Florida First DCA Injunction and Former Husbands Brief

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT S TATE OF FLORIDA Case No. 1D12 - 1070 DANIEL F. WALSH, Appellant, vs.

DIANE L PAULL Appellee,

L.T. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2012 151 - DVXX

-

INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT DANIEL F. WALSH

Daniel F. Walsh 2656 Stem Drive South Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................

Issues Presented for Review ........................ 2 Statement of the Case and Facts ................... 3, 4 Summary of the Argument .......................... 5 Table of Citations

1

Argument..................................... 6,7 Conclusion...................................... 8 Certificate of Service

.............................

Certificate of Compliance with Font Requirement

.......

9

9

TABLE OF CITATIONS Case Page

Jones v Jackson,

67So.3d1203(Fla.2ndDCA2O11)

....... 2

Polanco v. Cordeiro, 35 FLW D2098 (Fla. 2nd DCA September 22, 2010)

........... 2

Ohm v. Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ................ 2 Furry v. Rickles, 68 so. 3d 389 (Fla. 1 St DCA 2011) ..............

5

Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So. 2d 902, (Fla. ยง2d DCA 2007) ............. 6

Statutes And Other Legal Authorities Page Florida Statute 784.046

....... 2, 7

Florida Statute 784.046 (1), (b)

....

2, 5

Florida Statute 784.046 (1), (a) ................. 7 Florida State Constitution, Article I: "Declaration Of Rights" .......... 2 Florida Appellate Judge, Craig C. Villanti 2 DCA ....... 7

Attachments: (A), (1), (2), (3), (4) p. 3, (B), p. 4, (C), (1), (2) p.6, (D), (1), (2) p.7

Page 1

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW: 1) Mr. Walsh's Due Process during Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence hearing, January 24, 2012 Paul! v Walsh, was neither established, nor acknowledged during the court proceedings. Under the Florida Constitution, Article I: "Declaration of

Rights" guarantees trial by jury, due process, freedom of the press and of religion. Mr. Walsh was overwhelmed with accusations by Ms Paull in which Mr. Walsh was not given the time to explain himself, defend himself, show evidence to the contrary, or to cross examine Ms. Paull (Ohm v. Wright, 963 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

2) Mr. Walsh appeals the Final Judgment Of Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence because there is no competent, substantial or established evidence that such

actions amounted to repeat violence, Florida Statute 784.046, (Jones v. Jackson 67 So. 3d 1203 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2011). Such comments in question on a public blog do not constitute repeat violence under Florida Statute 784.046 (1), (b). Repeat violence means two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the

petitioner or the petitioner's immediate family member (Polanco v. Cordeiro, 35 FLW D2098 (Fla. 2d DCA September 22, 2010).

Page 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS: This appeal arises out of a Final Judgment ruling by the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court

involving an injunction for protection against repeat violence. The court order, Paul! v.

Walsh 2012

151-DVXX was granted to Ms Paul! whereas, Mr. Walsh was court

ordered for a "psychiatric evaluation". Such an order shows clear intent to further threaten Mr. Walsh's civil liberties and does emotional self esteem damage to any person, by driving a defendant into deeper penury by the amounts of his court costs and

the cost of the test(s) themselves. There is clear evidence at the hearing on January 24, 2012 that Ms. Paul! has once again committed perjury by fabricating more stories of fear

involving (5 ) sheriff deputies to assure safety for herself and a Judge. ( T 10). The fact is, Mr. Walsh has never heard of Judge Norton, and has never been in a court of law suing Ms. Paull. Also, Ms. Paul! states that Mr. Walsh was issued an injunction during

his divorce in 2008 in which Mr. Walsh allegedly threatened Ms. Paul! during divorce

proceedings. (T 8). The fact is, Mr. Walsh has only spoken to Ms. Paull but one time in all their dealings, and that was a return phone call to Ms. Paul! in 2008. Ms. Paul! has now used this injunction from 2008 on three separate occasions. Mr. Walsh's divorce case, his brother's libel and slander case against Ms. Paul!, and this current case. Mr.

