Ugly Judge

Edna Jane Favreau


Edna Jane Favreau

Victim of attempted murder denied civil right to address the court

"Melbourne FL Brevard County members of The Florida Bar court officers and
officials Clerk of the court in the same place CROSLEY GREEN is also
being denied justice If I call for a hearing I am ignored and they
hang up the phone.... And say they are not allowed to talk to me."
EDNA JANE FAVREAU

NEWS STORIES
EDNA JANE FAVREAU AND CHARLIE CRIST The Victim and the Impotent Lawyer
I was in the wrong court by Edna Jane Favreau
I WAS IN THE WRONG COURT By Edna Jane Favreau

DOCUMENTS:
District Court of Appeal FL Fifth District Edna Jane FAVREAU, Appellant, v. Anna May FAVREAU, Appellee
Middle District of Florida, flmd-6:2007-cv-00723
2020/07/2007-05-Florida-CourtCase-No-607-cv-723-Orl-22DAB-1.pdf

FRAUD ON THE COURT BUT WHO WILL LISTEN?
BY DAVID ARTHUR WALTERS

The Ordeal of Edna Jane Favreau in the hands of The Florida Judiciary

Historians have said that the advance of civilizations can be measured by the treatment of their weakest members, the largest category being the female or “weaker” sex, and then of course poor, disabled, juvenile, and elderly persons, that they receive the same justice as the stronger members of society.

Each and every one of us supposedly has a natural sense of justice whether it is realized in action or not. Socrates repeated the myth that Zeus destroyed all those unable to make a distinction between right and wrong, therefore godly societies should follow suit and execute or exile all those persons without a sense of justice.

Now we believe that the United States, the world’s sole superpower, is the leader of the Western Civilization, and there we find many laws enacted to protect women, children, and the disabled, to ensure that they are not wronged. Whether those laws are adequately applied or not is another story.

Alas for our advanced civilization, that Jane’s story will sound all too familiar to far too many women in our advanced civilization. Jane is an elderly grandmother who was disabled by her murderous husband and then impoverished by the Florida judiciary. She has pled for justice in Florida courts for nearly fifteen years, but her pleas fell on deaf ears. How could that be? Her voice has been a voice crying in the wilderness because nobody would listen.

Jane Stewart started working as a real estate agent for Century 21 in Athens, Ohio in December 1979. On March 24, 1980, the Messenger identified her as an award-winning salesperson. She moved to Florida August 1980, and in 1981 she met Walter Favreau, her future husband.

Walter was a coder for the Air Force. He had no property of his own other than his clothes and his pension rights, not even a car, when Jane met him, because his first wife had gotten everything. And Jane was doing very well at Century 21 in Florida at the time. The local newspaper announced that she was the agency’s Top Producer in 1985, and Top Salesperson in the Daytona Beach area in 1984. She owned a homestead and several rental properties. Walter helped her with the business, but witnesses testified that she was clearly in charge.

The domestic violence eventually began and went on and on, case after case, once with a police officer witnessing Walter bashing Jane’s head against a wall. On July 26, 1992 Walter was finally found guilty of battery after almost strangling her to death. He was sentenced to a mere year’s probation. The judge ordered Walter to pay restitution, with liquidated damages to be determined. Since the state attorney failed to perfect her right to restitution, Jane filed a lien with the clerk of the court for $18,250, plus interest, on two real estate properties that Walter had bought with her funds but had neglected to put her name on the titles as intended. She was unaware that her damages would be far more than that sum, or that the court would manage to put the rest of her property in Walter’s hands, or that the attorneys would persuade judges that her lien was no good because she filed it on her own behalf – the statute did not expressly prohibit that procedure but rather supported it.

A divorce action was filed, briefly put on hold, and reopened in 1993. Incidentally, Jane once again charged Walter with domestic violence in 1994. Since funds had been commingled in the marriage, Jane’s property was considered jointly owned by husband and wife. A judge ordered that an accounting of the property be submitted by both parties. And the judge ordered that the marital property, consisting of the homestead, the rental property, and three mortgages and notes, would be partitioned and shared equally. None of that was done.

Walter remarried. Walter died. Jane’s property wound up in Walter’s hands and then in his estate, from which Jane got nothing. How could that be? Jane pled that the divorce case was never closed because there had been neither an accounting nor distribution to her of her share. She argued that there had been a fraud on the court, that the Florida judiciary itself had violated the laws and denied her civil rights, including rights afforded by the Disabilities Act. But nobody listened. Her pleas were dismissed and eventually adjudged frivolous – she was ordered not to make any further pleadings. The court would dismiss any appeals. She might be held in contempt of court and jailed if she tried to get the justice she deserved.

