IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO : DR07- 1665 DIVISION : 57 IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF OLGA T, WALSH ( Former Wife ), and Daniel F. Walsh ( Former Husband ) _______________________________/ NOTICE OF FORMER HUSBAND'S MONETARY DAMAGES DEEMED APPROPRIATE Former Husband just recently received his mail, and apologizes to the court for this delay in his response to the most recent court order. Former Husband feels this would be the appropriate monetary damages pertaining to the costs associated in not receiving the $25,000.00 non modifiable lump sum alimony that was to be payable (6) weeks after the Final Judgment was signed and ordered on October 29, 2008 by the Honorable Judge Alexander. The courts reference to case law in determining “equitable distribution” appear to be accurate because of the specificity in each case, but appears to be irrelevant in this case for the lack of specificity. Also, the Former Husband does not see any case law mentioned in determining whether this is “support alimony”. The court should be reminded that the Former Husband never received any part of "equitable distribution" according to the Final Judgment, which coincidentally was signed four (4) years this month. In the Judge's most recent order the court uses the term "typically" which like “usually” are words that show neither exclusivity, nor fact in determining this alimony. Typically is based solely on your Honor's “belief” that the tax treatment and consequences are “interpreted” as equitable distribution and not “support alimony”. Florida Statute 61.08, (2), (h) -The tax treatment and consequences to both parties of “any alimony “ award, including the designation of all or a portion of the payment as a nontaxable, nondeductible payment. (Former Husband ask the court does this refer to “Typically”)? (1)
Non modifiable lump alimony is not your typical alimony, this is correct. It is a very special type of alimony that guarantees ones security in receiving such a payment based on ones needs at the time. In this case the unemployed Former Husband was in need, and continues to be in need of the money owed. Why else would Former Wife and her attorney agree to this, unless of course they knowingly conspired never to pay the Former Husband. This is why Florida State Certified Mediator Ned Price required that the first lump sum payment of $ 5,000.00 was to be paid to Former Husband in six (6) weeks after the Final Judgment was signed. Former Husband is aware that non modifiable lump sum alimony is the most secure type of “support alimony” as structured in this case, and according to those of us who are directly involved in reforming the alimony laws here in Florida. Obviously General Magistrate Mensh is also aware of this., and has the experience and credentials in determining this as “support alimony”. Former Husband would like to ask your Honor if he has any idea where the figure of $ 25,000.00 comes from ? Of course not. Your Honor was not at the mediator's office negotiating the settlement agreement. As for the Former Wife selling the “Family Home” as payment to the Former Husband's lump sum alimony, there is no such documentation in the Final Judgment. Our home was not even being marketed at this time. Former Husband was totally aware that the housing market was headed lower, and would never negotiate a settlement based on a “belief “ that someone else will do the right thing, as you can see in my newspaper articles about real estate, the economy, and the upcoming pensions problems in 2008 (attachment ( A ), 1, 2, 3 ). Also, it is obvious Former Wife's pro bono attorney, Diane L. Paull feels that this was “support alimony” in her negotiated attempt several months ago to have Former Wife make alimony payments of $100.00 per month. (attachment ( B ). The Former Husband has been an active participant in Florida Alimony Reform Inc. (FAR) in reforming the alimony laws (61.08) in Florida for the past four years, and obviously we need more reforming. The Former Husband would suggest that the court watch the Former Husband's interview involving alimony which was aired in 2010, Dan Rather Reports, World News Tonight ( http://blog.hd.net/post/466130670/manimony ). (2)
In any case, the Former Husband will accept the Judges decision on finding the Former Wife not found in contempt and the Judges assumption that this non modifiable lump sum alimony was formulated as "equitable distribution", and not “support alimony” ( if ) all the terms are included and accepted by the court in receiving Monetary Damages. Keep in mind, the $25,000.00 that the court suggests to attach as a lien on the Former Husbands home is nothing more than a “perception” on the courts part that the Former Husband will eventually receive what is owed in the future. If history is any indication in these court proceedings, this is nothing more than an “illusion” in ones mind.
