Docstoc

e - Florida State University College of Law

Document Sample
e - Florida State University College of Law Powered By Docstoc
					                                IN THE SUPREME COURT
                                   STATE OF FLORIDA

BOBBIE SUE WISHART, and                                    CASE NO. 71,370
CHARLES F. WISHART,
                                                           DCA CASE NO. 86-2408
       Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
       and Petitioners,
v.

LESLIE M. BATES (BOGGS),
      Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
      Respondent.
v.

RANDALL A BATES.

       Cross-Appellee, Respondent.
                                                                    MAY   5   m
                                                                              J3
                                                               cB " +P,E,M& mum
                                                                 t p%  r
                                                                a
                                                               Pu    -
                                                                     .
                                                                    *;
                                                               .-cik-     -,
                               PETITIONERS REPLY BRIEF-




                                             Respectfully submitted,



Cc,
       BOBBIE SUE WISHART                          CHARLES F. WISHART, Esquire
       Phone: (81 3) 685-1240                      A t t o r n e y at Law
       410 West Bloomingdale                       Bar. No. 095782
       Brandon, Florida 3351 1-7402                Phone: (81 3) 685-1 240
                                                   41 0 West Bloomingdale
                                                   Brandon, Florida 3351 1-7402

                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
       WE HEREBY CERTIFY t h a t a t r u e c o p y of t h e foregoing was furnished this 5th
day of May 1988 t o LESLIE M. BATES (BOGGS); P o s t O f f i c e Box 4; Seffner, Florida
33584; a n d t o RANDALL A. BATES; 410 West Bloomingdale; Brandon, Florida 33511-7402.

Delivery by                -7
              HAND 1- MAIL (
                    -

                                                                   7

                                               C.Xl.AL
                                                     K                      L+
                                                                          U+L
                                                   CHARLES F. WISHART, Esquire
* Hand deliver v t o RANDY.
x Mail deliver; t o LESLIE.
                                        TABLE OF CITATIONS

    CITATIONS                                                                          PACK

    (a) Florida Supreme Court:

           (2) 1887-1948:

    111-51 3 Johnson e t al. v. McKinnon, 54 Fla. 221, 4 5 So. 23 (1907)              14, 19

    1V-695 Gray v. Gray, 107 So. 261 (Fla. 1926)                                          19

    IV-693 Esch e t al. v. Forester e t al., 127 So. 336 (Fla. 1930)                      19

           3    1948-date:

    111-476 Ryan v. Ryan, 277 So.2d 266 (Fla. 1973)                                    13-1 4

    11-219 Wishart e t ux, v. Bates, e t al., 487 So.2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)        19, 20

    ( f ) Florida Statutes (Official)

    111-510 Section 39.01(27), Definitions- Legal Custody, Fla. Stat. (1977)              22

    111-503 Section 61.131, Notice and opportunity to be heard, Fla. Stat. (1983)      6, 25

    (i) Florida Rules:

    V-952 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410(a), Setting Action for Trial, When a t issue        4, 14, 18

a   IV-654 Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(f), Definitions- Parties                                   2

    SA-59 Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(f), Stay of proceedings                                    16

    IV-656 Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(a) Costs                                                 20

                                         R
    111-523 Fla. Bar. Code Prof. Resp., D 1-102(A)(4)                                       3

    111-523 Fla. Bar. Code Prof. Resp., D 1-102(A)(5)
                                         R                                                  5

    111-524 Fla. Bar. Code Prof. Resp., D 7-102(A)(l)
                                         R                                                  6

    111-524 Fla. Bar. Code Prof. Resp., D 7-102(A)(3)
                                         R

                                         R
    111-524 Fla. Bar. Code Prof. Resp., D 7-102(A)(7)

                                         R
    111-524 Fla. Bar. Code Prof. Resp., D 7-106(C)(4)

    111-524 Fla. Bar. Code Prof. Resp., D 7-106(C)(6)
                                         R

    (n) Other Citationsri .

                            ...
    SA-58 The Holy BLblt, KJV, The Companion Bible,
    Isa. 59, & see pg. 1005 1 15 6r note 15 '                                               25
m
                                        REPLY BRIEF
FORMAT:

       To facilitate arguing i n response to, and of rebutting the argument presented i n

the answer brief, that entire document has been folded into this reply brief i n a double

indented and bolded format with a pagenated copy i n the Supplementdl Index (SA: p. 1-81.

       To avoid confusion the reply brief paragraphs will be numbered.

       Additionally, all of the matters found on LESLIE'S page 1 1 or that were part of

the previous summary are deleted and the amended summary argument inserted, as per

her instructions to the clerk which accompanied the amended summary argument page.

       In addition, since LESLIE has tdken certain liberties in alleging facts she did not

bother to document, WISHART, rdther            than striking them, in answering and refuting

them, shall supplement the record with a supplementdl appendix.

CITATIONS:

       Citations w i l l be made as follows:

              WISHARTS' Appendix: (A: p. 1)

              W ISHARTS' Jurisdictional Brief: (WJ6: pg. 1)

              WISHARTS' Initial Brief: (WB: pg. 1)

              WISHARTS' Supplemental Appendix (SA: p. 1)

              LESLIE'S Answer Brief: (LA: pg. 1)

PARTIES:

       CHARLES, BOBBIE or the WISHARTS, LESLIE, RANDY, and colatterally

TIFFANY.

ARGUMENT AND REBUTTAL:

      1.   The basis issues stem from the WISHART5 being denied due process of law, dnd

tdking appropriate means t o r e c t i f y that to protect TIFFANY and themselves.
           2.   The r e c o r d s p e a k s c l e a r l y of t h e many devices used t o deny t h e WISHARTS a

    f a i r hearing, and t h a t p a t t e r n c o n t i n u e s unabated a s shall be s e t forth a s LESLIE'S an-

    swer brief e n t i t l e d "RESPONDENT'S BRIEF" is addressed.

           3. L e t us then s t a r t on page I o f RESPONDENT'S (LESLIE'S) BRIEF which reads:

                             STATEMENT O F THE CASE AND O F THE FACTS

             PARTIES in t h i s case:

                     TIFFANY BATES, minor daughter,

           4.   TIFFANY is not a r e a l party, y e t , she is t h e h e a r t and soul of this c a s e , f o r dis-

    solution of marriage is now a u t o m a t i c , and the point thrust upon us by LESLIE is well

    t a k e n , t h a t i t is TIFFANY'S best i n t e r e s t t h a t should be served.

                     LESLIE BATES (BOCGS), Tiffany's mother,

                     RANDALL BATES, Tiffany's f a t h e r ,

           5.   Randy is a p a r t y , y e t as was pointed o u t , he never was served c o p i e s o f


a
    LESLIE'S pleadings in t h e 2d DCA, which should be procedurally f a t a l t o t h e opinion, and

    h e r e LESLIE admits t h a t f a c t , while a t the same time she has p n c e again failed t o c e r t i -

    f y or s e r v e him with any of her pleadings in this m a t t e r , a c l e a r violation o f Rule

    9.020(f), Fla. R. App. P..

                     BOBBIE SUE WISHART, p a t e r n a l grandmother,

                     CHARLES WISHART, Bobbie S u e t s husband
                     (Disqualified as A t t o r n e y of r e c o r d for Bobbie S u e Wishart)

             F a c t u a l cites to be to:
                        P e t i t i o n e r s f i v e ( 5 ) Volume Appendix as (A: p. 1-41;
                        P e t i t i o n e r s ' Brief as (0: p. 14);

             Respondent would f i r s t d i r e c t this c o u r t s a t t e n t i o n t o "THE FLORIDA
             BAR'S AMENDED COMPLAINTu A:P. 1-4) which s t e m s from P e t i t i o n e r s
             c o n d u c t in this case wherein i t i s alleged t h a t C h a r l e s F. Wishart h a s vio-
             l a t e d e i g h t (8) of t h e Florida Bar C o d e of Professional ResponsibiIity a n d
             Disciplinary Rules; specifially:

           6. Here we have an anomaly.
          7.    WISHART a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e S e c o n d District C o u r t of Appeal, showing c o n f l i c t

which is well d o c u m e n t e d , a n d as would o v e r t u r n t h e opinion of t h a t C o u r t ' s s e c o n d pa-

n e l ' s (A: p. 226-2291, a n d r e i n s t a t e a n d e n f o r c e t h e f i r s t p a n e l ' s opinion (A: p. 219).

          8. A t t h e s a m e time, C H A R L E S invoked his C o n s t i t u t i o n a l O f f i c e r s t d t u s o n t h e

g r o u n d s t h a t t h e family l a w s y s t e m had b r o k e n down, t h a t t h e judges, k n o w i n g t h e y w e r e

vulnerable to a t t a c k have become defensive, such t h a t anyone who tried t o follow the

law r d t h e r t h a n t h e p r a c t i c e , which would r e q u i r e t h e use of tht? e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t s , a n d

g r e a t c o u r a g e , would be a t t a c k e d by t h e c o u r t s a t a l l levels.

          9.    A d v i c e t o C H A R L E S c a m e in t h e form of "It's wrong, but t h e r e is n o t h i n g you

c a n d o a b o u t it."

        10. C H A R L E S h a s n e v e r f e l t t h a t submission t o t y r a n n y w a s e i t h e r wise, p r a c t i c a l

or e x p e d i e n t , f o r of w h a t v a l u e is a l a w license if o n e c a n n o t cornpel t h e c o u r t s t o f o l -

low t h e law, t o s e a r c h o u t t h e t r u t h , a n d t o judge r i g h t e o u s judgement.