We have heard prominent members of the judiciary brag that the statutes they have sponsored require findings of fact to support the equitable distribution of marital property, that “equitable distribution of marital assets is now a statutory reality,” but the statute was obviously not applied in Jane’s case, nor was she afforded the protection of laws enacted prior to the implementation of that statute. In sum, her civil rights were violated in many respects, and the marriage and the judicial system in Brevard and Volusia counties had rendered her a severely impoverished and disabled elderly woman unable to obtain legal aid and forced to represent herself. How could that be?

She pled for representation but her pleas fell on deaf ears. Neither the judiciary nor legal aid nor the attorney general was willing to lift a finger in her defense. As for legal aid and the state attorney general and the federal justice department, they did not see a pattern of judicial abuse sufficient to champion her cause, which is in fact the cause of numerous women in similar circumstances. They did not see the pattern or forest because they would not look at the trees, one exemplary tree being Edna Jane Favreau. How could that be?

We shall eventually see the dirty details of gender bias and contempt and callous disregard for the weaker sex, especially when they try to defend themselves without a license to practice law, when we examine what Jane calls the “tricks” that were played on her, along with the deplorable records of the lawyers – records tolerated all too long by The Florida Bar – that played those dirty tricks.

I thought Edna Jane Favreau was hopelessly neurotic or perhaps even mad when I took my first look at the pro se briefs, pleadings, motions, and affidavits she sent down to me from Brevard County. The documents were just a small sample of the thousands of pages of evidence from her struggle with the courts for over a decade.

At first glance, her work seemed verbose, incoherent, and compulsive. I suppose I should add “hysterical” (‘womb’) because she is a woman. I surmised that her efforts were an attempt to overcome the panic attacks she said she suffers after her former husband tried to murder her by strangulation. One of her pleadings averred that she suffered from a certified disability called “abductor spasmodic dysphonia” (Ad-SD) as the direct result of oxygen deprivation and extreme stress from that attempt to kill her, which makes it very difficult for her to speak when under stress. However, she can write up a storm, a syndrome related to Ad-SD, called “hypergraphia.”

It was “hypergraphia” that got me interested enough to study her work and actually listen to what the elderly woman was saying. My elderly father often complained before he died that nobody listens to old folks, but that they should if they want to be wise.

Although I do not suffer from Ad-SD, I may have a mild case of hypergraphia because I am a prolific writer, and I write to avoid so-called reality. People ask me who I am, and I refer them to my work. My entire estate at this point is in writing, and I am compelled to give it away. So if the opinions about hypergraphia are correct, I share with Jane what we have in common with the likes of Shakespeare, Vincent Van Gogh, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Lewis Carroll, although I may never produce a diary filling 81 boxes with 38 million words, as did Reverend Robert Shields, or outdo Henry Darger’s The Story of the Vivian Girls, the longest known novel extant.

The point of all of Jane’s work was there had been a “fraud on the court” that had deprived her of her civil rights and defrauded her of her property, a point that she reiterated time and time again by the use of that very phrase, sometimes in capital letters, FRAUD ON THE COURT, in hopes that someone was listening. “Hello out there! Can anyone hear me?”

But nobody was really listening. The lawyers certainly were not inclined to bend their ears much to her claims that they were wrong, that they were frauds, that they were unethical and unprofessional. The officers of the court who heard her, who glanced at her affidavits and pleadings, simply laughed at her and her allegation of fraud on the court.

After all, how in the world could she even know what “fraud on the court” meant since she was not an attorney? But she knew, just as Socrates knew that every normal human being has a sense of justice, a sense of right and wrong, the cause and effect of conscience. We can only hope to see that they were fools not to listen, for how can any professional profess anything at all for anyone else unless s/he carefully listens to their pleas? The lay person feels offended, and comes in with a mess of a story because of the emotional involvement at the root of the injustice, and the professional had better listen if success is wanted.

Jane kept saying, over and over, that if someone would only read what she was writing, they would see that there had been a fraud on the court. Besides being blinded by their gender bias, feelings of superiority, and contempt for the downtrodden, the lawyers involved were deaf to anything said that was not in the proper procedural form. In fine, they were emotionally and mentally disabled. Jane had been strangled and thrown to the wolves, had been tossed into a den of vipers, had come up against the dragon.

Jane is advanced in age, and her case is virtually hopeless at this late stage, but perhaps it is not too late for her champion to step forward and win the cause before she passes away. That champion will of course be a lawyer, and she or he will make mincemeat out of lawyers who do not listen. And what does Jane want besides some vindication for herself and for women likewise situated? She wants enough recovery of her hard-earned property sufficient to visit her grandchild, for one thing.

