Law Library
Constitutional Cases
Fair Debt Practices Cases
Common Area Cases
Current Cases
LBCA Case
Consumer Friendly
Over Reaching BoD\'s
Leglislation
Syndicate


Designed by:
Web hosting Web Hosting
Mambo hosting services
Meryl Lanson Print
Article Index
Meryl Lanson
Page 2

If you ask any house hunter, or prospective homeowner, for their vision of the perfect home they will describe their ideal kitchens, the breathtaking views, the architectural style of their dream home, size, sunny windows, shady patios, flower boxes and number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Nowhere in their vision do they provide for discrimination, hate and discontent and a battle with their neighbors. The sad reality, however, is that residential America quite often resembles a war zone more than it does a peaceful, happy place to live. Can future homeowners ensure that they find their dream home in the neighborhood of their dreams?

Joining us On The Commons this week is Meryl Lanson. Meryl is the founder and CEO of a Florida based organization called Victims of the System (www.victimsofthesystem.org ). Please tune in to On The Commons. We'll find out what to look for and how to avoid waking up and finding yourself in a starring role in a nightmare.  Download Meryl Lanson
User Comments

Comment by GUEST on 2008-09-05 17:28:03
Iam also a victim of legal abuse. It's going on right now in New York. Ihave losst my home, my business, and my dignity. The problem is it's from my own attorneys.

Comment by GUEST on 2008-09-05 17:27:29
I am a Victim of the ‘System’ also. I am insolvent ever since the Court System denied me equal access to the court. My husband attempted to murder me and I was incapacitated to the point of I could not talk when under stress. I found out later that as a disabled person I should have been in Probate court with a lawyer to help me, but that did not happen. The court put ‘my’ one half of the family business in the control of the man that tried to murder me without a date they would be returned or an accounting aby using an altered Order from what was said in the trial. ( See Polizzi v Polizzi) I tried to appeal but the court said I had to pay the large fees or they would dismiss the case. (of course they knew I could not pay the fees) The denying of the IFP Order was unconstitutional since the court unlawfully denied the Petitioner’s information and interfered in her justice because the jury was not presented with the evidence ( the judge took over the jury’s job and did not let them hear part of the testimony) or of the special circumstances that existed about the husband had tried to murder the wife --- leaving her disabled and the victim had that evidence to present and had evidence in support of her Motion for IFP but was unconstitutionally denied to show the evidence to the jury. Restitution was Ordered by the first judge but the next judge ignored this deliberately. My attorney abandoned me without a hearing. 
 
Bear in mind that the restitution was already Ordered by the judge but the Brevard County court officers intentionally and with callous indifference neglect to finish the criminal case against the former husband who irreparable harmed his wife causing her to be hospitalized. But the officers still callously and intentionally ignored the fact the judge reserved on the amount of restitution that was to be paid - however the restitution was Ordered by the judge and this Petitioner was named as his victim. That is in the record in the lower court but again was ignored intentionally. This was done for vindictiveness towards the disabled victim for telling the local new about being mistreated in the lower courts. 
 
When matters of public concern such as are domestic violence victims being served by the advocates that are sent funds to help victims are involved, it is up to the courts to show adequate justification to treat the victims differently or neglect them unlawfully by ignoring them or neglecting them from the way they treat the general public. The 1st Amendment "does not allow courts to remove a disabled persons right to have access to the court” or the right to deny them free speech based on a judges whim to deny disabled people their right to redress the court. The judges statements were made in the course of his official duties, and also made as a private citizen and member of the Florida Bar trying to protect fellow members of the Bar.  
 
The State Officials failed to meet their burden of showing that the disabled victim of a crime had been treated fairly in the court, and failed to give logical legitimate reasons for deny-ing the disabled woman lawful access to an authorized jury trial, and violated her rights, and offered no evidence showing the victim was not insolvent. I have requested an FBI investigation but no one from the FBI called back. 
Does Florida think they are exempt from the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment?  
 
just wondering----- Edna Jane Favreau- Pro se 

Comment by GUEST on 2008-08-09 12:12:32
Mrs. Lanson, 
 
My name is Susana Zirulnikoff, I am a victim of the legal system as well for more than 15 years from a simple divorce all the way up to Condominium issues with fraud and corruption, and persecution.  
 
All because I stand up and researched and reversed what my lawyers messed up in my back and I finally proceed pro-se and could fire my lawyers and one judge, my kids lives and mine were sabotaged and desroyed day by day. 
 
I felt raped by the legal system over and over since my babies were 4 and 5 years old and now I am trapped again and in this is maybe my last episode; I am scare and very worried, I felt that this organize mafia of politicians, commissioners, lawyers, judges, policemen, higher authorities (FBI), even doctors, teacherss, etc. are all over and well positioned with the help of immoral puppets everywhere ready to execute acts to destroy individuals like me that went pro-se and defy the legal system just by trying to stop them to harm our families. 
 
I am unemployed at the present moment and I decided, finally, to prepare an Affidavit to submit it to he highest level of representatives in the country, estate, and even embassies just in case I have to run after I file the affidavit stating everything that these people did to me and my children.  
 
I felt that I am going to have to ask for political assylum outside U.S.A. after all these years of Holocaust since I had no other choice if nobody hear me and if after filing the Affidavit these dangerous group of people will finally kill me or put me in jail or in a mental institution since that is what they tried to attempt year after year. 
 