        11.     Y e t w e now h a v e C H A R L E S n o t only c h a r g e d , but d e c l a r e d guilty (SA: p. 55-

56) o f r e f u s i n g t o o b e y void o r d e r s , a n d a s well o f lying t o t h e c o u r t .

        12.     You c a n n o t f i g h t c i t y hall, t h a t is if t h e C o u r t s will n o t follow t h e law.

        13.     As a d i r e c t r e s u l t of t h e C o u r t s a b u s e s , t h e c a s e is n o w b e f o r e t h e Suprerne

C o u r t , which i s just w h e r e i t should be, t o finally d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e is a n y family

l a w l e f t t o p r a c t i c e in t h i s s t a t e .

        14. T o t h a t e n d , a brief a n a l y s i s of t h e c h a r g e s a n d d e f e n s e s shall be s e t f o r t h .

            l-lOZ(A)(4) e n g a g e i n c o n d u c t involving d i s h o n e s t y , f r a u d , d e c e i t , or
            misrepresentation;

        15.     T h e i d e a t h a t C H A R L E S lied w a s n e v e r r a i s e d o n c e until t h e bar c d r n e in.

        16.     T h e basis f o r t h e c h a r g e is o n e single e v e n t , t h a t C H A R L E S lied when h e told

J u d g e R a w l i n s t h a t h e did n o t know w h e r e BOBBIE w a s (.A: p. 139 Ins. 22-25), b u t t h a t

h e t h o u g h t h e c o u l d f i n d her (A: p. 155 Ins. 7-18, p. 158 Ins. 21-22 a n d p. 175 1. 1 8 t o p.

176 1. 21) if TIFFANY w e r e p r o t e c t e d a n d t h e U'ISHARTS give11 a hearing.

                                                                -   3   -
     17.   CHARLES answer was no more that a straight answer to a specific question,

combined w i t h his duty to protect TIFFANY, and pursue his appellate remedies, directed

to overturn the June 2, 1983 Order, and i t ' s offspring.

     18.   The idea that CHARLES lied cdme from a documented liar (A: p. 35-51 and Cf.

p. 149 Ins. 1-13) and had no validity nor evidence to prove the allegation and much to

refute i t (A: p. 561 to p. 567 1. 2).

     19.   Experience shows (Holy Bible, K. J. V. Matt. 7: 1-21 that when one has no other,

proof, the person making judgement imputes their own motives to the actions of the per-

son they are judging, and that i s what HOFT did (A: p. 153 Ins. 13-25).

     79.   I t i s significant that neither HOFT nor JUDGE RAWLINS, who bought HOFT'S

analysis, testified t o CHARLES alleged lie.

     21.   JUDGE V. EVANS was put on to prove CHARLES and BOBBIE lied, but not as

regards where BOBBIE was, but rather the deception created by the Trial and Appellate

Judges, that the WISHARTS had lied to the first panel, by stating they did not hdve a

hearing when they obviously had (A: p. 925-927 and Cf. 928-941).

     22.   Knowing CHARLES could impeach either HOFT (A: p. 34-51) or JUDGE

RAWLINS (Cf. A: p. 146 1 11 t o p. 147 1. 7 with p. 166 1. 22 to p. 168 1. 18) the BAR
                       .

determined to show CHARLES to be a liar with JUDGE V. EVANS' order that was not

even past the time for appeal notice, and which i s manifestly false since the WISHARTS'

appealed on the violation of Rule 1.440,    Fla. R. Civ.      .
                                                             P as has been shown from the re-
cord, which of corse the BAR did not bother t o check.

     23.   Fortuitourly, over CHARLES' objection to admitting an active order as proof as

anything, or placing a trial judge to cross-examination (SA: p. 16 line 17 to p. 18 1. 19),

which seems quite a unique opportunity, such that CHARLES was delighted to cross-

examine JUDGE V. EVANS (SA: p. 11-54] who testified regarding his "Order Granting

Motian for Involuntary Dismissal" (SA: p. 17 Ins. 10-14, and A: p. 925-927) which clearly
    shows JUDGE V. EVANS tried t o c a l l the WISHARTS liars (SA: p. 42 1. 1 to p. 43 1. II )

    as had the 2d panel o f the 2d DCA, u n t i l the WISHARTS argued their rehearing motion,

    (A: p. 928-9411, since the record showed they had made no such claim, forcing JUDGE V.

    EVANS to change his tune (SA: p. 942-943) so that he then was forced to justify the in-

    volntary dismissal, n o t because of th? \VISHARTS1 purported lie, but by declaring the

    recommendations o f Drs. Lipschutz (A: p. 204) who was HRSIS doctor (A: p. 199-200                  1
                                                                                                        1 21,

    Hough (A: p. 16, 205-2061 who testified t x f o r e JUDGE MENENDDEZ, Hedrick (A: p. 207,

    295-296,) who testified before JUDGE MENENDEZ, and Hillseth (SA: p. 208- 210) who

    testified for the first time before Judge V. Evans in 1987, a l l o f which, w i t h the agree-

    ment o f PRIEDE, the Court Concellor, corroborated the medical neglect issue and rec-

    commending that TIFFANY be w i t h the WISHARTS (Cf. S4: p. 46 1. 20 to p. 48 1. 14), t o

    "...s~Gw     no r i g h t t o relief...."   (A: p. 925) without showing why a l l o f these doctors were

    irrelevant.



a         24.     O f course the evidence was old, but that was because the judges had refused t o

    obey the f i r s t panel's mandate b y returning TIFFANY to the WISHARTS' primary residen-,

    cy, or even w i t h r a r e exception t o enforce the visitation, such that i t has been years

    since the WISHARTS have seen her, but clearly JUDGE V. EVANS thought he could mark

    the WISHARTS as liars and thus dispose of this troublesorne case, a feat his predecessors

    hdd failed to accomplish.

          25.     It i s the specific judges, t h a t either are lying or have a disdain for the truth,

    and the BAR has happily joined i n t o the deceit, and while i t is sdd t o have t o say such,

    i t is imperative for the Supreme Court t o intervene on the WISHARTS1 behalf wherever

    this tyrdnny spreads.

                        DR 1-102(A)(5)          engage i n conduct prejudicial t o the administration
               o f justice;
         26.   I t i s not prejudicial to justice to withstand tyranny, to refuse to obey void or-   .

    ders, and rather the WISHARTS should be cornr-nended, for exposing such abuses, but rd-

    ther, TIFFANY should be returned to their custody instantly.

                  DR 7-102(A)(1) f i l e a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, de-
           lay a trial, or take other action an behalf of his c l i e n t which he knows or
           when i t i obvious that such action would serve merely t o harass or ma-
                      s
           liciously injure;

         27. When JUDGE KNOWLES finally understood that the WISHARTS lost their custo-

    dial status over TIFFANY without being afforded an opportunity to be heard and present

    evidence (A: p. 431 Ins. 14-24) he recused himself, and found that a t r i a l de nova was in

    order (A: p. 93).

         28. Judge Steinberg then gave primary residency to BORRIE.

         29.   In like kind, the first panel of the 2d DCA reversed and remanded the Final

    Judgement of Judge Menendez.

         30.   Clearly, the WISHARTS have not only put forth positions, but prevailed i n eclch


a   round but the last each time, and that because the Courts perceive the WISHARTS as

    enemies rather than friends, that want first to protect TIFFANY, and secondly to rees-

    tablish the law and thereby a defense to dissolution of marriage by restoring the clean

    hands doctrine, and good moral values t o undergird the law.

                   DR 7-102(A)(3) conceal o knowlingly fail t o disclose that which he
                                           r
           i s required t o reveal;

         31.   WISHART did not know where BOBBIE was, but he would neither lie nor tell had

    he known her whereabouts since the %ISHARTS had legal custody of TIFFANY since (1)

    the 2 June 1983 Order (A: p. 12-13) was, as           violation of Section 61.131, Fla. Stat.

    void, and as well voided by the Order of 29 November 1983 (A: p. 93).

         32.   Since the matter was resolved by JUDGE R.AWL1NSt granting the WISHARTS           d


    hearing before JUDGE STEINBERG, the UilSHARTS did not have to (1) go farther i n over-
    t u r n i n g t h e void o r d e r s , ( 2 ) by Hdbeas C o r p u s if C H A R L E S w a s l e f t in jail, o r (3) by a

a   s u i t in f e d e r a l c o u r t , f o r C H A R L E S w a s hardly t h r o u g h in pursuing a p p e l a t e r e m e d i e s .

            33. T h e S t e i n b e r g O r d e r r e s o l v e d t h a t i m m e d i a t e crisis.

            34.     T h e r e w a s n e v e r a r e a s o n t o l i e a n d C H A R L E S did n o t , a n d n o d o u b t h e c o u l d

    h a v e invoked t h e a t t o r n e y c l i e n t , husband-wife, p a s t o r - p a r i s h o n e r , a n d p e r h a p s o t h e r pri-

    vileges, including t h e f a c t t h a t h e w a s s t i l l running his a p p e l l d t e r e m e d i e s when e a c h c r i -

    sis w a s r e s o l v e d in his f a v o r , a n d h e had n o r e a s o n t o e i t h e r lie o d i s c l o s e t h e w h e r e a -
                                                                                                    r

    b o u t s o f BOBBIE or TIFFANY, so it is proof of t h e C o u r t s t y r a n n y t h a t h e h a s b e e n

    f o u n d g u i l t y of lying w i t h o u t p r o o f .