LUMP SUM ALIMONY1) Former Husband would ask the court to order the $25,000.00 lump sum alimony as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order , or (QDRO) for security purposes, and as a remedy of receiving his fair share of "equitable distribution, Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 456 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), The Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers submits this Brief, as amicus curiae, in support of the position that a trial judge should treat a spouse's entitlement to retirement benefits as a marital assets and therefore subject to equitable distribution, applying the same criteria for such distribution as is applied to all other marital assets. Former Wife's pension was mediated and included in the $25, 000.00 non modifiable lump sum alimony ( see attachment ( C ). This QDRO, as part of the "equitable distribution" will also protect the Former Husband if Former Wife decides to vacate the home in case of foreclosure proceedings, and the Former Husband will then get nothing. Former Husband does have evidence that Former Wife has been behind on her mortgage payments. The home is no longer an asset; thus there is "no security" if one cannot sell the house as suggested in the Judges most recent order. At the present time we may refer to the home as a "toxic asset". Former Husband has offered (2) options below towards monetary damages. Either option would be appropriate in this matter. (3)
MONETARY DAMAGES OPTION 1: Student loans =$ 45,000.00 - this has prolonged Former Husband from graduating as a Senior from the University of West Florida, and has negatively affected his studies; thus costing Former Husband more school loans in which to live off of ( see attachment ( D ), 1, 2, 3 ). Hospital Bills = $ 44,000.00 - Former Husband's (2 ) night stay at Shands Hospital, plus having a (3 1/2) hour operation performed on his left eye. Former Husband cannot make any payments since he does not have any extra funds available ( see attachment ( E ). Fraud = (Option 2), ( see attachment ( F ), 1, 2, ). Perjury = (Option 2), ( see attachment ( G ), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ). Former Husband's Dog = Priceless - Former Husband has not been able to see his dog in over (3 ) years. Former Husband's Living Conditions = $2,800.00 - Former Husband was forced to live in a dwelling after vacating his home according to the Final Judgment that was neither healthy, nor livable ( see attachment ( H ). Cost of rectifying blind left eye = $5,000.00 - $10,000.00 - Former Husband is and was unable to receive proper medical attention for his detached retina. Former Husband lacks the financial resources for an evaluation, and is currently blind in the left eye. Shands quoted husband for a prosthetic eye if need be ( I was told by my surgeon, Dr. Lawrence Levine, Shands Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida ). Cost of renting = $ 6,800.00 - Former Husband was unable to purchase his own home. Former Husband had multiple properties over the past several decades, and $25,000.00 in non modifiable lump sum alimony would have been plenty for Former Husband to attain his own personal shelter. Because of not receiving any of the court ordered non modifiable lump sum alimony, Former Husband was forced into penury, and is now on food stamps ( see attachment ( I ).
(4)
OPTION (2) : The Former Wife's Pro Bono Attorney Diane L. Paull will sign a sworn affidavit in reference to WALSH v WALSH, CASE NO. - DR07-1665. In doing so, Former Husband will relinquish all claims to his $25,000.00 non modifiable lump sum alimony including all monetary damages associated herein or thereafter.
I, Diane L. Paull under sworn testimony has intentionally and irrefutably committed perjury and fraud in the case of WALSH V WALSH, CASE NO., DR07-1665. My behavior as a Florida court official in this particular case is not only embarrassing, but also humiliating to those in the legal profession who abide and uphold the ethics and standards required under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. By signing the sworn affidavit, I, Diane L. Paull will no longer practice law in the State of Florida. In return, by signing this sworn affidavit Former Husband, Daniel F. Walsh will not pursue any criminal charges against me, nor pursue any type of legal action against my person. I am aware and acknowledge that the local media has evidence of my bad behavior, as does F.B.I., Special Agent Joe Noone in Scranton, Pennsylvania whom I called and spoke with to verify this. This statement of the phone call to the Special Agent was also witnessed and heard by the local media including The Folio Weekly who attended another case involving myself and Former Husband, Daniel F. Walsh, in PAULL v WALSH 16-2012-DR-0151-DVXX, Duval County, Florida, pertaining to Former Husbands political blog. I, Diane L. Paull also refused to cooperate in doing a feature story for a local newspaper involving my dealings with Former Husband, Daniel F. Walsh over the past ( 4 ) years . Furthermore, I realize that the Former Husband has material evidence to acknowledge my guilt, and his extensive research in the “Kids For Cash� ordeal in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania only solidifies my guilt ( see attachment ( J ). ( Former Husband will have a legal document written to this affect if this option is chosen).
(5)