Please give me a phone call at (305) 944-9514 or e-mail me; I will send you my Afidavit and my cover lelter for your review and comments; I think it will take me a full week or more and I want to know how you can guide me of help me. I am totally alone because I don't trust anyone at this time, and.my two sons are not living with me right now they are 20 & 21 years old actually,  
 
Thenk you for your attention to this matter, 
 
Sincerely 
 

Comment by GUEST on 2008-08-09 12:10:29
Dear Mrs. Lanson, 
 
My name is Susana Zirulnikoff, I live in Sunny Isles Beach and I am also a victim of the corrupted legal system for more than 15 years; I felt raped over and over for so long and there is no way to espace from them. This people won't stop until you commit suicide or make you leave the country penniless. I decided to join you and open up my American Nightmare because it will be the only and last thing I could possible do in order to honor my beautiful children's future.  
 
During all these years, I discovered that it is an organized mafia with all kinds of people working for them; from the janitors and security guards of our condominiums follow by School Teachers, Doctors (all kinds), Mediators, Social Workers of the Year, Dentist of the Year, and Developer of the Year, etc all the way up to Clerks, Police, Judges, Court Reporters, and of course The Lawyers.  
 
The list of people involved is infinite as one discover along the way that your own friends, maids, etc join them by bribery depending of your movements. The worst of all is that most of the people know what is going on saying "that is the way it is here". I heard this expression for first time in 1993, can you imagine what is going to be now with the actual economic crisis and desperation?  
 
I read the article in The Miami Herald today, August 3, 2008 at a very critical time of my life; I was trying to compose myself one more time and finally file an Affidavit, globally, stating the Holocaust that me and my children had been through for 15 years due to a simple divorce. I am unemployed at the moment (,,,part of the same story) and I don't want to be their victim anymore......I will face them no matter what this time around!!  
 
I am sick, scared, scarred (both mentally & psysically), and borderline one more time but before they finally kill me or put me in jail, and/or in a mental institution I have to go through this. Thank you for inspire me with your words about doing something to save the future of american families. Our children deserve it; please watch your child or teenage son or daughter because they sabotage my children's lives as well (research about the friends who are with him/her even the girlfriend/boyfriend).  
 
From the bottom of my heart, take care of yourselves and as soon as I finish my Affidavit and file it to almost every person in charge in this State, Country, Embassies, Journalists, etc. I will send you a copy for your review and comments. 
 
I hope we can meet in person or have your input via e-mail or by phone. I will be inside my home for at least one month (August) since I will be mentally drained trying to compose this Affidavit an a cover letter as well.  
 
Sincerely, 
 
Susana M. Zirulnikoff-Pro Se 

Comment by GUEST on 2008-10-02 20:46:47
RE: above Comment by GUEST on 2008-09-05 17:27:29 
"I am a Victim of the ‘System’ also. I am insolvent ever since the Court System denied me equal access to the court. My husband attempted to murder me" 
A Hearing in case 2008 32650 CICI - Volusia County, Florida - is to be held before the Honorable Richard S. Graham, on November 4, 2008 at 3:00 pm - 251 N Ridgewood Ave, Daytona Beach - (386) 239-7750 [ also called "City Island Courthouse" ] near the Florida 5th DCA appeals court, --- should anyone want to see the court in action against an elderly disabled (great grandmother) and victim of the crime of attempted murder by her husband, --- call to make sure the hearing is still being held at the Daytona Beach Courthouse because sometimes the judges change the hearing time or day. Clerk of court number is above. I would welcome victims who have also been damaged by the deliberate indifference that is used towards women in the Florida Courts or anyone who may be writing a book about what goes on in the courts.  
 
The courts are callously ignoring the LAWS about victims being able to place a lien on the property of men that harm them --- see Florida Statute 960.29.  
 
The last judge lifted a good and allowable lien (without giving a reason and did that without a hearing.) As a victim I was afraid of the man that tried to murder me so when I found the law said I could place a 20 year lien on his property so I did that but the judge lifted the lien without it being paid off. Come and see if the new judge does the same thing in this new case about victims and restitution liens etc.  
 
The amount due to the former Wife shall continue until the debt is directly paid and shall be enforceable by contempt power of the Court, because under Rule 1.540 (b) it says the court can do what it takes to bring justice and equity to the cases. 
 
The wife was told she would receive one half of the family assets but that did not happen. The judge's words were altered --- she would have received her assets had the judge’s orders not been altered by the Husband’s attorney. The law says the family assets are subject to equitable distribution . See § 61.075(5)(a) 1. (4). Section 61.075, Florida Statutes (1993), provides in part:  
 
4. All vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued during the marriage in retirement, pension, annuity, deferred compensation, and insurance plans… and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 
says Victims that are disabled have the right to legal protection (!) 
also see F.S. 744, and the right to seek an equal distribution of property in the event of a divorce. (Section 61.075, Fla. Statues) The fact Edna Jane is disabled and impaired is a direct a result of what transpired during the marriage, see the domestic violence case numbers in the records. and section 61.08 (2) suggested relevant economic factors are the "financial resources" of the parties and "any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties." 
 