                         DR 7-102(A)(7) c o u n s e l or assist his c l i e n t in c o n d u c t t h a t t h e l a w -
               y e r k n o w s to be i l l e g a l or f r a u d u l e n t ;

            35.    Clearly, a l l of t h e s e m a t t e r s t h a t have so upset t h e C o u r t s a r e t h e results o f

    C H A R L E S skills a n d c o u r a g e t o i d e n t i f y void o r d e r s a n d o v e r t u r n them.

            36. I t i s m a n i f e s t t h a t a t w o r s t t h e WISHARTS a n d t h e C o u r t s a r e a r g u i n g a b o u t


e   w h a t t h e l a w is, which i s h a r d l y a b r e a c h of e t h i c s for a n a t t o r n e y or a c i t i z e n , s a v e f o r

    t h e f a c t t h a t b o t h t h e l a w a n d t h e f a c t s a r e well s e t t l e d , t h e r e is n o j u s t i c i a b l e i s s u e o f

    e i t h e r f a c t or law, a n d C H A R L E S is e n t i t l e d t o a fee a w a r d f r o m t h e BAR for f i l i n g a

    sham pleading a g a i n s t him a s though h e c o u l d n o t t r e a t void o r d e r s as void.

                             DR 7-106(C)(4) assert his p e r s o n a l opinion as to t h e j u s t n e s s o f a
               c a u s e , as to t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s , as t o t h e c u l p a b i l i t y o f a c i v i l
               l i t i g a n t , or as to t h e g u i l t or i n n o c e n s e o f a n a c c u s e d ; b u t h e m a y a r g u e
               o n h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e e v i d e n c e f o r a n y position or c o n c l u s i o n w i t h r e s p e c t
               to t h e m a t t e r s s t a t e d h e r e i n ;

            35. C H A R L E S w a s a n d is a p a r t y t o t h e s u i t , a n d n o d o u b t c a n d o all o f t h o s e

    t h i n g s in e i t h e r his a t t o r n e y or: his p a r t y s t a t u s .

                          DR 7-106(C)(6) e n g a g e i n undignified or d i x o u r t e o u s c o n d u c t w h i c h
               is d e g r a d i n g to a t r i b u n a l ;
         36.   As had JUDGE RAWLINS, JUDGE EVANS, testified that CHARLES was respect-

a   ful t o him (SA: p. 51 1. 18 t o p. 53 1. 11, save that he argued with him but, Fla. Bar Code

    Prof. Resp.,   DR 7-106(C)(4), seems to allow polite argument when i t provided:

           ,,,(H)e may argue on his analysis of the evidence for any position or con-
           clusion with respect to the matters stated herein;

         37.   Clearly arguing to make a record against for example a ruling that lying and

    rnorals are irrelevant t o the fitness of LESLIE ($A: p. 23 1. 1 1 to p. 25 1. 17 and p. 53 1.

    5-19) i s imperative for i t goes to the heart of the WISHARTS cdse, LESLIE'S fitness (A:

    p. 240-2511, and for a judge t o shut o f f argument before the record i s cornplete is a de-

    nial of due process of law, and especially when i t consists of refusing to consider perjury

    and immoral conduct as being irrelevant to the fitness of LESLIE.

         38.   Of course i t is this general attitude found with the sbcial workers, HRS i n parti-

    cular, and far too commonly w i t h the judges, including specifically JUDGE V. EVANS,

    namely that moral judgements cannot be made since that would impose religion on people,

    for this hds caused the breakdown of family law, dnd no amount of better administration,

    nor more specialiation can cure that fatal flaw.

                     Rule 7 106(C)(7) intentionally or habitally violate any established
           r u l e of procedure or of evidence.

         39.   WISHART has violated no established rules of either procedure or evidence, but

    on the contrary had been meticulous in obeying the rules, for otherwise real charges

    would have been filed, and the WISHARTS would have been out of Court long ago.

           Respondent has been found repeatedly, by the courts, t o be a f i t and pro-
           per person, but has-been in l i t i a t i o n for almost five ( 5 ) years due directly
           t o Petitioners obsession t o have possession of Tiffany by any means, and
           regardless o f how detrimental i t is t o Tiffany.

         40,                                                      1
               The case began with RANDY (.A: p. 9 11 6-7, p. 10 11 14, 1-21 and the WISHARTS
                                                    1

    alleging LESLIE to be unfit (A: p. 17-19) due to inter-alia her immaturity and inability t o

    cdre i o r TIFFANY, and the case has enlarged to the point that LESLIE lies at every turn

    (A: p. 3 4 - 51, p. 248-2511 and that extends t o her answer brief as w i l l be documented.
       41.    LESLIE w a s found u n f i t by JUDGE STEINBERG (A: p. 201-2021 a n d t h a t o r d e r

h a s n e v e r b e e n lawfully r e v e r s e d , a n d t h a t on moral grounds.

       42.    What LESLIE i s s p e a k i n g of w h e n s h e c l a i m s a long l i n e of d e c i s i o n s t h a t s h e is

f i t , is t h a t n o t r i a l judge s i n c e JUDGE STEINBERG, including JUDGES FALSONE,

HODGES, a n d TAYLOR w h o found her in c o n t e m p t , would d e c l a r e JUDGE MENENDEZ'S

"Fi'nal J u d g e m e n t " t o be void, a n d t h a t includes a f t e r t h e 1st p a n e l ' s m a n d a t e , d n d t h e

n a t u r a l c o n s e q u e n c e of t h a t position r e q u i r e d t h e 1 s t p a n e l s opinion t o be c o n s t r u e d t o

rnean t h a t t h e WISHARTS c l a i m e d t h e y had n o t had a h e a r i n g , s o all t h e y w e r e e n t i t l e d

w a s a h e a r i n g , l e a v i n g t h e Final J u d g e m e n t i n t a c t , w i t h LESLIE d e c l a r e d f i t , a n d s i n c e

t h e record r e f l e c t s t h e contrary, t h e C o u r t s were then compelled to cover their decep-

t i o n by c h a r g i n g t h e WISHARTS w i t h lying t o t h e f i r s t panel (SA: p. 40 1. 7 t o p. 4 3 1.

121, a n d of c o u r s e , s i n c e t h e m a t t e r is in e f f e c t being t r i e d in t h e lunchrooms o f t h e

C o u r t h o u s e (SA: p. 3 9 1. I 1 t o p. 40 1. 51, i t was a s h o r t s t e p for t h e 2d p a n e l of t h e 2d

DCA to pick up t h e s a m e t h e m e (A: p. 228), a n d t h u s t o o v e r t u r n t h e I s t p a n e l s d e c i s i o n ,

while o f c o u r s e ignoring t h e law of r e s judicata.

       43.    Had t h e WISHARTS known t h e y had not p r e v a i l e d t h e y would h a v e a p p e a l e d , b u t

t h e y did p r e v a i l , t h e y r e v e r s e d a n d r e m a n d e d t h e final judgement, a n d LESLIE'S f i n d i n g s

o f f i t n e s s a r e b a s e d solely on t h e final judgement which i s n o w not only void b u t voided.

          R e s p o n d e n t f i l e d her mPETITIOH F O R DISSOLUTION O F M A R R I A G E AND
          F O R CHILD CUSTODYn (A:p. 5-81 o n 1 J u n e 1983, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s were
          i n c l u d e d as r e s p o n d e n t s in the i n i t i a l p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e t h e y r e f u s e d to r e l -
          inquish p h y s i c a l . possessian - o f Tiffany, s t a t i n g t h a t R a n d a l l "gave" T i f f a n y
          to t h e m a n d i n s t r u c t e d R e s p o n d e n t to " t a k e u s t o court".

       44.    [Most o f t h i s i s t r u e s a v e for t h e a l l e g a t i o n w h e r e i n LESLIE s t a t e s t h a t o n e o f

t h e WISHARTS told her t o "...take                    us t o court."

       45.    T h d t w a s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e WISHARTS' d e s i r e t o r e c o n c i l e t h e m a r r i a g e (SA:

p. 1 8 B 3) a n d t h e WISHARTS n e v e r t o l d her t h a t .
           46.     T h e roba able s o u r c e i s t h e S h e r i f f w h o a c c o m ~ a n i e dh e r t o t a k e TIFFANY frorn

*   t h e WISHARTS, a n d r e c c o m m e n d e d s h e f i l e a s u i t when t h e WISHARTS r e f u s e d , b u t t h e

    s t a t e m e n t a s m a d e i s f a l s e , a l t h o u g h LESLIE h a s b e e n r e p e a t i n g i t f o r t h i s many y e a r s .

               T h e issue was r e a d y f o r a f i n a l h e a r i n g in November 1983, as is e v i d e n c e d
               by t h e l e t t e r o f t h e H o n o r a b l e Phillip L. K n o w l e s t o P e t i t i o n e r s d a t e d 21
               November 1 9 8 3 w h e r e i n h e states:

                         ",.,Mr.    H o f t h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a f i n a l hearing." (A:p. 8 4 )



               P e t i t i o n e r s w e r e s u c c e s s f u l i n d e l a y i n g t h e F i n a l H e a r i n g u n t i i Dccember
               of 1 9 8 4 b y a b u s e o f t h e m o t i o n s pactice, misleading t h e c o u r t s , a n d r e f u -
               s a l to o b e y court orders. (A: p. 1-4)

           47.     T h e d e l a y s f r o m J u n e t o December 1 9 8 3 w e r e c a u s e d by t h e d e c e i t a n d t r i c k e r y

    of LESLIE t h r o u g h HOFT, including his failing t o a n s w e r U'ISHARTS' c o n t e r c l a i m s , w h i c h

    led t o t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n s in December wherein t h e UlISHARTS had TIFFANY r e t u r n e d t o

    t h e m by JUDGE STEINBERG.

