Family Law Reform

Page 1

WHY FAMILY LAW NEEDS TO BE REFORMED AND WHY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURTY WAS NOTIFIED e=12884962/8737598 Nationwide movies of interest pertaining to the pitfalls of Family Law : AND WHY ALIMONY NEEDS TO BE SHORT, SIMPLE AND TO THE POINT : 2008 Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) Walsh v Walsh DR07-1665 (Alimony page 2) Former Husband files a motion for contempt in alimony owed. Lo and behold the Former Wife’s attorney shows up to represent the ex-spouse pro bono. This lawyer filed a notice of appearance on the day of the hearing ( see below ). Why would this lawyer represent the Former Wife for free when this same attorney knowingly has an active injunction against the Former Husband ? Former Husband’s alimony contempt hearing transcript that was recorded and documented implying that the Former Wife’s attorney is a criminal and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( F.B.I. ) was notified of this : Florida General Magistrate Denise Mensh appointed by Judge Alexander finds Former Wife in contempt of alimony owed to Former Husband in Walsh v Walsh DR07-1665. (incidentally, Ms. Mensh was nearly appointed a Judge by former Florida Governor Charlie Crist ) :

Florida Judge Alexander pulls a quick one and strikes the recommendations of Magistrate Mensh in walsh v walsh DR07-1665 (alimony) 2012. Keep in mind the Former Husband motioned to recuse Judge Alexander 4 years earlier during his divorce. The Judge refused to step down even though there was an obvious conflict of interest whereas the Judges wife and Former Wife have the same employer. Here is a 2014 Florida First District Court of Appeal Case and their interpretation of Alimony in Taylor v Lutz : FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT COURT of APPEALS; Alimony Decision 2014 in Taylor v Lutz, 1D13-3659 ; Now ( ) “A marital settlement agreement is a contract subject to interpretation like any other contract. Delissio v. Delissio, 821 So. 2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). . . . Where an agreement’s terms are unambiguous, a court must treat the written instrument as evidence of the agreement's meaning and the parties’ intention. Id. A court must not isolate a single term or group of words and read that part in isolation. Id. Rather, the goal is to arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the text of the entire agreement in order to accomplish the agreement's stated meaning and purpose. Avellone v. Avellone, 951 So. 2d 80, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Third and finally, as the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1953), “it is not what [the alimony] is called but what it is that fixes its legal status. It is the substance and not the form which is controlling.” Id. at 288. Here’s the problem: Judicial discretion has become either a guessing game or a court that is predicated on “judicial misconduct” as in my case. Two Appellate Courts in the same state having similar case substance with two different outcomes; In Walsh v Walsh-DR07-1665, Judge Alexander’s order to strike the recommendation of the General Magistrate contradicts what the Florida First DCA determines as Alimony in the above statement. In his order the Honorable Judge deciphers Florida Statute 61.08 -2, (h) by using the term “TYPICALLY”. Does Florida Statute 61.08-2, (h) use “Typically” within this subsection below? Also, in Walsh v Walsh the first Lump Sum payment of $ 5,000.00 was to be paid by Former Wife six (6) weeks after the Final Judgment was signed and ordered by Judge Alexander. This did not happen, and one must ask why? Obviously the Former Wife’s attorney Diane Paull had conspired to defraud the Former Husband