Walsh has material evidence that Ms. Paull has committed perjury on all accounts which have since been transcribed and sent to higher law enforcement.(see attachments

(A), ( 1), (2 ), (3 ), (4) Page 3

Ms. Paul! alleges a blog that Mr. Walsh created involving Judge Alexander.( T 11). The fact is, this is not Mr. Walsh's blog, and Mr. Walsh has never been associated with such a blog. It would not be in Mr. Walsh's best interest in criticizing any Judge in which Mr. Walsh is seeking his Final Judgment Divorce order of lump sum alimony that was never paid. It was Ms. Paull who interfered and obstructed this order signed by the very Honorable Judge whose name Ms. Paul! apparently uses quite often in defense of her own misdeeds. Just recently this case has been reopened. Ms. Paul! alleges the Bar told

Mr. Walsh not to keep writing. (T 10). The fact is, if Ms. Paull is referring to the Florida Bar, I don't believe they would say such a thing to someone that files a complaint. And if they do, I was not one of those people. In fact, it was my filing of a complaint to the Florida Bar in 2008 that ignited Ms. Paull's attacks on my person. (see

attachment (B )). Perhaps the Bar Ms. Paull is referring to has nothing to do with law?

Any other accusations within the transcripts, Mr. Walsh will leave it to Ms. Paul! to prove. The current status of this case has transpired into one of showing Ms. Paul! as the perpetrator of this injunction. All facts and material evidence in this case, and for the past (4) years shows Ms. Paull conspiring to defraud the court and has been sent to the local media, State Attorneys Office here in Jacksonville, and the F.B.I. in Scranton, Pennsylvania. It's not the comments on a blog that frightens Ms. Paul!, but the material evidence showing Ms. Paul! violated the law. Therefore, I respectfully ask the Appellate

Court to sthke down this illegitimate injunction and dismiss this order in toto.

Page 4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: Mr. Walsh requests that the said injunction be overturned based on information that is nothing more than retaliation, speculation, assumption, and even criminal acts by Ms. Paul!. Such accusations are within the entire context of transcripts from the January 24, 2012

hearing. Ms. Paul! alleges that Mr. Walsh had committed repeat violence through

comments made on a blog in reference to Ms. Paul!. However, Section 784.046 (1), (b) "repeat violence" is not indicative of the case against Mr. Walsh, whereas according to this statute "repeat violence" means two incidents of violence or stalking committed by the respondent, one of which must have been within 6 months of the filing of the petition, which are directed against the petitioner or the petitioner's immediate family member. This in fact is not the case. Mr. Walsh's intentions were NOT to impose threat or fear to Ms. Paull, as she so indicates. The fear Ms Paul! has is with the material evidence she saw on this blog pertaining to her perjury, posted material showing Ms. Paull did indeed violate the law, and Mr. Walsh's intentions of running for Florida State

Representative in 2012 to expose Ms. Paulls criminal actions. Had Mr. Walsh been given the right to his due process at the hearing on January

24, 2012

and presented such

evidence, this case would not exist (Furry v. Rickles, 68 So. 3d 389 (Fla. Pt DCA 2011).

Page 5

ARGUMENT: Mr. Walsh requests to the Higher Court that this injunction be overturned based on all information, and since repeat violence did not occur in accordance with Florida Statute 784.046. There have been a total of (9) comments within the (6) month period July 15, 2011 thru January 13, 2012 in which (5) were from Mr. Walsh, (1) from Anonymous,

and (3) by Ms Paull. Mr. Walsh also argues, how can someone fearing for their safety unequivocally by choice in posting ones own comments on the very blog(s) that they are

so threatened by (T 4). (see attachment ( C), (1), (2), (3). "If fear alone is the "reasonable cause" alleged to support the injunction, then not only must the danger feared be imminent but the rationale for the fear must be objectively reasonable as well.

Absent this objective reasonableness, a petitioner's belief is unsubstantiated speculation

that does not support the entry of an injunction", (Oettmeier v. Oettmeier, 960 So. 2d 902, (Fla. ยง2d DCA 2007). Such comments on a public blog are legally insufficient to support this injunction and should be dismissed.