           48.     T h e n e x t s e r i e s w e r e skirmishes w h e r e i n HOFT t r i e d t o r e t u r n TIFFANY t o

@   LESLIE.

           49.                                                                                 1
                   A t r i a l w a s set f o r 5 M a r c h 1984 by JUDGE RAWLINS (SA: p. 56-57 1 2), b u t

    JUDGE RAWLINS l e f t t h e division, a n d a t t h e p r e t r i a l b e f o r e J u d g e M e n e n d e z , LESLIE

    f i r e d HOFT for t h e s t a t e d r e a s o n t h a t h e would n o t g u a r a n t e e t h a t h e would "win", a n d

    s h e would n o t pay him unless h e made t h a t g u a r a n t e e .

           50.     T h e r e a f t e r LESLIE employed TABIO, a n d t h e r e a f t e r RANDY lost his a t t o r n e y

    Tom F a y w h o w e n t t o bible c o l l e g e t o t r a i n a s a m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l l o r t o t r y t o f i x w h a t

    t h e WISHARTS a r e c o n t e n d i n g for.

           51.     T h e WISHARTS w e r e g i v e n l i t t l e s a y in t h e s e t t i n g s of t r i a l o r p r e t r i a l d u r i n g

    t h i s p e r i o d as i t w a s d o n e u n i l a t e r a l l y a n d w i t h o u t their being c o n s u l t e d .

           52.     Their p r i m a r y i n v o l v e m e n t w a s in r e s p o n s e t o LESLIE'S motions t h r o u g h o u t 1984.
         53.   JUDGE MENENDEZ did not even listen to CHARLES a t t e m ~ t sto protest his

@   forthcoming and illegal "final hearing." (A: p. 258-2191

         54.   I t i s therefore false to blame the "delays" of 1984 on the WISHARTS, save that

    they intended to have a fair trial or none at all.

            The 'PRETRIAL. CONFERENCE ORDER" dated 22 August 1984, set this
            case for t r i a l i n December 1984. (Alp. 244-247). This order states:

                   '..the    WISHARTS' shall have the right t o file an amendment
                    t o .their -pleadings t prove the doctrine of unclean hands, t o
                                           o
                    be filed within ten (10) days from the date of this ordern.

         55.   Here the WISHARTS agree with LESLIE, but as history shows, the "clean handr"

    doctrine is given no place in the family law of Hillsborough County, or HRS, for other-

    wise, neither LESLIE nor her attorneys would have dared to lie with such impudence, but

    since there is no punishment for lying, LESLIE i s still i n court, and her manifest unfit-

    ness i s declared fit.

         56.   Of course i t is poetic,-although hardly justice,   that since the liars are immune,

@   that CHARLES is accused and convicted of lying to both the Zd panel of the 2d DCA,

    and to Judge Rawlins who did i n fact lie to CHARLES.

         57.   Thir case is turning i n t o a tragicomedy, or perhaps Alice in Wonderland.

            I n Petitioners "MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGEMENT REGARDING THE HAB-
            EAS CORPUS, and CONTEMPT" (A: p. 413-421) they statet

                   "on the 4th days o f . k e m b e r 1984 WISHART filed, pursuant
                   to Court Order, their GRANDPARENTS1 AMENDED ANSWER
                   FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE".

         58.   Clearly the WISHARTS are found out, by their pleadings, and their exhibits to

    have transposed a month.

         59.   Rather yet, let us consider this a matter of clerical error, for the pleading in

    que.stion was i n deed filed timely on the 4th day of not December but September.

            Being aware of the petitioners abuses of the motions practice, the Honor-
            able Manuel Menendez disposed of Respondents "MOTION TO STRIKE
            FIRST AFFIRMATIVE         DEFENSE ALLEGED          IN GRANDPARENTS1
            AMENDED ANSWER (Atp. 21 1-218) wherein:
                    "The court finds t h a t t h e w i f e ' s M o t i o n to S t r i k e t h e g r a n d -
                    parents' Aaerrded A n s w e r s h o l d be d e n i e d a n d i n s t e a d , treat-
                    ed as a dcnirl o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d in t h e A f f i r m a t i v e
                    D e f e n s e s filed by t h e Wisharts."

       60.     T h e r e i s n o d o u b t t h a t t h e "motion p r a c t i c e " was a b u s e d by t h e C o u r t s , b u t n o t

by t h e WISHARTS.

       61.     Most of t h e m o t i o n s in 1 9 8 3 w e r e by WISHART t r y i n g t o o v e r t u r n t h e loss o f

TIFFANY w i t h o u t b e i n g h e a r d , a n d t o i n v o k e t h e c l e a n h a n d s d k t r i n e a g a i n s t LESLIE f o r

t h e lies told t h a t d e n i e d t h e WISHARTS a h e a r i n g a n d a d e f a u l t , s i n c e a l i e c o u l d n o t

possibly be used as a n e x c u s a b l e n e g l e c t .

       62.     In 1 9 8 4 LESLIE w a s t r y i n g t o o v e r t u r n t h e S t e i n b e r g O r d e r , b u t while t h e r e w a s

n o c l e a r o r d e r t o t h a t e n d , t h e C o u r t s b e i n g e f f e c t i v e l y t h w a r t e d by t h e simple f a c t t h a t

t h e WISHARTS g o t TIFFANY well a s t h e y had said t h e y would a n d s h e s t a y e d t h a t way

until JUDGE MENENDEZ t u r n e d h e r o v e r t o LESLIE in December 1984.

       63.     A c e r t a i n p o r t i o n o f t h a t p l e a d i n g w a s by LESLIE who had b e e n c u t o f f f r o m

c e r t a i n visits, by D o c t o r s o r d e r s , d u e t o her n e g l e c t of TIFFANY d u r i n g h e r visits.

       64.     O f c o u r s e a f t e r December 1984, t h e p l e a d i n g s w e r e d i r e c t e d t o t h e WISHARTS'

c h d l l e n g e s t o t h e l e g a l i t y of t h e Final J u d g e m e n t , a n d finally h a s dwindled t o m o t i o n s by

t h e WIYHARTS f o r e i t h e r t h e r e t u r n of TIFFANY t o t h e i r l a w f u l c u s t o d y , o r in t h e a l t e r -

n a t i v e e n f o r c e m e n t of a n y o n e of s e v e r a l v i s i t a t i o n p l a n s g r a n t e d them in lieu of t h a t

v i s i t a t i o n , a l l o f which h a v e b e e n unlawfully d e n i e d t h e WISHARTS.

       65.     T h e n e t r e s u l t of c o u r s e h a s b e e n t h e unlawful s e v e r d n c e of t h e WISHARTS f r o m

a l l c o n t a c t w i t h TIFFANY s i n c e O c t o b e r 18, 1986.

       66.     T h e r e is a b u s e of t h e motions p r a c t i c e , a n d t h a t by t h e C o u r t s .

       67.     T h e e x a m p l e used by LESLIE m a k e s t h e point.

       68.     S h e c i t e d t h e Final J u d g e m e n t , which r e f l e c t s t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m a t t e r w a s n o t

d t issue when t h e case was put to t r i a l illegally, b u t a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e P r e t r i a l O r d e r i s

in o r d e r t o see w h a t war behind t h e a m e n d m e n t t h e Motion t o S t r i k e w a s d i r e c t e d to.

                                                                   -   12   -
     69.   The WISHARTS had filed motions directed a t the dismissal o f LESLIE'S pleadings

based upon her deceit bringing the clean hands doctrine i n t o play (A: p. 245 H 3 and 246 ll

10(c)) and JLIDGE MENENDEZ had, rather than grdnting the WISHARTS motions, declared

the matter moot, and as well allowed the WISHARTS an opportunity t o plead the rnatter

for presentcltion a t the upcoming trial.

     70.   Ryan v. Ryan, 277 So.2d 266 (Fla. 1973) holds that a t least deceit and fraud are

still graunds for the application of the clean hands doctrine, the documentation of the

fraud and deceit by LESLIE and her attorneys (A: p. 34-51 and SA: p. 33 1. 3 t o p. 36 1.

15) i s clear, yet i t was never applied, and here we have JUDGE MENENDEZ sidestepping

his duty by granting their

        ...request for leave to amend their pleadings in order t o plead, as a de-
        fense, the doctrine of clean hands     ....
                                             (A: p. 245 11 3)

     71.   Why would the WISHARTS want to amend rather than be given a dismissal o f

LESLIE'S pleadings and the denial of Chancery jcrisdiction to her for her many lies.

     72.   The answer is simple, JUDGE VENENDEZ refused t o hear and rule on the mat-

ter, so he declined, declaring the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court t o be "moot

a t this time" (A: p. 246 1 lO(c)).

     73.   The result is that the question now before the Supreme Court i s whether that

question is s t i l l moot a t this time, or whether the law w i l l be applied.

        The final hearing o f December 1986 granted the natural.mother and fath-
        er shared custody, w i t h primary residency t o be w i t h the mother.

     74.   The Final Judgement was put to trial while not at issue, was reversed by the 2d

DCA, and i s both void and voided thereby, LESLIE i s unfit, and the WISHARTS are enti-

tled to custody o f TIFFANY and a dismissal o f LESLIE'S CdSe.