The court lacked authority, to unfairly impose upon the former wife, orders that she cannot come to court to defend her own property, after improperly placing her assets in the hands and control of the man that tried to kill her. It’s most clearly relevant to this cause, and a flagrant and egregious violation of a proper due process for the woman victim of the crime of spouse abuse. See endnote 1 on page 3 - the first judge’s JA and clerk of court failed to inform the Judge about prior domestic violence cases. COURT CLERK MISTAKE see Rule 1.540 
 
This Court, should be troubled by past court neglect and how the disabled victim was denied meaningful access to the court in light of ADA laws that protect her from this type of court abuse. 
And the Courts must be aware of the improper things that have taken place here, well as, how many officers of the court are involved in the wrongful embrace and inclusion of the poor from the court- that is against the Rules and the Statutes concerning the due process of victims of spouse abuse and the crime of attempted murder was clearly ignored deliberately to punish the wife for telling the local newspaper of the unlawfully poor treatment she received at the hands of the officers of the court. 
See 42 USC 12202 and 12203 
 
Accordingly, the court must address the wrongs done in the final judgment of dissolution as well as address the Florida Statutes that have clearly, been intentionally ignored by court officers by callous indifference and reckless disregard for victim’s rights laws of Florida, and other laws such as 960.29.  
 
The court must be cognizant that the laws have been intentionally ignored, and that when the court is cognizant that the laws have been broken something must be done to clear up the injustice in all respects to save the dignity of the court. 
The court must not squander the victim’s rights to a fair trial or her right to her own assets. Nor dissipate the good name of the court by excluding a pro se from defending her own property, against her will, nor fail to determine (what is to happen in certain cases that should have or must have contingencies), especially by not including a stipulation or failing to provide a certain condition of the laws or fail to make sure there’s no unnecessary harm brought to victims from wrongs done by officers of the courts by the wrongful expenditure of court services that belong to the disabled victim’s of spouse abuse.  
 
Especially where the disabled woman requested reasonable accommodations from the court for the right to have her auxiliary hearing and understand aids with her in court. The court should fully address the fact surrounding the fact the disabled pro se woman was tricked into her former husband being put in charge of her own part of the family assets that were to be divided.  
 
The judge’s orders said everything was to be partitioned. And he said one half would belong to Edna Jane Favreau. What he said, could not be mistaken for anything else except just that. Even the Complaint by the former husband did not ask for Edna Jane’s part of the assets to be put in her former Husband’s (Walter Favreau) care. There are Laws and rules referenced in this and this case should have a trial after discovery questions are answered. 
 
This is to show there is: (1.) an appeal of a final order of the circuit court, in Volusia County, Fla. case 2003 12173 CIDL for improperly removing a legal lien that is allowable under the law 960.29 of the Florida Statutes, (2.) for failing to define the assets of Edna Jane before trying to even address the fact her assets had not been distributed to her (3.) the fact that they are still being excluded from her care and unjustly with held in the estate of Walter F. Favreau by Anna May.  
 
The failure of Anna May the new wife of Walter--- to account for Edna Jane’s holdings that have been commingled in the estate now being probated in the Volusia County Court shows malfeasance, fraud and the need of urgent care must be taken immediately or there will be more unjust enrichment for Anna May. See Reed v Reed, 4D04-3741 [September 28, 2005]  
 
Judges cannot rely upon these unsworn statements as the basis for making factual determinations; and this court cannot so consider them on review of the record. If the advocate wishes to establish a fact, he must provide sworn testimony through witnesses other than himself or a stipulation to which his opponent agrees.  
 
An Attorney's unsworn statement should not be considered as evidence by trial courts unless stipulated to by both parties. See Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).  
Attorneys unsworn statements - do not establish 
facts in the absence of stipulation.  
If you have some extra time on November 4, 2008 
please come and see what the new judge decides to do about the lawful liens - Will he lift them unlawfully as the last judge did or will he look up the law about the lien--- or will he just sign the attorneys Order made out to lift the lien unlawfully  
I can be reached at If you have any questions.  
 

Comment by GUEST on 2009-01-27 00:11:35
B Gary- Pro se my case which I thought was simple ballooned to 
the Judges clerk lying not giving QDRO to Judge for signature 
file papers back to Archives and continued to mislead me it was being worked on. The QDRO

Comment by GUEST on 2009-02-07 12:55:13
February 04, 2009 News-Journal - Daytona Beach - 
story in news about Edan Jane Favreau 
Ex-wife won't give up on 14-year-old property battle 
By JAY STAPLETON Staff Writer 
 
the attorney for the other side (William Gambert)  
acknowledged that "older cases can be reopened  
if fraud is proven, but said it's unlikely." 
 
Could or would someone please explain to us citizens  
why its unlikely that the court would reopen a case  
if fraud is proven? 
 
A new hearing will be March 11, 2009 at 3:30 
At the Daytona Beach City Island Courthouse, please come by and see how disabled victims of a crime gets treated in the courts in Daytona Beach. The Honorable Judge Graham will be presiding. The disabled victim is asking for a jury trial to present her evidence that victims are allowed to file a lien on the criminal's property that is good for 20 years under Florida Statute s. 960.29 and that only the victim can remove it unless it is paid off. 
The question is why is the judge not upholding the law 960.29  
saying victims can place a lien on property if she is owed money from the divorce that was never paid to her.  
The court unlawfully ignores the laws. Why ? 
How can they do that?  
The clerk of court is refusing to file a Motion about the Fraud on the Court. Is a clerk of court allowed to refuse to file a victim's Motion? 
 
does anyone know about that? 
 