Any other blog that Ms Paull claims are associated with Mr. Walsh have apparently been taken down by Ms Paull, and are nothing more than accusations made towards Mr. Walsh as stated in the transcripts. (T 8). This court must understand the entire scope of this case entails more than whether Florida Statutes, ones right to due process or even the infringement of ones First Amendment rights are being violated. This injunction for protection against repeat violence has shown that such laws are being used and abused to Page 6

I

benefit a petitioner in many ways. When a Petitioner, such as Ms. Paull feels privileged and justified in violating the injunction itself, commits perjury, conspires to defraud the court, and uses the legal system to enable such behavior, obviously such laws are not protecting those innocent people on the receiving end, such as Mr. Walsh. (see

attachment (D), (1), (2)) For the record, Mr. Walsh has not seen, talked, or communicated with Ms Paul! since Mr. Walsh's divorce in October 2008. Under Florida Statute Section 784.046 (l)(a), "Violence" means any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical. injury or death, by a person against any

other person. This threatening experience on Mr. Walsh's life will be rectified by his previous dealings with the Florida Legislature and the insight of Judge Villanti.

Florida Appellate Judge, Craig C. Villanti 2 DCA stated, "Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses

the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a "sword rather than a shield". While the lack of statutory sanctions may be a justifiable public policy, if abuses of the injunction process are to be curbed, then a petitioner who knowingly misuses or abuses "the system" should be ordered to pay any attorney fees incurred by the respondent when successfully challenging the petition" (www.2dca.org/.. .2010/September/September %2022.%2020 1 0/2D09-2998.pdf).

Page 7

CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the judgment on appeal must be reversed based on the facts and evidence that the lower court erred in issuing this Final Judgment Of Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence.

Daniel F. Walsh, Pro Se 2656 Stern Drive South Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 904-235-1764 walshie5O@aol corn

Page 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that copies of the foregoing has been furnished by certified mail, this day of May, 2012, to: / 4' Ms Diane L. Paul!

1510 2nd Street South Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32250

(The Appellants Brief has also been submitted to the Folio Weekly, 9456 Philips Hwy, Suite 11, Jacksonville, FL 32256-1351, The Beaches Leader, 1114 Beach Blvd., Jacksonville Beach, Florida 32230, Florida State Representative Eric Eisnaugle, 2212 Curry Ford Road, Orlando, FL 32806-2422, Florida State Representative Mike Weinstein, Suite 10, 155 Blanding Boulevard, Orange Park, FL 32073-2624, Florida State Senator John Thrasher, 9485 Regency Square Blvd., Suite 108 Jacksonville, FL 32225-8 145, Florida State Senator David Simmons, 25! Maitland Avenue, Suite 304, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701).

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FONT REQUIREMENT I certify that this brief was typed in 14-point Times New Roman font.

Daniel F. Walsh 2656 Stern Drive South Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 904-235-1)64

By '1

6jJ2t"bamei F Walsh

/ IN THE CIRCUiT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL C1CUIT, IN AND FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: DPJ)7466S Division: 57

IN RB THE MARRiAGE OF:

OLGA T. WALSH, and

DANIEL F. WALSH, Husband. / .

VERIFIED MOTION FOR INJUNITIVE REL.IE COMES NOW Wife,, OLGA T. WALSH, by and through

attc

DLAL.

PAULL SQ., and tbr her EmergencY Verified Motion for Injunctive Relief DANIEL F. WALSH, states as follows: 1.

Dissolution of marriage proceedings are cuzrentiv pending between the parties

before this Honorable Court.

2.

Husband is contaxLing Wife's employer, threatening to file suit against the St.

johnsCoun&y School District in 3.

an effort

to have Wife fired from her job.

Husband has published and otherwise made public written statements that contain

libelous and false siatemerits about Wife's counsel's profession1 licensure. Such statements

have been published by Husband shame, seth

. ,

rassisrent, and ridicule

th

the intent to defame Wife's counsel and subject her to

in her

",

pifeasiou.