        Petitioners appealed the final Judgement, and because the Second Dis-
        trict Court of Appeals was of the understanding that Petitioners had been
        denied the opportunity to be heard, i t s mandate o f 2 April 1986 granted
        petitioners:
                  "only t h e opportunity t o be h e a r d or their petition f o r Cus-
                  tody of their granddaughtern (A:p. 925-927).

      75.    LESLIE war a p a r t y t o t h a t appeal, s h e r e c e i v e d t h e WISHARTS' pleadings, in-

cluding their initial brief and she well knows t h a t they r e v e r s e d t h e Final Judgement on

t h e grounds t h a t t h e m a t t e r was put t o trial while t h e pleadings w e r e not a t issue.

      76.    Having c i t e d not t h e opinion of t h e 2d panel of t h e 2d DCA (A: p. 226-229), but

r a t h e r JUDGE V. EVANS1 Order of involuntary dismissal (A: p. 925-927), and having r e -

c e i v e d WISHARTS1 c o p y of their Motion for New Trial (A: p. 928-941) and JUDGE V.

EVANS r e t r e a t from t h e position he took in his initial order (A: p. 942-943), s i n c e i t is

c l e a r t h a t t h e WISHARTS reversed t h e final judgement (A: p. 219) on the grounds t h a t

R u l e 1.440, Fla. R. Civ. P. had been violated (A: p. 586-594 and p. 355) and not b e c a u s e

they claimed t h e y had not had a hearing (A: p. 737-751).

      77.    LESLIE i s without e x c u s e , s h e knows t h e t r u t h , and is t h e r e f o r e lying t o t h e

Supreme C o u r t , and a n application of t h e C l e a n hands doc t r i n e will resolve this c a s e .

      78.    The problems w i t h t h e motion p r a c t i c e is t h a t t h e J u d g e s have lost t h e power t o

judge because they believe t h e c l e a n hands d o c t r i n e is abolished in family law under

Johnson v. Johnson, 284 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) wherein t h e 2d DCA failed t o ,

mention t h e r e s e r v a t i o n regarding fraud and d e c e i t in t h e R y a n , c a s e they c i t e d .

      79.    Of c o u r s e , w e must wait t h e outcome of this cdse t o know.

         P e t i t i o n e r s d e l a y e d t h i s "opportunity t o be heard" until hearings corn-
         menced on 23 June 1987.

      80.    WISHARTS' evidence of medical n e g l e c t r e q u i r e s a showing of a r e c u r r i n g p a t -

t e r n of n e g l e c t by LESLIE.

      81.    But t h e C o u r t s have refused t o allow even the visitation g r a n t e d in t h e f i n a l

judgement, ds amended, such that t h e "valid" Final Judgement is void a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e

WISHART'S, and t h e r e f o r e the WISHARTS demanded the r e t u r n of TIFFANY and a period
)
.   of d e l a y in o r d e r t o r e e s t a b l i s h a p a t t e r n , t h a t is if t h e C o u r t s c o n t i n u e t o r e f u s e t o

    a p p l y t h e c l e a n h a n d s d o c t r i n e t o LESLIE.

           82.     The C o u r t s h a v e d e l i b e r a t e l y s h u t t h e WISHAKTS o u t c o n t r a r y t o l a w (A: p. 592

    1
    1 61, a n d h a v e t h e n p u t t h e m t o t r i a l w i t h "old" e v i d e n c e .
           83.    It i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t of s h o o t i n g fish in a b a r r e l .

               F i v e ( 5 ) d a y s o f f u t h e r h e a r i n g s , b e f o r e t h e Honorable J u d g e Vernon
               Evans, r e s u l t e d in t h e "ORDER GRANTING MOTION F O R INVOLUNTARY
               DISMISSAL O F THE WISHART CONTER-CLAIM F O R CUSTODY O F
               TIFFANY BATESn b e i n g r e n d e r e d an 1 7 J u l y 1987. (A:p. 925-927)

           84. WISHARTS' motion (A: p. 928-941) shows w h y t h e m a t t e r should n o t h a v e b e e n

    t r i e d , c e r t d i n l y n o t by JUDGE V. EVANS, a n d t h a t t h e WISHARTS w e r e d e n i e d t h e o p p o r -

    t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t t h e e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o LESLIE'S unfitness.

           85.     T h e e n t i r e t r i a l w a s b a s e d upon t h e validity of t h e void a n d voided Final J u d g e -

    m e n t , leaving LESLIE f i t , a n d t h e WISHARTS r e t r y i n g a m a t t e r d u e t o t h e i r d e c e p t i o n o f


e   t h e f i r s t p a n e l of t h e 2d DCA.

           86.     A s a r e s u l t , JUDGE V. EVANS i n s u l t e d t h e WISHARTS, their w i t n e s s e s , a n d c o n -

    s t a n t l y c o m m e n t e d a b o u t e a c h n e w p i e c e of e v i d e n c e , a s though i t w a s a w a s t e o f his

    t i m e , dnd c o n s e q u e n t l y i g n o r e d t h e e v i d e n c e t h e WISHARTS p r e s e n t e d .

           87.     When t h e WISHARTS g a v e t h e i r d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e r e p o r t e r a s k i n g f o r e x c e r p t s o f

    t h e t i m e s JUDGE V. EVANS m a d e s u c h d i s p a r a g i n g r e m a r k s , t h e r e p o r t e r s r e f u s e d s t a t i n g

    t h a t t h e r e m a r k s w e r e m a d e r e g a r d i n g n e a r l y e v e r y submission of e v i d e n c e .

           88. C l e a r l y JUDGE V. EVANS i n t e n d e d t o dismiss t h e case f r o m t h e s t a r t on t h e

    b a s i s of their h a v i n g "liedtt t o t h e 2d p a n e l of t h e 2d DCA.

               R e s p o n d e n t p r e v a i l e d again b e c a u s e s h e is a f i t a n d p r o p e r p a r e n t .

           89. LESLIE p r e v a i l e d b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g her f i t n e s s , h e r lying a n d h e r
    medical n e g l e c t w e r e i g n o r e d , a n d o f t e n r e f u s e d admission.

               Petitioner state that the couts hare t r i e d to s h u t the; out. However, it
               a p p e a r s t h a t the Covts are v e r y o p e n t o p e t i t i o n e r s . F a e x a m p l e , t h e i r
               b r i e f for t h i s a p p e a l w a s due o n 14 M a r c h 1988. T h i s Court a c c e p t e d

                                                                       -   15 -
                                                         N
           their ."MOTION FOR EXTENTION TO FILE BRIEFw O 15 March 1988 in
           conhadic tion of it's guidelineswhich states:

                  "Motions for extension filed on the due date or after a brief
                  is due will be denied.

         90.   The record here developed reflects the WISHARTS to be on the short end of jus-

    tice so long as the law is so easily thwarted, and the 1 day extension is nothing more

    than common courtesy.

           On 19 March 1988, Respondent received Petitioners "NOTICE OF AP-
           PEAL" directed a t the "ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INVOLUN-
           TARY DISMISSAL OF THE WISHART COUNTER-CLAIM FOR CUSTODY
           OF TIFFANY BATES" dated 17 December 1987, Nunc Pro Tunc, 14 De-
           cember 1987, reh. den. 16 February 1988. (A:p. 925-927)

         91. Clearly, the same matters the WISHARTS are objecting to in the present appeal,

are those matters that caused them to be abused and then expelled by JUDGE V. EVANS.

         92. It is not clear however that a notice of appeal was necessary u n t i l this appeal

runs its course since Rule 9.130(f), Fla. R. App. P. would, since the initial appeal to the

    Supreme Court was an interlatory appeal, provide a stay of               JUDGE V.      EVANS

    Involuntary dismissal so long as this case is pending.

         93. Therefore, the notice of appeal having been filed out of an abundance of cau-

    tion may not have been necessary, as the case is stayed automatically by the Rule.

           Petitioners Brief and Appendix is but another example of Petitioners
           inability to state true and actual facts.



                                                       V
           Petitioners INDEX ,TO APPENDIX-VOLUME 1 reflects that there is a
           document entitled2ADJUDICATION OF CONTEMPT, ORDER REGARDING
           TEMPORARY CHANGE OF CUSTODY, and NOTICE OF HEARING, by
           Judge Falsone, dated 25 Feb. 86 on page 755-756.

           When in actual 1frct the decument on pages 755-756 is 'ADJUDICATION
           OF CONTEMPT, ORDER REGARDING TEMPORARY CHANGE OF VISITA-
           TION, and NOTICE OF HEARINGa by Judge John C. Hodges dated 25 Feb-
           ruary 1986.

.        94. Again LESLIE has found a clerical error, and wants to declare it a lie, even
    though the WISHARTS provided a copy of the document in their appendix (A: p. 7561,
    f r o m which d o c u m e n t i t may be shown LESLIE e r r e d as well in c o r r e c t i n g t h e n a m e o f

    t h e judge signing t h e o r d e r which is J o h n G. n o t J o h n C. Hodges.

           95.     I t should b e n o t e d t h a t if all LETLIE c a n find t o a c c u s e C H A R L E S a r e c l e r i c a l

    e r r o r s a n d n o t d e c e i t , t h e n CHARLES would t a k e t h a t a s proof of his i n t e g r i t y .

                                                                     ARGUMENT

               T h i s e n t i r e case is l a c k i n g merit.

           96. R a t h e r t h i s case c u t s t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e a n d d u e p r o c e s s o f

    law, w h e t h e r a t t o r n e y s a r e t o be t h e lapdogs a n d s e r v a n t s of a p o l i t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d judi-

    c i a r y , or c a n t h e y d e p e n d on t h e c o u r t s t o d e f e n d them w h e n e v e r t y r a n n y m a n i f e s t s .