of receiving any alimony right from the start as agreed to in mediation. It will be shown that the Former Husbands first installment of $5000.00 Lump Sum Alimony payment instead was diverted to the Former Wife’s Attorney, and the Racketeering Enterprise. Also, in striking the General Magistrates Recommendation Order, Judge Alexander states the house is to be sold in order for the Former Husband to receive his Alimony. As you read through the MSA (Walsh v Walsh) there is no mention whatsoever of the primary residence being sold. In fact the house wasn’t even listed for sale. Keep in mind the Former Husband was unemployed, a full time college student, and expected the first payment of lump sum alimony (6) weeks after the order was signed to find suitable housing for himself and his dog. Furthermore, why didn’t the Magistrate bring this house for sale scheme into her decision in finding the former wife in contempt ( 3 ) months earlier? Obviously the General Magistrate read the MSA in Walsh v Walsh, and is it possible Judge Alexander had read the wrong MSA? Or maybe it’s because the Former Husband filed a complaint to the Florida Bar against the Former Wife’s attorney for misconduct? Unfortunately this investigation was short lived because fellow member of the Florida Bar, Judge Alexander, intervened on behalf of this unscrupulous lawyer and was able to get her off the hook. Perhaps the Honorable Judge was just being vindictive towards the Former Husband in his attempt in recusing the Honorable Judge during divorce proceedings? Or just maybe, Judge Alexander is protecting the Former Wife because she happens to work for the same employer as the Judge’s wife? Personally I believe it’s a combination of all. This is a major defect within Family Law which allows a Judge the flexibility to make a decision based on ones prejudice, bias, and self serving proceedings. My case demonstrates the abuses of such discretion, and there needs to be specific guidelines for the court to follow in order to prevent any shenanigans from occurring. Florida Statute 61.08 – Alimony (2) - In determining whether to award alimony or maintenance, the court shall first make a specific factual determination as to whether either party has an actual need for alimony or maintenance and whether either party has the ability to pay alimony or maintenance. If the court finds that a party has a need for alimony or maintenance and that the other party has the ability to pay alimony or maintenance, then in determining the proper type and amount of alimony or maintenance under subsections (5)-(8), the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: (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. ( Now read the last 2 sentences of Judge Alexander’s order in striking the Magistrate's Recommendation in ALIMONY OWED in Walsh v Walsh DR07-1665 pertaining to this subsection ). Abuse of Judicial Discretion is obvious. The Former Husband is forced to file an appeal to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal and submits material evidence of fraud, perjury, and a conspiracy to defraud the court within the Former Husbands (appellant) initial brief. The Former Husband files a motion to expedite to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal pertaining to alimony owed and the possibility of rectifying the Former Husbands traumatic eye injury which is now blind. Also attached to this motion is additional material evidence of fraud involving Former Wife’s lawyer. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal ignores the Former Husbands exhibits showing fraud, perjury, and a conspiracy to defraud the court and affirms Judge Alexander’s order that the Former Wife “was not in contempt” of alimony owed without giving an explanation which is “typical” in an appeal. Former Husband motions The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal For A Written Opinion in reference to Alimony owed in order to expose the Racketeering Enterprise. The Former Wife receives the home, keeps her pension, keeps her accumulated vacation time, keeps her salary, keeps her bonuses, and even gets to keep the former husbands best buddy duke his dog. In Florida, equal distribution is presumed to be a 50/50 split of assets and debts as the starting point for division,

and yet the only thing the Former Husband received from this bogus divorce is : The Former Husband will show how injunctions are used and abused in making money off of the Federal Government. The Former Husband will also show how intimidating and destructive the legal system can be and how far one must go to expose the Racketeers : In January of 2012 the Former Husband is hit with a bogus injunction by Former Wife’s attorney from his political blog. Not only did the Judge call this a domestic violence injunction, the morons sent the Former Husband someone else’s court order. Once again we have more fraud, perjury and a bogus injunction in preventing the Former Husband from receiving his lump sum alimony as agreed to in the Final Judgment of Walsh v Walsh DR07- 1665. The Former Husband appeals the injunction from his political blog to the Florida First District Court of Appeal and files his initial brief with exhibits of material evidence of fraud, perjury, and why this injunction was orchestrated and issued by the Racketeering Enterprise : The Former Husband files a motion for a written opinion to the Florida First District Court of Appeal pertaining to a bogus injunction taken from a political blog. This is how the racketeers generate revenue for the Racketeering Enterprise:

PERMANENT ALIMONY: Even though I am owed alimony, I have been fighting to eliminate Permanent Alimony since 2008 as you can see below. This form of alimony is not only financially and emotionally destructive to those that are paying, but also to those that are receiving. Here’s why; First and foremost it keeps both divorced parties entangled within the legal web of conflict and confusion. The cost of going back and forth to court eventually takes its toll on both parties especially if there are children involved. Those that are paying Permanent Alimony are forced to pay in time, energy, and money to someone who is no longer a partner in the family unit. Those receiving Permanent Alimony have now become financially conditioned, and a behavior of dependency is created much like those receiving government assistance. Obviously there are those individuals who are in need of government help, and there are those former spouses who may need long term alimony burdened with a disability. Those of us who have been entrapped by the legal system understand the mechanics and main function of why the Family Law Section exists, and that’s to make money. Permanent Alimony is just one of several areas of Family Law that generates revenue for everyone involved except the broken family that ultimately become victims of an abusive Legal System. The solution to end this never ending battle of chaos is simple. Five years is plenty of time for someone to receive alimony for the transition of an individual to become self sufficient. I was married for 25 years, and I did not ask for nor did I want my marriage to end, and yet I was forced into divorce. I could of requested Permanent Alimony but elected to receive lump sum alimony in order to make the transition with a new life as smooth as possible. Six years later I am still waiting for my lump sum alimony. One must ask, what is the problem? The problem is evident that whatever labels of alimony someone is to receive, once you are entrapped by the legal system you will endure years of psychological, emotional, and economic abuse in order to sustain the livelihoods of those who were never part of the family unit in the first place. INJUNCTIONS: This has got to be one of the most abused areas of Family Law. In Walsh v Walsh DR07- 1665, the Former Wife’s attorney realized the Former Husband posted material evidence on his political blog showing that Attorney Diane Paull did indeed violate the law. This lawyer then scurried for support from the other “actors” working within the Racketeering Enterprise by falsifying the an injunction for protection against repeat violence on the Former Husband while at the same time having a Judge order a psychiatric evaluation taken from a political blog. Also, why is it ok for the Petitioner of an Injunction to contact the Respondent when the Injunction specifically states such contact is prohibited by law? Unless of course one is privileged (see below). Obviously violence does occur in domestic disputes since the Former Husband had first hand experience with such behavior from his Former Wife (see below). In the Former Husband’s case involving Attorney Paull, this was NOT a Domestic Violence Injunction even though the Judge was calling it such. After alerting the Court this was not a