Husband has made verbal threats against Wife and Wife's counsel. warning

them(

there would be "serious' consequences for "crossing" him and Wife and her counsel better "watch her back". Such statements were heazd by third parties at Wife's counsers office,

who)

becarnejustly fearful for counsel's safety. .

Husband has flied a grievance with the Plorida Bar, falsely inaligniug Wife's

counsel to hot professional licebaing entity. In that grievance Husband has stated he will take his battle to the "media" to continue to defame Wife's counsel and, further, plans In tIle "a class action

lawsuit'1 against Wifb's counsel.

--

/

J/(

15

/ .)

IHE .UD1C1AL CR(7, FOR DU\.4L, COTy FLORIDA

IN

200 CC7-

a;eNo, Di\Jjcn

Q

RNCIS a w,Lswj, PIain: if,

S.

DRNF L. PAULL, L)1èndant

CQMS NOW r)clendam, DfAJ'E arfied ?$4ticm Ir Iflj

vc

PAULL, in prop

cef ga

PIht1', FRAN(I

arnufl Wasti Ii.& pubflsned and

L

ntan lthelous arid farc

vore poceedin

perc,

cI for her

D

u

otherwise made puhIe wnfl

e'nients abott Deferdams prof

Sa1O;flents thaI

ora1

p

rn whch [)erdailt represenh the P1iirff'5 brother's soon4o-be forme'r

S:

2

b

Detndani and

nfan

ubec

PIain; f ae hen Published b let

ut sam

ernb

Piaiinicc with the intn( in

iem Mid pitbiic ridicule

in

her

proIcSsiofl.

1 bh1y

Such

an1cr

by ?aintiil

.nnduci her busncs 4.

PInijfii,

Ilicd th

'chet

Defenthuu, her pro aiiiciig in

c

utiouiidid awui. hch does wi cc'mpi with

ptadng Defedar

would he "ser;ous' eoncqu

ierseiy

uio rir cruractnr und profe ion&

bih in legal basis nd

Plantiii

1cc

u mde

rha

a fa1r and dthniaior

her

muv Fod law

light.

reLc against Dendan,

wam

her there

cs for "4fl' him nd huuor "watch her hark" Such ir

d.iiit'

pario

sifec, )

u i)eencam

othce, whi ht

utJv IarfJ fur

t/ /?/(Y

C7s

'1)

and hour teacer s aid wife.

2

unde

;

fo

isi-

3

that :;

4

1/

It then turned on

e.

IS CWfl name, ano under

whatever, Posted all of the statements

:ctd

nd

There is an Injunctifl that was enterei bci

5

Thd'e

l

ndet in the divorce case.

TF]E COUFT:

7

8

S.

PAULL:

nd thats tn St. Johns County?

Yes, ma.arn,

.I_i I

9

THE COURT:

Uinhuir,

10

MS. PAULL:

And it states that the Court

:

(

12

1

received credh!e CVIdence that the hbad has threatened the wife to ccn:act her epiover

and it

13 )

14

I

)

15

is the husband who has Cpparently engaged in

defamatory conduct against the wife s attorney and against the wife. SSld behavior includes calling

the wifes attcrneyss :fioe, ask

16

if the (

1/

/

attorney was gcin

thrcuah :tenopae and threatening

/

18 J

19

the wifets attortey by StCtIng she should watch her back and don't cross canny Walsh.

20

And the JUCQC issued that

njunctI0n in the

21

divorce case, but, of Course, that didn't Involve

22

rte.

23 24 25

/

And knowing that Mr. Walsh has a penchant for

posting numerous things on his blog5 and on the internet ano hiorg behifld that persona, I chose not

A c

ti

7

/

/7 N

Dati %Vaith:

Diane are you going through zneuopause..,eau I ask you that? Are vot going through menopause? You aced to just chill out lets vor1Z together and get this thing ever with but please do not do anything behind Dan WaISIfS back anymore there is always going to be consequences remember that Ok? and we will get ready for June 1 7th OK?