Edna Jane Favreau 
 

Comment by GUEST on 2009-03-26 20:01:48
EJF paid her first attorney to represent her in Court. But - against Rules of Civil Procedure the attorney tricked her and told the judge a lie in order to sell out to the other side and leave the victim without presentation of any kind ---  
and the victim of all this rightfully has good reason to be concerned that law clerks may again fail to effectively handle the complexity of the abuse allegations against their fellow officers and again pass off their duty of great public importance having a great public interest the governance and administration, of judicial duties and equal access to the Nation’s courts and how they are to be run according to law.  
If any officer has qualms about allowing this case to have a full review, because it would effect their own fellow professionals and colleagues with the Bar Association, they must put that aside. Even if it is against their associates, or would expose a friend, they must not again pass off their duty, as was exhibited in times past, in other appeals of the same matters and issues. Victim now fears they will again simply just follow their past custom, instead of lawful procedures. While, Florida ‘Supreme Court’s last Orders’ said for the 5DCA to give review but the review was neglected– now the question is: will this again be denied to the poor victim, while unjustly enriching others (AMKF) with EJF’s assets, which have never been lawfully accounted for, and never properly returned ?  
Defendant (EJF’s) fears, are heighten, as she expresses her doubtfulness and speculation, about how the clerk of court will again hesitate to give her a full review by ignoring her sense of duty, or ignore what the laws intended, or just ignore their scruples again and not allow a ‘fundamentally fair’ trial. Or fail to review the wrongs done in the court offices, by other officers of the court. Of course, when the ‘good ol boy’ system is used it will bring different results- if they do not like the victim, who told the Newspaper that she was discriminated against in Court what will her punishment be for being so out spoken that she would dare ask for fundamental fairness? See Peterson v Brown case , 787 So.2d 979 5DCA (Fla. 2001) where the Pro Se was allowed to access the court. That was a woman Pro Se, and she was treated differently than Jane was treated.  
EJF wonders if the Clerks, who deny her access to the court, have fully acquired the necessary skills, or have trained extensively in issues concerning our Constitutional law or Equal Access to court for Women Act, or Disabilities rights for our disabled citizens laws? Abuse allegations are brought under 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 and pendent State and Federal laws, with good evidence shown, and this always requires investigations. 
Denying women equal access to the court creates a potential for a conflict of interest and situations in which an officer or clerk’s decisions are, or could be, influenced by his/her own subjective interests. 
This kind of conundrum leaves many citizens with troubling feelings that this allows officers the capacity to obstruct justice, by simply disallowing any review or investigative actions, which is what they did in the last three (3) times in the Victim’s case shown here in appendix to this document. 
Cases with allegations against their own profession will always be denied.  
They have tremendous power, but they should be constrained when using it, for denying a full review of this kind of case would obstruct justice.  
Clearly, laws have been intentionally ignored and/or callously disregarded, i.e., cases: 2003-12163 PRDL, 2003-12173-CIDL, Volusia, and Brevard cases 05-1996-CA-009544; 05-1997-CA-002345; and 05-1997-CA-014911, and these cases all show a preponderance of good faith evidence, but the evidence was intentionally ignored again just as it was ignored before, even when the Florida Supreme Court told the 5DCA to review the cases. 
Now, the victim’s case is again being ignored, clearly intentionally, and with callous disregard for a woman’s equal right to access the court. 
In the instant case, records were shown to reveal a preponderance of evidence that conclusively found Walter guilty of harming E J F, no if’s, and’s or but’s about it, but no-one is willing to give a full review of the issues when it’s appealed, because officers of the court used malfeasance, that’s being kept undercover, all hush-hush, secret, and concealed by unconstitutional unlawful orders done with “ill will” towards a pro se by selective enforcement. (and it sure looks like everyone’s afraid to cross the last judge) 81,685 Florida Supreme Court Orders.  
In addition, there must be an unspoken rule that no attorney will sue another attorney for malfeasance, if done to a pro se victim, if the victim is outspoken and/or told the local ‘news paper’ about malpractice in court. 
This shows what amounts to ‘callously, intentionally disregarding’ and ‘ignoring’ the Nation’s Disability Act of 1990 towards a disabled woman.  
State and Federal laws that protect disabled victims of spouse abuse were not followed, and all this points to officers have wrongly participated in prosecutorial vindictiveness upon the victim, which is clearly against the rule of law under Federal Statutes 42 USC 12202 and 12203, and against the laws about ‘whistle – blowing,’ and the records clearly reveals this to be true! See exhibits in the Appendix to this motion: pages 11 through 22, to see where the appeals were always denied and never looked at, even though the Florida Supreme Court sent Orders to the 5DCA that said to review the case. There are unlawful things going on here. 
In the instant case their needs to be an investigation into why, after 18 years eighteen years, of trying to get a full redress of the fraud on the court of some kind, from a prosecuting authority to ensure complaints are investigated consistently, there is yet to be a meaningful and full investigation. Now something must be done or it would be a clear case of willful obstruction of EJF’s right to a fair trial and lawful meaningful due process, under the ADA laws.  
Clearly, the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, ‘without delay,’ must re-examine details of this latest abuse in Florida.  