               If n o t f o r t h e u n p r o f e s s i o n a l m i s c o n d u c t o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r s , t h i s l i t i g a t i o n
               would n o t be i n t h e judicial system.

           97.     R u t f o r t h e b r e a k d o w n of t h e Family L a w System, a n d t h e d i s c a r d i n g o f t h e

    c l e a n h a n d s d o c t r i n e , a n d morals in g e n e r a l , w h i c h would cornpel t h e t r u t h t o c o m e f o r t h ,

    t h i s c d s e would e i t h e r be dismissed a g a i n s t LESLIE, or s h e would long a g o h a v e c l e a n e d

    up her a c t d n d a n a c c o m o d a t i o n within t h e family would h a v e b e e n made.

               On 2 A p i l 1 9 8 6 P e t i t i o n e r s w e r e g r a n t e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y to f u r t h e r h e a r i n g o n t h e
               custody portion of t h e Final Judgement, which w a s n o t altered.

           98. LESLIE a d m i t s t h a t t h e WISHARTS had a prior h e a r i n g , b u t s h e r e f u s e s to a d m i t

    t h a t t h e Final J u d g e m e n t w a s r e v e r s e d n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f a c t i t s p e c i f i c a l l y s a y s r e -

    versed.

           99.     Whdt LESLlE a n d t h e Florida Bar might c a l l unprofessional c o n d u c t C H A R L E S

    c a l l s r e s i s t a n t t o t y r a n n y in a b a r which is losing i t s r i g h t t o r e g u l a t e a t t o r n e y s w h o a r e

    willing to r e s i s t tyranny.

               Petitioners d e l a y e d h a v i n g a h e a r i n g u n t i l J u n e 1987. " F u r t h e r hearing"
               c o n s i s t e d of two days in June, 2 d a y s i n S e p t e m b e r a n d c o n c l u d e d o n 1 4
               December 19117. C u s t o d y p o r t i o n of F i n a l J u d g e m e n t w a s n o t a l t e r e d .

          100. Having d i s c u s s e d t h e c a u s e s of d e l a y s , a n d of JUDGE V. EVANS motives, t h e
                                                                                                                 1




a   m d t t e r will n o t b e r e s t a t e d .
         Now, April of 1988, ~ e t k n e r s b j e c t t o t h e 1984 hearing, t h e 2 April
                                                   o
         1986 2d DCA mandate, t h e 7 August 1987 2d DCA mandate, and t h e 1987
         hearing on t h e c u s t o d y portion o f t h e Final Hearing.
     101. WISHART a c c e p t s t h e 2 April 1986 (A: p. 222) and t h e May 16 1986 Mandate

t h a t accompanied it, save for t h e f a c t that hdving prevailed, and reversed the Final

Judgement, t h e WISHARTS c a n n o t r e a p t h e benefits of t h a t mandate, and as t o t h e other

rndtters, they r e f l e c t a denial of due process of law for t h e reasons developed above.

         Respondent o b j e c t s to Tiffany's w e l f a r e being sacrificed a n d overlooked
         because of P e t i t i o n e r s ambitious a t t e m p t s t o undermine t h e legal system.
     102. WISHART would emphatically s t a t e t h a t t h e r e is no ambitious a t t e m p t t o under-

mine the legal system, but r a t h e r a simple desire t o p r o t e c t TIFFANY, and a s well t o

preserve CHARLES right t o p r a c t i c e law, by exposing and overturning tyranny whereever

it i n t e r f e r e s with t h e prosecution of t h e law.

         The C l e a n Hands Doctrine to which t h e P e t i t i o n e r s r e f e r must be applied
         to Petitioners c o n d u c t in this issue, and i t is further evidence t h a t t h e
         issues in this a p p e a l must be dismissed and this case brought t o a n end.

     103. Here t h e WISHARTS a g r e e , but with a d i f f e r e n t end than t h a t LESLIE envisions.

                                                  QUESTION I

         WHEN A MATTER IS PUT TO TRIAL, IN VIOLATION O F RULE 1.440,
         FLA. R. CIV. P., OVER OBJECTIONS, SHALL NOT THE JUDGEMENT
         THAT ENSUES BE VOID AND THE PARTIES RESTORED TO THEIR STA-
         TUS AS THOUGH THE TRIAL NEVER OCCURED AND THE JUDGEMENT
         WAS NEVER RENDERED?

         With r e f e r e n c e to this case, P e t i t i o n e r s insist on, then o b j e c t to, being
         heard. If an a t t o r n e y continaliy files motions in order t o k e e p a n issue
         from coming t o trial, and t o maintain t h e s t a t u s quo, then t h e r e must b e
         some relief in order for t h e issue t o move forward.

         Petitioners had insufficient evidence and testimony t o prevail, o t h e r w i s e
         they wouid h a v e . b e e n anxious t o k i n g i t t o trial, r a t h e r than file mo-
         tisns, raitc objections, and use o t h e r delaying t a c t i c s t o prevent a speedy
         triai a n d conclusion..

         The p a r t i e s c a n n o t b restored t o a t h e i r s t a t u s as though t h e trial never
                                        e
         occured. Shortly. a f t e r the f h a l hearing in December 1984, both Respon-
         dent and Randy ewere rcmatrhd Shortly thereaf tu, Randall and his new
         w i f e became p a r e n t s .of t w o daughters, and Respondent and her new hus-
         band became p a r e n t s of a son.
                           d   .




                Tiffany i s with her mother a n d brother w h e r e s h e rightly belongs.

        Randall, Resporrdcnt a n d Tiffany are going forward with .their lives.                   It is
        only t h e P e t i t i o n e r s who w a n t t o g o back five ( 5 ) y e a r s in time.

     104. Since LESLIE did not address the issue the WISHARTS would assume t h a t t h e

reversal of the- Final Judgement requires the r e t u r n of TIFFANY pursuant t o t h e holdings

of Johnson et al. v. McKinnon, 54 Fla. 221, 45 So. 23 (1907); G r a y v. Gray, 107 So. 261

(Fla. 1926); Esch et al. v. Forester et al., 127 So. 336 (Fla. 1930) and the c i t e d rule, t h e

bdlance of the comments being irrelevant, save t h a t neither RANDY nor t h e WISHARTS

g e t t o s e e TIFFANY.

                                               QUESTION I1

         DID THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT O F APPEAL OPINION AND MAN-
         DATE IN THE WISHART V. BATES, 487 SO. 2D 342 (FLA. 2D DCA 1986)
         IN REVERSING THE "FINAL JUDGEMENT O F DISSOLUTION O F MAR-
         RIAGE" THEREBY VOID THAT JUDGEMENT?

         NO. T h a t opinion and mandate did n o t r e v e r s e nor void t h e "FINAL
         JUDGEMENT O F DISSOLUTION O F MARRIAGEA.

         T h e case w a s remanded t o t h e trial c o u r t for further hearing on t h e cus-
         tody issue only.

     105. No doubt a distinction had t o be made between the dissolution of marriage, and

t h e child custody portions of t h e final judgement, but having reversed the Judgement, it

c a n have no binding e f f e c t on t h e WISHARTS without denying them the due process t h e

opinion s t a t e s they w e r e denied.

        P e t i t i o n e r s did n o t h a v e evidcnce to support their allegations at t h e o n s e t
        of t h i s case, a n d f i v e (5) y e a r s of litigation h a s n o t changed t h a t fact.

    106. Documented lying, immoral c o n d u c t , medical neglect of TIFFANY, and LESLIE

still insists t h e WISHARTS have no evidence.

        Since the S c c d D h t r k t Court of Appeals filed their opinion 16 May
        1986, t h e mandate has -been r e p e a t e d l y c l a r i f i e d far- t h e Petitioners in
        t h a t t h e Final Judgement w a s neither void nor reversed. (A:p. 219, 221-
         222, 223-2959 226-229)
    107. A t least LESLIE a g r e e s t h a t t h e WISHARTS tried repeatedly t o overturn t h e

void Final Judgement and t o e n f o r c e t h e mandate once t h e Judgement was reversed, and

Yet all of t h a t t o no practical avail since they do not have TIFFANY in their c a r e .
     108. The beauty of a vqid order is t h a t i t c a n be a t t a c k e d forever, unless t h e peti-

tioner runs o u t of c o u r t s t h a t will r e c e i v e petitions t o overturn the void order.

                                                         QUESTION 111

            ARE THE WISHARTS ENTITLED TO THE AWARD O F APPELLATE COSTS
            AFTER HAVING PREVAILED BEFORE THE 2D DCA IN THE CASE O F
            WISHART V. BATES, 487 SO.2D 342 (FLA. 2D DCA 1986)?

            P e t i t i o n u s . d i d n o t prevail and a r e e n t i t l e d t o nothing.
            The outcome of t h e final hearing w a s n o t altered,

            Through d e c e i t and dishonesty t h e y gained a n opportunity t o p r e s e n t fur-
            t h e e v i d e n c e and testimony on t h e c u s t o d y portion of t h e Final Judge-
            ment, neither of which they had?

    109. A reversal for whatever reason, g r a n t s c o s t s unless ordered otherwise, and since

no such order was e n t e r e d as required by Rule 9.400(a), Fla. R. Civ. P, t h e WISHARTS

a r e entitled t o costs.

    110. Here LESLIE r e i t e r a t e s t h e lie devised by t h e trial dnd appellate courts, t h a t

t h e case was not appealed on t h e Rule violation, which LESLIE knows full well t o be a

lie, which was and is intended t o inpune t h e WISHARTS.