Diane Pndl:

Mr. \Vlsji Cvou dont refrain from liable state cots I vill ask .lud Alexander to instruct von accordingly

Dan Walsh'

Thats line

Diane Paull:

And you are not able to contact my client in any way shape or form regarding these proceedings and thus you are on notice van will not speak to ow cient Olga WSLII on those maRersot all or lbc sanctions for suppoit do i make myself clear

Dan \Vaish:

I tv my wife she is a good woman tfhe would just tci some counselins. that's all I "ant

Diane Paull:

Mr. Vs/alsb if you ever make any statements about me again that are tistse or libel there will he consequences

Dan Walsh:

Och you sooru: like me no

Diane Paull:

Well we will have the judge decide thar

Dan Walsh:

Thats

/)

that's ver therapeutic its working! So we wilt be talking with you Diane you take cave of yourself and have a good weekend ru go pray ibr you

line you take care of yourself

/

End

:1

fl,?

T)

CS)

Trw FLORIDA B 651 ETJILR%STRKVT TAU.uAssri, FWIUIM 32399-2300

JOHN F. HARK.ESS, JR.

(S50) 561.5600

wWWFtABMt.tC

Exrcirrltt DUIECTO*

May16, 2008 Mr. Daniel F. Walsh 42 Sailfish Drive Ponte Vedra Beach. FL 32082 Re:

Ms. Diane Lynn Paul!; RFA No, 08-19621

Dear Mr. Walsh:

Your inquiry concerning the conduct of the above member of the Bar has been analyzed and has

been determined to be a matter which warrants further investigation. The Supreme Court of Florida has adopleci rules that requIre the allegations be signed and under oath. In order to comply with this rule you must sign the oath below and return it to us by May 27, 2008 before we can proceed with an investigation.

Under penalty of peijury, I declare that the facts contained in the inquiry submitted to The Florida Bar concerning Ms. Paull are true, correct and complete.

7. Lit c idMr. Daniel F. Walsh

f/o /i Date

If you do not complete and return the oath form to us, we may be unable to proceed with the investigation. A copy of the rule imposing this obligation (3-7.3(c)) may be found on the Ba?s web site at www.floridabar.org.

Also, if you have documents that you feel support your allegations, please provide copies of them when you return the oath.

Thank you for your

cooperation.

Sincerely,

Heidi F. Brewer. Bar Counsel Attorney Consumer Assistance Program

date: 7112/09

k..1 .'242 I2çç

2

-1/1'7c:'Y

/\/ff

/4J t )'< 7ä

JpgiL1.2LgPP1PtrnI / DECEMBER 30, 2011 6:29 AM dplaw said.

Mr. Walsh is not telling the truth. I have not responded to his silly tirades because someone with his troubled mind wiB only enjoy it. But these statements are simply and ttally false.

I

JANUARY 8,2012 10:39AM Anonymous said...

There are some Bad Apples in the legal system... this one happens to be Rotten. .and will be brought up in mym ing mir..unless of course someone makes a good bid on èba3ifôr some rare documents..

JANUARY 9, 2012 7:23AM dplaw said...

Hiding behind a blog and an anonymous posting. Chicken and too afraid to face the truth JANUARY 9, 2012 9:06 AM Anonymous said.., Oh DPLAW! You should talk about being chicken and hiding.

JANUARY 9, 2012 9:16 PM dplaw said... \ Anonymous who?! Too embarassed to use your real name?!

t

/

JANUARY 12, 2012 6:21 AM Anonymous said...

The Dirty Lawyer's At It Again.. Wait Til The Media Gets A Hold Of This..

JANUARY 18, 2012 3:05AM Post a Comment LINKS TO THIS POST Create a Link Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) DONATE TO DANIEL WALSH (WALSH1E) FOR STATE REP.

Amount Currency BLOG ARCHIVE

'V 2008 (1) V July (1) V Jul 10(1) Welcome to my Blog...

ABOUT ME WALSHIE 4 STATE REP PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FLORIDA, UNITED STATES

/

1:,v

cv,40:

just found this blog. what's up?

I've relocated to FL from Va. Living in St. Pete -wondering to get back into real estate - there is just so much opportunity here especially in the Gulfport area. catch up with me on Facebook? thx!

