is a violation of the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and she cannot support it. Likewise, this Court seeks to impose a kind of chattel slavery (involuntary servitude) on Respondent by ORDERING her, under penalty of sanctions [which] include, but are not limited to, contempt, the striking of all of Respondent/Wife s "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& &

6 pleadings, and/or the entry of default against her. So if this Court should believe that it has the power to compel the creation of evidence, the making of confessions about income or assets, without violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, Respondent asks how the Court can possibly justify its orders as imposing anything other than involuntary servitude (work without pay and against a citizen s actual or constructive consent, and against her competently expressed and directly communicated personal and individual will or wishes and which is absolutely destructive to the emotional, academic, spiritual development of her daughter. A copy of the NOTICE of APPEAL of Non-Final Orders Pursuant to Florida Rule 9.130, Fla. R. App. P., which was filed on February 24, 2010 by the Respondent Garcia- Lawson is attached to this notice as Exhibit A. JURY DEMAND UNANSWERED/UNADDRESSED Finally, but without waiving any other objection or contention, Respondent notes that this Court in its Order of February 19, 2010, has not addressed the Respondent s demand for a common-law trial-by-jury of all facts and mixed factual and legal issues so triable under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution AND the Florida Constitution s parallel guarantees. Even if there were no automatic stay in effect from a Bankruptcy Court, even if there were no appeal addressing jurisdictional issues from this Respondent and the intervenors, even if there were no objections to the creation of evidence against Respondent s liberty and property interests and will in violation of the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, this Court has illegally and improperly ignored Respondent s demand for a jury trial by setting this case for a non-jury trial on February 26, The Order Setting Trial is STAYED by operation of 11 U.S.C. 362 "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& '

7 and the entry of any final orders or order to appear is STAYED by Florida Appellate Rule to the extent that it seeks immediately to effect changes in the residential and educational arrangements of a child subject and other domestic relations issues. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE the Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson prays this court TAKE NOTICE OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY IN BANKRUPTY, in effect since February 16, 2010 and properly noticed with the Court on that date, but here reiterated in Response to the Court s Order to Show Cause, that the court further Take Notice of and Rule at length and substantively on each and every one of Respondent s Objections to this Court December 2009 Order Setting Case for Trial on February 26, 2010, in particular her objections, here reasserted, to each and every order that Respondent must create evidence to be used by the Court against her in these proceedings, and consistent with Rule of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, that this Court grant a stay of any and all further proceedings until a ruling and final judgment in Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals is rendered. Finally, the Respondent prays that this Court will acknowledge her jury demand of all issues so triable, which would include all factual issues relating to the constitutional legitimacy of this Court. )*+,-./01234,+/,0#&1#5"56 Respectfully submitted, By: Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D., pro se 2620 Nature s Way Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Telephone: Facsimile: garcialawson@hotmail.com "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& (

8 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I, the undersigned Respondent Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, do HEREBY CERTIFY that I filed an original signed copy of the above-and-foregoing NOTICE of APPEAL of Non Final Order Pursuant to Florida Rule 9.030, Fla. R. App. P. with the Palm Beach County Clerk of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court and simultaneously served a true and correct copy of the same on each of the following known parties to the above entitled and numbered cause as follows: Clerk of 15 th Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County Palm Beach County Courthouse North County Courthouse 3188 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Mr. Jeffrey P. Lawson c/o Steve Marchildon 113 Ashley Court Jupiter, Florida Respectfully signed, served, and submitted to the Courts on Thursday, February 25, 2010 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida By: Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D., pro se 2620 Nature s Way Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Telephone: Facsimile: garcialawson@hotmail.com "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& 7

9 9:*;4;<=6 NOTICE of APPEAL of Non-Final Orders Pursuant to Florida Rule 9.130, Fla. R. App. P. filed on February 24, 2010 by the Respondents Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Constitutional Intervenors in her Case. "#$"%&#"&'#()&*+",--.$%/0&12+02(%#&#"&345&624-0&"7&8$95&*+",5&624-&:5;;<&=>?& 8