A woman in a coma or adjudged mentally incompetent would have gotten better legal representation in Brevard and Volusia counties than Jane. You see, Jane had run out of cash for lawyers, who had run away with her cash, and she was forced to represent herself in complex court proceedings, and she was cheated out of her property. Again, she pled for legal counsel and accommodation of her disability to no avail. She was opposed by a ruthless and intimidating “Rambo or Bomber Tactic” lawyer.

To wit: the abuse Jane had suffered at the hands of her husband was virtually continued by officers of the court. To be understanding, some of that abuse was no doubt unwitting, due to the ignorance that men have in regards to abused women. Just as a young child will call every man “Dada”, an abused woman may think every man is her abuser and react in a way that contributes further to the vicious cycle that has been called “the battle of the sexes.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we cannot say that Jane has been an altogether incompetent unlicensed lawyer. If we do as we are asked, if we actually listen to what she has said time and time again, all too many times because nobody would listen, we shall find that her arguments do have an inner coherence and are persuasive. Although she needs a licensed champion to narrow down the facts and issues in order to properly deal with the courts, she was not mentally incompetent when it came to writing down her grievances and demanding remedies. Remember that she was intelligent and mentally sharp enough to be a tip-top real estate sales person. She knows the law as it should have been applied to her. Her arguments if concisely presented in the right form would be persuasive. Her “motions” simply lack the organization required by procedural law.

Furthermore, Jane has in fact had some success taking the miscreant lawyers to task with the Florida Supreme Court’s disciplinary arm, The Florida Bar. In another part of our series, entitled ‘Tricks of the Trade,’ we shall see, however, that the Bar dragged its feet for a long time. Talk about the slow grinding of the wheel of justice! And how many people like Jane are ground to dust before justice is done.

XYX

David Arthur Walters
2010 Miami Beach
Posted 29th September 2016 by David Arthur Walters


COMMENTS FROM Meryl Lanson On the Commons
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 2008-10-02 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

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.

 


 


FAVREAU v. FAVREAU No. 97-161.
710 So.2d 607 (1998)
Edna J. FAVREAU, Appellant, v. Walter F. FAVREAU, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 27, 1998.
Rehearing Denied April 29, 1998
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Edna Jane Favreau, Melbourne, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Edna J. Favreau appeals a post-judgment order requiring the judicial sale of her former marital residence. We affirm.

[710 So.2d 608]

The marital residence was ordered sold by private sale in the May 31, 1994 final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Apparently, the residence was not sold in a private sale, and the court ordered the instant judicial sale. The appellant is not contesting the manner of sale; she is contesting the requirement that a sale take place.
The requirement that the former marital residence be sold is res judicata and cannot now be contested.

AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.


District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fifth District.

Edna Jane FAVREAU, Appellant, v. Anna May FAVREAU, Appellee.

No. 5D06-443.
Decided: October 06, 2006
Edna J. Favreau, Melbourne, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.

Edna Jane Favreau (Edna) filed a notice of appeal, pro se, from an order entered by the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Probate Division, which prohibits her from further pro se filings in a probate proceeding involving the estate of her ex-husband, Walter Frederick Favreau.   Two circuit judges have entered similar orders in other litigation, barring Edna from further pro se filings based on abusive and frivolous court filings.

The order does not dispose of the probate action, nor can it be deemed final in any way as to Edna since it does not preclude Edna from any further filings, only pro se filings.   As such, the order is not reviewable by appeal as per Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2), which authorizes appellate review “of orders entered in probate ․ matters that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code.” While in a probate matter several final orders may be entered during the course of proceedings that address different issues and different persons, see Committee Notes to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110, the order here is in no way final in nature.

The order is not a reviewable non-final order.   See Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.   The remaining avenue for review is certiorari but Edna has failed to establish the requisites for issuance of the writ in this case.   A court has the inherent power to prevent abuse of court procedure which interferes with the effective administration of justice.   Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., 436 So.2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).   A requirement that pleadings be accompanied by an attorney’s signature is not a restraint which amounts to a complete denial of access to courts.   Id.;  May v. Barthet, 886 So.2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004);  see also § 68.093, Fla. Stat. (2005) (the Florida Vexatious Litigant Law).   The trial court followed procedural requirements by issuing an order to show cause, affording Edna an opportunity to explain why she should not be barred from future pro se filings.   Edna has failed to establish a clear departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm.   See Cape Canaveral Hospital, Inc. v. Leal, 917 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Accordingly, we treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and deny the petition.

CERTIORARI DENIED.
PLEUS, C.J.

GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.


2001 01 22 MONDAY CASE NO. SC001871 EDNA JANE FAVREAU vsWALTER F FAVREAUs
Exit mobile version