Marsha Maines "how9

DECEMBER28, 20096:12 PM walshie4staterep said...

Marsha. .1 know I can be a visionary at times. .but why ask me about realestate, .when there are thousands of other morons out there. .1 will give you a little advice,., if you have cash. .start converting into canadian or australian dollars.. you will thank me this time next yr have a good 1

DECEMBER 29, 2009 9:40 AM walshie4staterep said...

htLLwww.cflcJnpfQ Since I'm here..check this out. .whon I get back to Fla. guess who's next. .3 months in Penna. . .and my homework is complete..

DECEMBER 29, 2009 9:52 AM Anonymous said...

I find it interesting how in the photo of you dunking, the hoop and net cast a shadow, however you do not. Awesome!

FEBRUARY 2, 2011 7:12 AM Anonymous said...

Oh and check out the poor alignment of the lines on the back court and the bottom of the fence between his feet. You preach truth and flaunt a lie in our face. Disgraceful. I've seen a better PhotoShops from third graders.

FEBRUARY 2, 2011 7:20 AM Anonymous said...

Jacksonville Attorney Diane Paull is now being investigated by the Florida Attorney General. Yes, this Dirty Lawyer was caught on tape lying in a court of law. Be careful. she has the tongue of a serpent. .and has swindled many families. .but soon her days as a Dirty Lawyer will be over. But we want more.. retribution to those who have suffered the pain from this Dirty Lawyer. .she doesn't know it but her time is short.. it's in the Book..

JULY 15, 2011 4:53 PM Anonymous said...

The system must be cleansed of the corrupt and bad elements in society to move forward. .here's a start..

DECEMBER 17,2011 4:59AM Anonymous said...

PERJURY IS A CRIME... .EVEN 4 A DIRTY LAWYER....

DECEMBER 22, 2011 5:35 AM Anonymous said...

Jacksonville Attorney Diane L Paull

i2

j3

rav& X

Repiy

Nash to washie8, waishie5O show detats 4/15/11 Submitted on 2011/04/15 at 2.48 am This posting is written by a very small little man who was abusive.

Diane Paull 95comcas,netthreatening and failed to support his family. These statements are false, sly lies from a Silly ttle man with a silly little mind, probably Z6. 1222433 suggests a little everything, GO away. Waishie, no one cares about you Reply Reply to afi Forward

CD)) Honorable Judge Karen Cole,

Paull (petitioner) v Walsh (respondent)

CaseNo: 16-2012- 151-DVXX I appreciate your letter of response on my motion to modify "liii unction For Protection For Repeat

Violence", filed February 23, 2012. For the record, this Florida Supreme Court approved Family Law Form 12.980(j), Motion For Modification Of 1rjuneti.on For Protection Against (Repeat Violence) to "stay" the psychiatric evaluation was given to inc "by the staff" at the Domestic Violence Department, by the attending and notarized by the staff in the department (attachment B). In fact, it was the staff at

the department that suggested to use the word 'suspead" in the motion. I apologize for being misdirected if that turns out to be the case. Also for the record, the most recent order from the court,

March 30, 2012, is "not" for Final Judgment Of Injunction For Protection Against "Domestic Violence" as so stated in your court?s issued document p. 2, last paragraph, and my February 23, 2012 filing was never intended as Domestic Violence since the issue at hand has nothing to do with Domestic Violence. This is an Injunction For Protection Against "Repeat Violence" taken from a legitimate "public blog" off the internet (attachment A). I also tiled on March 9, 2012 another motion to modify injunction for protection against "repeat violence", case no. 2012-151-DVXX ascertaining (petitioner),

Diane Paul! contacted myself via three emaiis during thethen running enforcement of this injunction, which strictly states on section 3, page 2 of Injunction and Terms of, orders: (attachment C)

"Any party violating this injunction shall be subject to civil or indirect criminal contempt

proceedings, including the imposition of a fine or imprisonment, and also may be charged with a crime punishable by a tine, jail, or both, as provided by Florida Statutes," .1 do realize the court system is under some pressure, not unlike every and any other private or public entity at this time. I also know that the State oF Florida receives Federal funding involving Injunctions,