Victim’s right’s laws and Federal ADA laws need redressed to see if Florida is observing the rule of law consistently or if they are still using selective prosecution towards people who whistle blow on wrongs done in the judicial systems, when the officers deny certain people access to court without authority or law, or are inhumane, i. e., Mr. Wilton Allen Dedge’s case smacks of vindictiveness and abuse of power towards disenfranchised victims. The Asst. State Attorney tried to block his justice. 
There are questions that the EJF has already given to the Court, and requested that they be Certified to the Florida Supreme Court and/or the United States Supreme Court because there is conflict with what happened in the instant case and Peterson v Brown, - Opinion filed July 6, 2001 (Wendy D. Peterson, Orlando, pro se in the Appeal - that reveals she was treated differently that Jane was treated.  
Clearly this must be looked at and certified to the higher Courts or there will be unjust enrichment and blatant gender discrimination, and gross miscarriage of justice is taking place due to intentional neglect and callous disregard for victims of “system” by custom instead of going by law.  
Civil remedies allow the victimized woman, who was abused and intentionally neglected by officers when they refused to investigate the perjury and fraud that he was told about, to act on her own behalf.  
In Doe v. Doe (929 F. Supp. 608 (D. Conn. 1996)) this civil remedy was upheld by U.S. Dist. Ct in case brought by wife against her abusive husband.  
Florida Bar case 2003 31, 696 18C - when anyone reads the Complaint and exhibits they will clearly see this case was swept under the rug to try and protect other Bar members involved, for money and/or favor.  
It was truly swept under the rug because there was fraud upon the court committed by opposing bad faith attorney . Go to the Internet and type out his name: see there several misconduct cases are listed. The Florida Supreme Court agreed he was a jerk, obnoxious and unethical and said he had a pattern for obstruction of justice. But did nothing about that! 
The United States Attorney General and the President, said they fully supported good faith changes in our legal profession, to ensure that the system of justice is fair, civil and effective. But did nothing about that ! Clearly more officials that commit perjury need punished to the full extent of the Law. The Florida Bar allowed the public to suffer while the above attorney kept on going. 
Officials and the legal profession, for some time, have spoken of ways to improve the system in abuse cases where its deemed necessary for disabled citizens to have a system that’s fundamentally fair, efficient, and economical.  
a. Law clerks and State Attorneys have a tremendous potential to abuse the system or their power to abuse the system, but they should feel constrained when using that power.  
b. In the instant case the lower court rulings cannot be reconciled with any signs of Constitutional laws of our courts, or even constitutional standards of fairness, as the many certified exhibits on record with the courts and now the Volusia County Court so thoroughly shows this is true.  
EJF has published her Motions in good faith with considerable handicap and deserves justice and not to have officers of the court shred or destroyed Motions again.  
As most citizens, Victims are also very interested in protecting civil liberties and a citizen’s due process under the 14th Amend., to protect their own property under the law. 
When the lower court officers failed to give lawful notification of the two (2) criminal cases of the former husband’s sentencing hearings and that resulted in harm to his victim ( Jane) and gave him special favors, and flight from prosecution.  
Atty. intentionally laughed and cruelly disregarded the victim’s pleas for the wrong doer to be brought to justice, about the restitution that was ordered and he used intimidation on Jane (victim) and intentionally disregarded ADA / Federal and Florida laws.  
The intention of the laws passed for victims says the victims should be out of court in 18 months, so they can get on with their life, and to try and become whole again. I have been made to suffer more and more in the 18 years this has been intentionally and cruelly neglected by callous indifference and complete disregard for victims rights. 
All this was with callous neglect and totally improper, was clearly intentional; just as the ‘evidence tampering’ by officers of the court was intentional and improper.  
The lawful allowable liens were placed upon the former husband’s property to secure the debt he still owes Jane, and removing that lien was done to punish Jane for saying she did not have a fair trial to the local Newspaper reporter. See 42 USC 12202 and 12203.  
The judge was told about the law 960.295 before he lifted the lien on the 910 Millard Ct. property, and he was told it was not lawful to allow the liens to be lifted, but he failed to even look at the evidence the victim gave him which violated her rights. The judge said he lost the document that was filed in open court and he made his ruling without that document. 
No reasonable person would have lifted the liens before an evidentiary hearing. The judge violated my rights under color of law after being shown the law that says he should not lift the lien. See F.S. sec. 960.295. and 960.29 
Punishing the victim was intentional; just as the perjury that was used in the trial was intentional and meant to do her more harm.  
Those false statements were made by the officer of the court and were proved to be false to the Florida Bar, but they have disguised or hidden that evidence and file from the Florida Supreme Court, by obstructing justice.  
Just as the false statements, trickery, and malfeasance, that was done, by the local officers, is being secretly concealed from the Florida Supreme Court, because it was clearly done intentionally to further the malicious harm, intimidation, and obstruction of justice for the infirm disabled victim. 
a. This gives cause for the higher court to see the victim, was placed in serious jeopardy, emotionally, financially and physically and denied her due process as a citizen while ADA laws were broken and/or ignored intentionally by ill will. Great harm was caused.  
 