Domestic Violence Injunction, but an injunction taken from Former Husbands political blog, the Court continued to reference this as a Domestic Violence Injunction. The Former Husband even received someone else’s court order in the mail. The Former Husband not only understood he was dealing with a broken legal system, but a system that has become dangerous to ones livelihood. After several months throughout this ordeal, the Judge realized that I, the Former Husband was a former businessman from the beach, and had several contacts within the local media. The Honorable Judge Karen Cole then asked the Former Husband to resend his Appeal, and his upcoming “show of cause hearing” would be canceled. Such an action by the court could make one sense an aroma of bribery was in the air ? The Former Husband knew he could not do this in order to show that Family Law needs reforming and the Racketeers working within the Legal System had to be exposed. PARENTAL ALIENATION AND THE COURT SYSTEM : Research shows that most children long for a good relationship with both parents and want to be raised by both. Obviously the worst part of divorce is that children do not get to spend enough time with their parents. The parent they spend the most time with during the week usually has less time for the children after the divorce because of the responsibilities of earning a living and running a household without the other parent’s assistance. Evidence also shows that children are unsatisfied with the type of relationship they can have with a parent seen mainly on weekends. There is enough evidence that proves children are more aware of their collective co-existence in society by keeping the original family unit in tact. Unfortunately this is not the case. Once the legal system intervenes and takes control of the now fractured Family Unit the situation for the child for the most part worsens. This can be contributed to the ideology that Family Law utilizes an adversarial approach that initiates unnecessary conflict. This strategic manipulation is exploited by many people associated with the legal system in order to make money. After all it's always about the money. As for the children of divorced parents they are cast into an environment of emotional turmoil exasperated by strangers who for the most part lack the knowledge and compassion in understanding the traditions that have been firmly established within that particular Family Unit. One must ask why so much confusion ? Parental Alienation is an indirect, and at times a direct cause from those outside forces whose influence may damage the relationship between children and parents. Much like Permanent Alimony, Falsified Injunctions, and any other aspect of Family Law these outside influences tend to capitalize on ones vulnerability. In realty Family Law has become a “business” which is structured around those outsiders who have been

conditioned into believing that they know what's best for the child. When one really understands the true meaning of “NO FAULT DIVORCE” you begin to realize that it is only a belief system that contradicts the very existence of why it was created in the first place. Great read and written by good friend Nick Tufaro : Behind the numbers : Children are being used as pawns : Statistics of interest : article=1709&context=law_faculty_scholarship





The 1st Solution; Notify the Feds ! ‌ 2nd Solution; The media ! ‌ 3rd Solution; The way of our Ancestors ! e=12884962/8737598 Within 2 Months Of Notifying The Feds Another Racketeering Enterprise Is Exposed Involving Attorney Kelly Mathis A Former Jacksonville Bar President : My Alimony Interview On Dan Rather World News Tonight : My 2008 Candidacy For Florida State Representative Blog : My Involvment In Reforming Family Law :

People Of Action Helping The Cause Florida Attorney Mark Adams : Marsha Maines to VA State Reps : Pennsylvania Attorney Andy Ostrowski : Diane Gochin: Andy and Diane speaking at Judicial Reform rally in Lackawanna County, PA (Kids For Cash and Cash For Kids) v=5ecKHGIO43I&feature=player_embedded Teri C. Stoddard : Michelle Christensen : fref=ts Terance Healy : Debbie Leff : Nick Tufaro : Lazaro Ecenarro : Bruce levine : Sandy Fonzo : Independent Gazette : Integrity Florida : Frank Denton (Editor) : The Florida Times Union Newspaper : Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, Florida (CTDC) :

Curtis Lee (A passion for Justice, and a real Patriot; a retired N.Y. Attorney takes on the Police Pension Fund in Jacksonville, Florida) :