            It w a s Rot a          b u t , f u t h e r hearing which w a s a c t u a l l y P e t i t i o n e r s
            resubmitting o l d testimony a n d old evidence which w e r e already in t h e
            records. (A:p. 925-9271

    I I!.      Much of t h e evidence was used before, but Dr. Hillseth testified for t h e f i r s t

time, and a s well Carole Priede, C o u r t Counselor who had written t h r e e social r e p o r t s

but had not testified, nor been subject t o WISHARTS' cross-examination b e f o r e JUDGE

MENENDEZ, since she was in t h e hospital cind could not testify notwithstanding t h e f a c t

she was under WISHARTS' subpoena.
    112. There was e v e n one piece of e v i d e n c e t h a t r e f l e c t e d t h a t LESLIE was still neg-     ,

l e c t i n g TIFFANY'S medical in December 1985.

    I I 3. But in any case, i t was t o be a trial d e nova s i n c e t h e f i r s t was a mistrial.
        Respondent has been unduly s u b j e c t e d t o f i v e y e a r s of slander a n d vile
        a l l e g a t i o n s a n d harrassment from t h e P e t i t i o n e r s b u t t h e y h a v e n o t pre-
        vailed.

    114. Slander is hardly t h e word for t h e t r u t h is a d e f e n s e t o a c h a r g e o f slander.

    115.   Note t h a t LESLIE has not denied t h e lies c h a r g e d t o her, nor t h e points o f law

and t h e f d c t s t h e t h e WISHARTS are relying on, but she is relying on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e

C o u r t s abuse of t h e WISHARTS t o justify herself, while t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s her mentors

have committed fraud and d e c e i t themselves in a d e s p e r a t e move t o stop t h e WISHARTS.



        DOES NOT THE PRINCIPLE O F RES JUDICATA BAR THE SECOND PA-
        NEL WHICH HAD NO ACCESS T O THE RECORD O F APPEAL T O OVER-
        TURN THE JUDICIAL WORK O F THE FIRST PANEL OVER 16 MONTHS
        LATER AND PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PLAIN MEANING O F THE
        PRIOR OPINION O F THE FIRST PANEL WAS LOST ON THE SECOND
        PANEL SINCE THEY CLEARLY DID NOT LOOK BEHIND IT?

        Each issue s t a n d s on its w i t s .

        P e t i t i o n e r s did n o t prevail at t h e f i r s t panel.   T h e Final J u d g e m e n t w a s
        n o t overturned.

        Respondent prevailed at t h e sccond panel.

        P e t i t i o n e r s r e f u s e to comprehend, understand, or a c c e p t a n y o r d e r t h a t i s
        c o n t r a r y to their demands, b u t d e l i b e r a t e misinterpretation d o e s n o t a l t e r
        legal documents.

    116. Clearly r e s judicata applies t o t h e a t t e m p t of t h e second panel t o r e v e r s e t h e

f i r s t panels opinion reversing t h e Final Judgement a s i t e f f e c t s t h e WISHARTS relation-

ship t o TIFFANY.

    117. How c a n LESLIE prevail when t h e opinion of t h e second panel o f t h e 2d DCA is

bdsed on f d c t s t h a t d o not e x i s t , a n d which violate both law, r u l e s and reason, and con-
trary to LESLIE'S words, misinterpretation does alter legal documents, until the error

can be corrected.

                                        QUESTION V

       COULD LESLIE RAISE THE ISSUE O F CHANGE O F VISITATION IN THE
       GUISE OF AN ILLEGAL GRANTING OF CUSTODY WITHOUT AN EVIDEN-
       TlARY HEARING WITHOUT RUNNING AFOUL O F THE CLEAN HANDS
       DOCTRINE?

       Petitioners have n e v u had legal custody o f Tiffany.

    118.   The WISHARTS began w i t h a guardianship status pursuant t o Section 39.01(27),

Fla. Stat. (1983) when RANDY gave them a letter of guardianship (A: p. 20) along w i t h

physical custody.

    119.   That status was changed to temporary primary residency i n BOBBIE by the

STEINBEKG ORDER (A: p. 201-202) which Order i s s t i l l the outstanding legal order.

       The courts have consistantly established t h a t the Respondent is a f i t and
       proper parent;. that the Petitioners allegations are withot merit; and has
       f v t h u documented that contact w i t h the Petitioners i s detrimental t o
       Tiffany.

    120.   This matter having been discussed will not be restated.

    121.   The matter of the WISHARTS being detrimental i s a result of an HRS report

wherein the WISHARTS evidence was ignored, and which was written from whole cloth,

and the WISHARTS were not even allowed, by JUDGE V. EVANS, to finish their cross-ex-

amination of the writer Margaret Murphy (A: p. 932 11 17-28).

                                       QUESTION VI

       WHAT ARE THE CAUSES THAT LED TO THE BREAKDOWN OF THE
       F A M I L Y LAW COURT IN THE STATE O F FLORIDA, AND WHAT ARE
       THE REMEDleS?. .

       Respondent would suggest t h a t i f this i s a valid question, Petitioners mis-
       conduct may be the cause; removing Petitioners from the system may be
       the remedy.

    122.   The removal of CHARLES seems to be a distinct posibility, but not for cause.
         P e t i t i o n e r s a r e abusing t h e Family Law Courts, they c a u s e d t h e final hearing to be
         delayed from mid 1983 until Deernber 1984, w e r e g r a n t e d "further hearing" April 1986,
         and then delayed t h a t "opportunity" until J u n e 1987.

     3       T h o is dbusing who and whdt 5 h a l l be left up               to thc'      Court.

          Petitioners insist on, then o b j e c t to, being heard.

     124.     T h c m a t t e r having k e n c o v e r e d will not be r e s t a t e d .

          C h a r l e s Wishart, officer of the court, was jailed twice, a n d rightly so,
          because of his flagrant, deliberate. CONTEMPT O F COURT as is r e f e r e n c -
          ed throughout P e t i t i o n e r s Appendix. (A:p. 1-4)

     125. CHARLES went t o jail, as a means t o obtain a hearing a s would o v e r t u r n t h e

void orders and p r o t e c t TIFFANY.

     126. Clearly habeas c o r p u s i s a rapid a p p e l l a t e remedy when a child is a t hazard.

     127. Note t h a t i t was t h e c o u r t s t h a t violated t h e law, hearings w e r e denied, and

t h a t i t was t h e WISHARTS running t o t h e C o u r t s e a c h time, with t h e desire t o be heard.

     128. Further, t h e WISHARTS w e r e never adjudicated guilty of contempt, and t h e r e

was never a reason for CHARLES t o be jailed, since he was before t h e c o u r t e a c h tirne.

     129. However, i t is worthy of note t h a t these necessary t a c t i c s a s p r o t e c t e d

TIFFANY brought t h e i r e of t h e lunchroom group on CHARLES.

     130. They a r e clearly intending t o deliver a message, and t h a t message is c l e a r .

     131. CHARLES answer t o t h a t message i s t h e prior litigation and t h e present cdse, i f

a n a t t o r n e y a t law may not p r a c t i c e law without submitting t o t h e approval o f a clique,

whether they be attorneys, judges or any other group g a t h e r e d t o arbitrarily c o n t r o l t h e

c o u r t s , then that law license is worthless t o CHARLES, for he will not s a c r i f i c e his

c h a r a c t e r for e i t h e r wealth, or a c c e p t a n c e from a c o r r u p t system, but i s more than will-

ing t o admit t h a t t h e system is in need of repair, and is fully and well prepared t o help

t o c o r r e c t t h e e r r o r s t h a t led t o this debacle.

                                           SUMMARY O F ARGUMENT
      This litigation i lacking merit and is a sham, the issues of this appeal are
                      s
      frivolous as thest. questions y e not a true reflection of this case, and
      Petitioners are now attempting to mislead the higher cowt.

      Petitioners have never had legal custody of Tiffany.

      The issue was ready for trial in November 1983, but Petitioners delayed i t
      until December 1984, wherein Respondent prevailed a t Final Hearing.

      Petitioners appealed. The mandate of the first panel has been repeatedly
      clarified by the 2d DCA and trial judges i n that the Final Judgement was
      never voided n o r reversed-

      The courts have established that vistation with Petitioners is detrimental
      to Tiffany, mostly because of their repeated abductions and defiant refus-
      a l t o obey c o w t orders.

      The second panels mandate was unrelated to the first panels mandate,,as
                                  n
      the second mandate was i reference to appellate costs and visitation
      being granted a t -a procedural hearing.

      Respondent has. consistently prevailed on the true issue. Petitioners have
      succeeded in .abusing.rights, privileges, delaying justice, and abusing and
      missing the legal system.

      Every man is entitled to a day in cotrt, but five years?
      Every man is entitled t o an appeal, but five years?

       The principle of Justice implies that one cannot pervert justice, and jus-
       tice, and justice delayed i s justice denied.

   132.   Since this has been rehashed over and over, no further comment will be made

save that LESLIE never denied she lied, nor that the WISHARTS reversed the Final

Judgement by invoking the rule violation, and in general she neither impeached nor refut-

ed any of the WISHARTS facts or law, and of course she could not.

                                      CONCLUSION

       The issues kfmrthis cou.t:have no merit.

       Respondent i a fit and proper parent that needs the Petitioners out of
                     s
       her life so she can devote. her a l l of energies t o k i n g a mother.