b. Also note Florida’s Constitution Article I § 16b gives victim’s a right to be treated with fairness, dignity, and to do that timely and have an investigation which must take place immediately; because there has already been eighteen (18) long years of undue delay, of a fair trial, justice delayed is justice denied.  
 
To give a Summary judgment ruling, there must be evidence supported by affidavits and an evidentiary hearing, to show probable cause or that no genuine issues exist, but such an evidentiary hearing never took place, where, sworn- to- under-oath, testimony ever occurred.  
Conspiracy to use fraud and Trickery (perjury) was done by AMKF and that is against the law, just as the abandonment of a disabled Victim of crime is against the rules and laws. Without a proper court notice or proper court hearing it is improper to just abandon a disabled person, and does not conform to any validated legality or moral law. 
Furthermore, Florida Statute § 960.295, clearly recognizes that victims of the crime of battery and spouse abuse, can indeed, place a lawful lien upon convicted offender’s property, if he still owes money to victim. 
That the lien is allowed under the above law and is constitutional, and good for a period of twenty (20) years, and no one is allowed to remove the lien before paying the debt owed, not even a judge. See F.S. 960.295.  
Jane, is named as Walter’s victim, on record, exhibited on the court Order .  
Removing the lien has greatly harmed Jane, because she has not been in control of her own assets for 18 years, and has been forced to go into serious debt, because, the assets she worked for and their ability to earn her interest has been unjustly denied to her for over 18 years by a conspiracy of the officers of the court who worked together in collusion to obstruct her justice in retaliation against her for telling of the poor treatment victims of crime are given in the courts and how they are callously treated with such discriminatory animus, indifference, and are intentionally neglected it is a shame upon the United States Court System who holds its self out to the World as protecting the women, children and infirm victims of the USA.  
Clearly, the officers that caused these improprieties, and outrageous actions, must be sanctioned by the Florida Supreme Court, so this will not happen again to anyone, especially to disabled impaired victims of severe spouse abuse. See Florida Statute § 960.295.  
Victim also told Florida Court Administration, and the Inspector General, but was intentionally and callously ignored there also, and sent a form letter basically saying they don’t care if courts are committing perjury and fraud. 
Removing a lien that is lawful and allowable is contrary to law and improper and did nothing but cause the case to be further protracted, which clearly is seriously causing more harm to the elderly victim that was already disabled - by the husband.  
Given that the court records, without doubt or question, so clearly reveals that there is more than substantive evidence that the husband, Walter , in an easily detectable, clearly recognizable and certified in the documented exhibits, indeed harmed Jane, and hide all her assets in the accounts now in AMK’s name with the help of several attorneys. Done with the help of those officers of the court that mean to punish Jane for telling the local news “Florida Today News” about her mistreatment in the local courts.  
that is against the law but as we know the courts do not pay any attention to the laws anymore....... cause no one investigates it to see if the laws are being followed anyway...........  

Comment by GUEST on 2008-10-24 18:33:19
additional Comment by GUEST on 2008-09-05 17:27:29  
 
Edna Jane Favreau- Pro se my case number is Volusia County, Florida 2008 32650 CICI --- and you can see the docket sheet at the Volusia Clerks web page. there is to be a hearing on November 4, 2008 at 3 pm - after voting if you are near the Daytona Beach City Island Courthouse please come by and see how disabled victims of a crime gets treated in the courts in Daytona Beach. The Honorable Judge Graham will be presiding. The victim is asking for a jury trial to present her evidence that victims are allowed to file a lien on the criminal's property that is good for 20 years under Florida Statute s. 960.29 and that only the victim can remove it unless it is paid off.

Comment by GUEST on 2009-10-09 19:47:08
The judge knows that the Florida Bar member (Attorney Hughes) admitted he lied on documents to the court ( well actually he said he used incorrect information - (is that the same as a lie?) using incorrect information? 
But the new judge refuses to talk about that and refuses to allow a hearing where he can be given evidence --- and the pro se is told what she is asking for is out of the question ( a simple hearing before trial ) how could that be out of the question? does any one know? The judge's JA says the Motions are not read.... so how can this be a fair trial? Also the opposing attorney says:.....much of your pleadings I have ignored and will not file a response thereto. ....... and he says he will have nothing further to say to one another until we meet in court.  
does that sound like he is being civil? --- or cooperative ---- as in trying to settle things? Or does it sound like he and the judge are going to assault the poor pro se in court while they ignore the law? 
5TH MOTION FOR JUDGE TO RECUSE, AND FOR MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST ATTORNEY USING FRAUD AND TO REMOVE THE FRAUD ON COMPLAINT WITH CROSS CLAIM ASKING WHY JUDGE REFUSES TO HAVE HEARING, DUE TO HIS DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS insolvent DISABLE VICTIM? IN RE: FIFTH MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND FOR ANSWER TO THE RECONSIDERATION  
AND CLARIFICATION OF MOTION FOR JUDGE TO RECUSE DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST;  
And, reckless disregard for ADA laws the Victims Rights laws, and ‘Rule of Law’ due to 
Deliberate Indifference of Statutes and Rule of Law in Constitution’s 14th Amendment 
and DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DISABLED VICTIM OF A CRIME. Untrue words in Complaint  
in 2008 32650, has the same incorrect information as 2003-12173- case and both 
should be replaced with truthful Complaints, done in good faith with an ‘affidavit’ to the  
truth of said document according to the Rule of Law. Discrimination is against the Law. 
And, as grounds (besides being afraid the judge is punishing her (EJF) for whistle blowing 
to Local newspaper about how poorly victim’s of domestic violence are treated in court) EJF  
states the judge has a critical ‘conflict of interest’ and wants to cover up past wrongs: 
1. See Duncan v. Kasim, Inc. 5D01-1005 (Feb. 1, 2002) Unjust enrichment was error - In the absence of sufficient factual finding concerning the statutory factors it was impossible for the court to assess the reasonableness of lifting the allowable liens. The trial court did error in its application of the law when it failed to consider all the statutory factors.  
Lousiville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 55 S.Ct. 854, 79 L.Ed. 1593 (1935) when the Defendant clearly demonstrated her standing and property interest in the estate. See. Gostyla v Gostyla 2D 97-04387, fraud and hiding assets case--- IN THAT CASE THE SAME AS THIS CASE.  
see judge err: Duncan v. Kasim, Inc.; U S v Perry, 360 F.3d 519 (2004).  
 