Child Support, Alimony and likewise programs that are based on the increase or decrease of such proceedings. .1 am very familiar with VAWA, Violence Against Women Act, and what their requirements are for getting Federal Funding. I know this because I am involved with several

organizations throughout Florida, such as FAR, Florida Alimony Reform in the reforming laws such as Florida Statute 61.08 and also through classes I have taken at the University of West Florida, and UNF. Obviously, lrjunction For Protection laws or those pertaining to, have also been used and abused,

as in

my case, the fact which is pointedly obvious; and I believe changes will be made to them as we have done with the Florida Alimony laws.

As the court should know by now, the petitionei Diane Paull has not only violated her own injunction, hut has exposed what Ive been trying to do for years, that she has conspired to commit fraud, and no for the third time in the last 3 and a half years assuredly perjured herself under oath in a court of law.

(attachment D, E). So if anything positive has transpired from this "Injunction For Protection Against Repeat Violence", it was done by Diane Pauli herself in showing the Judicial System and the Public It serves that laws are being violated and broken by those within the legal system. This injunction has not only affected me emotionally and financially, but has affected my studies as a college Senior at the University of West Florida in which I was to graduate this Spring. Also, since Attorney Paull was instrumental in preventing and obstructing me from receiving my lump sum alimony, the continuation of these activities is embodied in the cooked up injunction and more seriously in the order for Psychiatric Evaluation attached to it, being the most recent. Consequentially, I have reopened Final

Judgment, walsh v walsh, ease no, DR07-1665 after 2 1/2 years fearing Ms. Paull would once again interfere, obstruct, and conspire to defraud the court.

0

C) This and that being said, my Appeal to the higher court is not only a remedy, but a necessity to deal with this injunction and the insulting order bond to it. I haveevery confidence and hope the higher court will look at it the same way I have, and with bewilderment. I have shown enough material evidence regarding the party of Diane Paull that may as well lead to her disbarment as a licensed attorney in the state of Florida. and suggests that a Grand Jury investigation of such behavior will decipher the structure and type of all this in the course of my Appellant action.

Since I have a detached retina that needs immediate attention, and must focus on completing school at this point I can no longer abide by distractions and attacks and threats that are disruptive to my life and peace of mind. That is to say I am confident and convinced my appeal will in some measure rectify the injustice that has been committed on me, and those who have been complicit in that, that is they who have caused it. And frowned upon by the higher court; an embarrassment to the Judicial System as a whole, Honorable Judge Cole I think we both know having the evidence in hand (see attachments) that this injunction with the psych evaluation can be construed - to quote Judge Villanti Florida 2nd DCA -- as "being used as a sword instead of a shieldt' on the part of the petitioner

( I

[ I

After analyzing the current situation, both Ms. Pauli and myself, have been adversely affected in what has materialized over the past several years. It is my understanding in the court order on March 30, 2012 that there is no need for a hearing on the psychiatric evaluation on April 23, 2012 ii I were to drop the appeal. Simply put, drop, cancel, nullify this injunction for protection against repeat violence and psych evaluation. No blogging, no contact, no interferences, no association whatsoever involving Diane Paull (petitioner) and Daniel F. Walsh from then on, whereby: (respondent and appellant) I Daniel F. Walsh will drop the appeal, and preclude any and all material evidence against Diane Paull. In any case, a decision must be made immediately.

Daniel F. Walsh 2656 Stern Dr. S. Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 Tel.: (904) 235-1764

Respectfully.,

Daniel F. Walsh

1. certify that a copy of this document and attachments (A, B, C, D, and E) were mailed by certified mail to the parties below: I)iane Paull, 1510 2rId St., S., Jacksonville Beach, Fl. 32250, Judge Karen Cole, Duval County Courthouse, Jacksonville, Fl, 32202, Office of State Attorney, 4th Judicial Circuit, Duval County Courthouse, Jacksonville. Fl. 32202-2982, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, lO. Box 1104, Scranton, PA 18501 Att: Special Agent Joe Noone

/) (

\ I

/