      The Flari& Bar Associations Amended Complaint, facts tin Petitioners
      five ( 5 ) volume appendix, the Clean Hands Doctrine, and because Petition-
      ers Brief and Appendix as presented t o t h i s - c o u t are not true and accu-
      rate are sufficient t o show that the petitioners, and this case, are both
      out of order and should be dismissed.
    133.    Here further comment is warranted.

    134.    JUDGE NORRIS has declared the 2 June 1983 Order of JUDGE KNOWLES (A: p.

12-13) valid and not void ab i n i t i o (SA: p. 9 1 1, and p. 10 8 8 3-71 i n spite of the fact that

the WISHARTS did not get a hearing and the decree was therefore void on due process

principles as incorporated i n Scction 61.131,   Fla. Stat. (1983).

    135.    Within the same paragraphs JUDGE NORKIS declared the void and voided Final

Judgement valid and that the w r i t o f habeas corpus which had no return nor rule t o show        ,



case, and which was enforcing a judgement which was put to t r i a l while the pleadings

were not a t issue, and had not even been rendered, and which was eventually reversed by

the first panel of the 2d QCA;        had t o be obeyed by the WISHARTS, even they set and

appeared at a hearing before JUDGE D. EVANS, who refused to hear them and walked o t

of the courtroom, leaving the WISHARTS to their appellate remedies.

    135.    Shades of star chamber.

     3 6    Here is the chairman of the Judges Council o f the State o f Florida, and the

Chief Judge of Polk County finding an attorney guilty of breaching his ethics for refus-

ing to obey such orders.

    137.    Obviously he had, not a legal but a hard political decision, to either declare

CHARLES right as to the manifest law and facts, and thereby put his judges a t hazard,

or fly in the face of the settled law, and by throwing enough mud a t CHARLES hope

enough would stick to mark him as an outlaw.

     138.   He even called CHARLES a liar, when there is no evidence, and the only persons

suggesting that did not appear since CHARLES could impeach them for their own misre-

presentations.

     139.   This tactic is hardly a new one.

     140.   These seems t o be nothing new nder the sun, for we find i n The Holy       Bible, K.
J. V.,   The Companion Bible,    Isa. 59 11 1-15 (SA: p. 581, c i r c a 600 B.C. speaks of the
    "good old boy system" and particlarly so when the grammar and idioms are enlarged in

    the footnote to paragraph 15 wherein i t reads:

           15. Yea, t r u t h faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a
           prey;
           and the Lord saw it, and i t displeased hirn thdt there was no judgement.

           15 truth faileth = the t r u t h is found missing.

           maketh himself a prey: i.e. is liable to be dispoiled, or outlawed. Rashi
           says, "is considered mad", as A. V. margin.

        141.   This lawyer's father was an attorney, and he proudly followed in his steps.

        142. This lawyer was offered a clerkship in the Supreme Court but could not serve

    since he was one semester out in his graduation sequence, but he felt honored.

        142.   The first thing this lawyer did was sit in traffic court as a substitute judge,

    three times, until he had a client who had been able to buy continances.

        143. An inquiry to another young attorney as to what was going on prompted the re-

    ply "Don't rock the boat."

        144.   My first contact with his t r i a l judge, on a DUI, upon introducing himself t o the
@   judge was, "What's this I hear    you think this court is corrupt."

        145.   Since this Lawyer was concerned for his client, this Lawyer took the extraordin-

    ary measure of invoking the 4th amendment, and when the motion was denied, he filed

    his first suit i n Circuit Court against that judge, a writ of Prohibition, and won.

        146.   That Judge is now a personal friend, knew that this Lawyer was doing no more

    his duty, and ldter due to the friendship recused himself at CHARLES request when his

    name came up i n this case, and then later testified i n this case as to CHARLES integrity

    and reputation for t r u t h and veracity, which he testified was good, and CHARLES was

    honored, including before JUDGE V. EVANS, who was rude to him as well.

        147.   There really does not appear to be any polite way to get the bum's out o f the

    boat without rocking it.
    148.   I t should be noted however that this lawyer never again was appointed to sit as

a judge of t r a f f i c court while the attorney who exposed his inquiries did.

       Petitioners now have this-case in the Florida Supreme Court objecting t o
       the mandate that gave them f i v e additional days of hearing on the cus-
       tody issue, and simultantausly - in the Second District C o w t of Appeals
       objecting t o the outcome o f that hearing. This case was back i n the t r i a l
       Court in 1987, because of the mandate i n 1986, for Petitioners t o repeat
       what they said a t the Final Hearing i n 1984, that they have been saying
       since 1983.

    149.   The WISHARTS admit t o a certain trepidation after being prevented from ga-

thering evidence, or from receiving the primary residency status, of for that matter be-

ing prevented from invoking the clean hands doctrine against an habitual liar who needs

help i n learning to take her responsibilities, rather than being assured that she will be

given her "god given rights" no matter how often she lies, abuses her child, or otherwise

abuses those rights, and the courts could make one rather nervous and particularly after

all that has happened i n this case, and is looming on the horizon.

    150.   I t would also seem obvious that a change of venue would not work, for there-
                                                  -


after the hostile judges would know that they could make CHARLES run, and his license

would be worthless, so he must stand, looking for help from the appellate courts, and

hoping this case w i l l p t an end t o such treatment of any attorney worthy of that title.

    151.   The real issue is whether the Spreme Court will stand up, protect the

WISHARTS, punish the t r i a l and appellate judges that have so shamefully mistreated the

WISHARTS, dismiss LESLIE'S pleadings, and grant the WISHARTS permanent costody of

custody, and leave a path for an attorney to invoke the Constitutional Officer jurisdic-

tion whenever such an event occurs again, and long before 5 years.

    152.   The alternative is t o put CHARLES o t of his misery by disbarment, for he i s the

antithesis of such a system and will never submit to such tyranny, whether i t be his

grandchild or that of a stranger that i s a t hazard, and particularly when the child is i n

imminent ddnger of unnecessary surgery.
     153. P e r h a p s a c o n t e r f o r c e t o t h e b a r ' s politics and s a f e law might be m e t by a bar

made up of those a t t o r n e y s who have been t o jail a t least o n c e for resisting such heinous

and foul t a c t i c e and abuses, who cold then c e r t i f y a complaint t o the Supreme C o u r t ,

which suggestion while sounding f a c e t i o u s r e f l e c t s a c e r t a i n portion of t r u t h since it

would give t h e minority power t o expose and keep the p r a c t i c e s of t h e majority honest,

for d f t e r all, t h a t is t h e t u r e function f o t h e c o u r t s in the first place.

         P e t i t i o n e r s failed to g e t t w o t r i a l judges on this case simultaneously. (A:po 102)

     154. A c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k on a void order as would have p r e v e n t e d filing a petition for

a writ of prohibition a n d mandamus against Judge Knowles.

         Respondent prays-.t h i s . Honorable Supreme C o u r t of t h e . S t a t e of Florida
         will d i r e c t its a t t e n t i o n to Tiffany . a n d issue its m a n d a t e to t h a t . e f f e c t . .
         To close, s e a l a n d d e s t r o y t h i s case f i l e would a l s o be .in Tiffanys b e s t .
         i n t e r e s t s i n c e t h i s case is based soley o n slanderous allegations a b o u t her
         mother.

     155. TIFFANY has with r a r e exceptions, and t h a t in measured rersponses, not k e n

served well, and rarely seen, much less inquired of by t h e J u d g e s who w e r e t o o preoccu-

pied with delivering their message to t h e WISHARTS.

     156. The Judges e f f e c t i v e position is t h a t they have t h e right t o issue a r b i t r a r y de-

c r e e s , t o leave t h e WISHARTS' only t h e slow and i n e f f e c t i v e a p p e l l a t e process, a n d then

t o fight o f f CHARLES'S a t t e m p t s t o prevent t h e unnecessary surgery by forcing a hear-

ing by extraordinary means and writs, t o give them t h e opportunity to prove t h a t t h e

C o u r t and HRS'S r e p o r t s a r e f a l s e , t h a t TIFFANY is a t hazdrd, and t h a t she was unlaw-

fully taken from them.

         Respcc tfully submitted,



         Respondent
         Leslie B a t e s (Boggs)
         P O BOX 4 . *
          ..
         Seffner, Florida 33584
         Ph. (81 3) 623-6893
                                      CERTIFICATE O F SERVICE

        I HEREBY CERTIFY t h a t a true c o p y of t h e foregoing w a s furnished this
        8th d a y of April. ,by U. S. Mail to Bobbie Sue and C h a r l e s F. Wishar t, 410
        West Bloomingdde, Brandon, Florida 3351 1-7402.


                                                          IS/
                                                         Leslie B a t e s (Boggs)

    157. Note t h a t LESLIE is not serving RANDY who she listed as a party, and t h a t is

basically what she did b e f o r e t h e second panel of t h e 2d DCA as well.

    158. How c a n o n e lose c u s t o d y of a child without a hearing, b e thrown in jail f o r

failing t o obey an e x - p a r t e order which e n f o r c e s a void and d e nova'd o r d e r ?

    159. How c a n one be required a Judgement frorn a m a t t e r put t o trial while t h e r e

was a motion to s t r i k e t h e last pleading, then e n f o r c e t h a t judgement with a w r i t o f hdb-

e a s c o r p u s issued while t h e r e was a hearing schedled, which writ was e n f o r c i n g a void

Judgement which had not e v e n been rendered?

    160. How c a n a n a t t o r n e y be c h a r g e d much less c.onvicted o f refusing t o obey such

tyranny?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:12/28/2012
language:Unknown
pages:31