2. In the related prior case Attorney Hughes made materially false and fraudulent statements to the prior court regarding the allowability of the lawful lien (under F.S. 960.295). He knew or had reason to know that his statements were false and / or fraudulent. He has an obligation to become compliant with the Victims Right laws and the ADA regulations, but instead of going by the laws and rules he made gross over- statements in his elaborate and systematic ‘bad faith’ plan of action promoting his scheme to fool the court--- for his own selfish interests in his unlawful selfish needs for more billable hours. See Diaz v Diaz  
3. EJF is requesting that the court enter a permanent injunction pursuant to Victim’s right laws, and ADA laws prohibiting Mr. Hughes and/or new attorney from: 
(a) Making arrangements in connection therewith of making any more false or fraudulent representations about the bad faith overstatements used here;  
(b) Engaging in activities subject to fraud penalty provision in the engaging in any other conduct that interferes with the administration and enforcement of Victims Rights laws under 960.29 and the American With Disabilities Act of 1990 and perjury laws in this case.  
(c) Order Mr. Hughes to turn over to the court the letters and faxes sent to him by Edna Jane concerning the guilt of Walter Favreau in the domestic violence cases due to his misstatements and errors in the Volusia case 2005-11945-PRDL, 
 
The following Brevard Cases: each can be looked up on the Court Clerk’s web site. 
92-00643 MMA Spouse abuse and battery by the husband/Defendant  
92-04609 MMA "  
92-05780 MMA "  
92-06584 MMA "  
92-11543 MMA "  
92-12820 MMA "  
(after seeing the above cases why would Mr. Hughes be misleading the court) -  
--- are attorneys given favors after they mislead the court by lying on documents? 
4. This (was clearly done) to cause irreparable harm to the impaired disabled victim. Committing ‘blatant perjury’ and ‘fraud upon the court’ is what caused the lien to be wrongly lifted and has caused the case to be ‘impossible to repair’ or to ‘rectify that harm’ to the former wife because the property was improperly sold before the probate case was finished completely. The records say the creditors have been paid but that is simply not true. That statement is fraudulent and this case must have an evidentiary hearing or jury trial with testimony under Oath. The attorney has now admitted he used false information that was not correct. 
The first judge obstructed EJF’s justice by unlawfully denying the jury a chance to see this court record / Document --- have someone look up F.S. s. 775.089 (8) 
 
Not allowing a jury hear about the above document or testimony from the victim ---  
was unlawful and harmed the disabled victim and the case. Judges are depended upon to keep the ground level and when they do not do this they are violating their duty of care. 
 
Because the judge was improperly biased and violated procedural and substantive rights of a disabled citizen by placing obstacles in the way and imposed his own agenda upon her case he caused irreparable harm. He should have allowed the diabetic woman to at least have time to rest and eat like her doctor Noticed the judge he should do-- due to her sugar problems. But the judge ignored the ADA laws. 
 
Because of the absence of a rational connection between the outcome and the circumstances, a decision made in bad faith cannot be reasonable. The absence of a rational basis for the decision implies that factors other than those relevant were considered. In that sense, a decision in bad faith is also arbitrary. These comments are not intended to put to rest the debate over the definition of bad faith. Rather, it is to point out that bad faith, which has its core in malice and ill will, at least touches, if not wholly embraces, the related concepts of unreasonableness, discrimination and arbitrariness.” 
 
Ignoring human rights of women is ‘out of place’ in 2009, and just because the woman maybe or is less powerful, and the other party refuses to properly deal with its legal obligations (taking the low road) while the Rule of Law clearly forbids the officers of the court to decline to properly deal with their legal obligations, as TFB rules state over and over again that the officers rules are intended to make sure the officers follow the rules. For the Benefit and enjoyment of the people.  
What the court officers are doing is rendering the court inaccessible,  
further illustrating  
 
See Exhibits of the jury notes (in judge Jackson’s case) that show the jury was confused and they did not get answers to their questions sent to the judge and the foreman said he had to go home for an appointment, (he told the judge that on day one and the judge assured him he would not have to be in court on Friday) but the judge ignored that he had told the man he would not have to be in court late on Friday (so the jury took the easy way out and said the husband was not guilty - but you must know that the judge denied the evidence to the jury about how the man was sentenced to a year in jail for harming EJF. This was done to interfere in the former wife’s justice because she had dared to tell a local newspaper about the unlawful things being done in court 43 USC 12202 and 12203. ( see F.S. § 775.89 (8) ) 
 
It was unlawful for the judge to deny F. S. Section 775.089 (8) which provides that a conviction of an offense giving rise to an order of restitution shall estop Walter, the defendant from denying the essential allegations of that offense in any subsequent civil proceeding. It was not lawful for the judge to interfere in the woman’s justice by denying this fact to the jury. And now it is clear why this judge does not want a jury trial, he knows the jury will be able to see the fraud on the court and rule for the pro se. 
 
This is solid proof there was a conspiracy to interfere in her justice, and this must have a real and meaningful investigation- for denying the jury the facts that were allowable (for them to have) shows some kind of an agreement that went on between the judge and the ‘opposing attorney’ --- in the Florida Courts [without the victim present several problems show up that clearly the victim was tricked existed] and that amounts to unlawful ex parte --- and ‘trickery’ was used on the impaired insolvent victim of a crime. 
Judges can only achieve a fair property division by making sure-- all assets and debts are listed and accounted for, and properly evaluated and actually would include the assets improved upon during marriage. See F.S. 61.075 
 
Clearly the officers are taking advantage of the disabled citizen. Ignoring The Americans With Disabilities ACT of 1990 is against all reason as well as the Rule of Law. The DOJ is responsible to enforce the laws, however lately the DOJ seems to be excessively reticulated unnecessarily due to fretted, frayed and eroded policies and perhaps misplaced loyalty to prejudicial political entities. 
 
There is reason to believe no one is reading the documents and all they want to do is see me break down in court and become unable to talk or think as the opposing attorney mistreats me. On the following page is one example of how I am treated by opposing attorney… See the Tenn. v Lane Supreme Court case. 
 
illustrating the Constitution gives reason for this case to have a jury trial under sec 5 of the 14th Amendment of the People’s Constitution.  
……………………  
16. For the courts own officers to take the position that the worst thing that TFB would do to them- is order the member to pay a fine if he gets caught breaking the rules or Laws (which would amount to far less than the ‘billable hours’ from the deliberate delays and ignoring the rules.) If or when the courts officers do this it is an abuse of power of the court’s officers and plain and simple --- is abusive to the Law.  
17. In exercising this type of misbehavior --- to waste the courts time while the offender is merely trying to punish the victim further- for daring to ask for justice officer is causing the victim to suffer until the court sees this misconduct --- in the delays until the offender must be sued in order to force the offender to pay money that is clearly owing, The law books say courts often punish litigants who use bad faith acts and who take the position that the worst thing that can happen after a trial is that they will have to pay the money owed anyway. But, in this case the victim wonders why nothing is being done about the ‘Victims Rights’ and ‘ADA laws’ that were violated.  
18. The Creditor argues that the Debtor knowingly lied to the court and as proof of this is the fact the Debtor has falsified her Complaint by saying the Creditor was paid, yet has never offered proof of that to the Creditor or to the Court, and her attorney (Gambert) helps her improperly ignore the facts of the case. And the judge ( Rouse ) seems to be helping them both now. 
19. The fact the attorney (Gambert) seems to be with-holding facts from his client (about the perjury and the fact it carries a fine and/or jail time or both and could bring problems for his client (AMKF)) and this fact should be in the forefront of the case, but it is most likely still being with held from the client.  
20. What the officers of the court have resorted to- shows the illegal process used was neither warranted nor authorized by law, when the judge illegally removed the lien on 910 Millard ct., property without authority to do so, and by assuming the attorney had told him the truth (but its proven the (attorney) had not told the truth) and proof is now in the records, but evidently “no one” is actually looking at the proof. THIS IS A DISCRIMINATION CASE --- OFFICERS OF THE COURT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PRO SE ( their poor Adversaries) TO THE LAWYERS –  
21. No where could I find that we have to have attorneys to ask for justice in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. Of course I need a good attorney but after having 5 different attorneys and they all made the case worse ---- Volusia County Florida Judges above the Law Attorneys above the law...... does anyone have a suggestion as to what poor insolvent victims of crime do when the judges refuse to do the right thing or go by the laws? cheated victim of a crime. 
22. I now know that there is a conspiracy against pro se victims that 
are disabled and impaired. 
23. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and the violation of the rights of disabled citizens occurring in the court here, as indicated by the following:  
(a) When court officers fail to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest, and  
(b) Using deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, or conning others for personal profit. (Motion to have hearing to show the Fraud has been ignored by the court officers for years now.)  
(c) And, reckless disregard for safety of others is clearly taking place.  
(d) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations  
(e) And TFB member’s lack of remorse, as indicated by being so very indifferent to making sure the laws are followed or using a fairness in having a hearing or rationalizing how they are breaking the laws and having hurt, mistreated, and have stolen from victim her rights and due process under the Laws.  
 
23. Un sworn statements by Attorney’s do not establish facts  
in the absence of stipulation. Trial judges cannot rely upon  
these un sworn statements as the basis for making factual  
determinations; and this court cannot so consider them on  
review of the record. If the advocate wishes to establish a fact, he must provide sworn testimony through witnesses  
other than himself or a stipulation to which his opponent  
agrees. 
 
24. Its trickery to use un-sworn statements and the judge to 
allow that is abuse of power or abuse of discretion…… 
 
A fair hearing: “one in which authority is fairly exercised; that is, consistently with fundamental principles of justice embraced within the conception of due process of law. Contemplated in a fair hearing is the right to present evidence, and to have findings supported by evidence. Because the court failed to let the victim present her evidence it was not a fair hearing, or a full hearing.” See Barbara Mee’s important affidavit. 
18 USC 35 - Sec. 35. Imparting or conveying false information  
(a) Whoever imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or chapter 97 or chapter 111 of this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 which shall be recoverable in a civil action brought in the name of the United States. (b) Whoever willfully and maliciously, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or chapter 97 or chapter 111 of this title - shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both…… 
 
In this case victim must have a judge that has full knowledge of the ‘ADA’ laws and is not bias towards pro se victims of domestic violence needing justice.  
 
 



<Previous   Next>

http://onthecommons.us, Powered by Mambo and Maintained by Terry Bartholomew