Sie sind auf Seite 1von 36

From: Heidemann & Heidemann January 22, 2009

2787 Rainbow Circle East

Jacksonville, Florida 32217
Hm. Ph. (904) 733-8671

To: Mr. Gary Ford

Public Defender
353 S. Ct. Street
Bronson, Florida 32621-6519
Ph (352) 486-5350

RE: Florida vs. Theresa Marie Martin 08-CT-219

Dear Mr. Ford:

Let me first began by stating I have the highest regards to anyone that goes
to four years to get a BA degree then another three years to law school and then
has to endure that grilling bar examine. I say congratulations and my hat is off to
you in a good career choice for our nation. And I might add that our nation needs
good honest attorney’s who will follow our United States constitution as well as
our Florida Constitution and.
I have just got to know Theresa; when we were introduced by a mutual
friend of ours Pamela Wright, who runs a website for people who have problems
with parental alienation syndrome. http://www. I re-
ceived a call from Ms. Wright stating the legal problems of Ms. Martin and if there
was any way I could help in her defense or come up with a legal argument in order
to get her out of this driving problem she is facing in your county.
I placed a call and talked to Theresa about her legal situation and soon real-
ized the complexity of her legal problems. I have come to the realization, that these
problems were created by an unfit seated, Pasco County Circuit Court Judge John

Renke III., who miserably failed to obey his sworn oath to uphold the United
States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, as well as Florida’s laws. It must be
under stood that as this sitting judge was already being investigated by Florida’s
Judicial Qualifications Commission and that governing body had already filed
formal charges alleging that this judge was already, being investigated by Florida’s
Judicial Qualifications Commission and the governing body had filed formal
charges in October 10, 2003 alleging that Judge Renke had engaged in improper
conduct during his campaign to become a circuit court judge.
The JQC charged him with violating Canon 7A(3)(a) and Canon (3)(d)(iii), of
knowingly and purposefully misrepresenting in a campaign brochure, that he was
portraying himself as an incumbent judge by describing himself as “John Renke, a
Judge With Our Values” when in fact, he was not at that time or ever before, a sit-
ting or incumbent judge. Then on February 18, 2005 The JQC amended their
charges to allege that Judge Renke had portrayed himself at least five or six times
as someone of great importance and with superior skills to be the next judge, in
Pasco County. This judge had full knowledge that all claims were false and mis-
leading, but was done in order to get the confidence of the citizens of this state to
vote him in office, as the next elected, Judge in Pasco County Circuit Court. Judge
Renke knew that his qualifications and experience were greatly inferior to his op-
Judge Renke, even had the nerve to additionally report in his campaign with full
knowledge and purpose by accepting a series of “loans” totaling $95,800 which,
were purportedly made by this judge to his campaign, which were reported as such,
but in fact the funds, in whole or in sizeable amount, were not his own legitimately
earned but were in truth contributions to his campaign from John Renke, II (or his
law firm) far in excess of the $500 per person limitation on such contributions im-
posed by controlling law in §§ 106.08(1)(a), 106.08(5) and 106.19(a) and (b), of
the Florida Statutes.
I believe that Ms. Martin should have been disclosed of these facts, in order
that she could decide, if she would want to file a motion to disqualify Judge Renke
III. It is obvious that this would later come back and haunt her in her illegal second
divorce action.
Judge Renke received the Hearing Panel’s recommendation of a public rep-
rimand. Judge Renke eventually received a somewhat of stronger recommendation
by the Florida Supreme Court in SC03-1846, which opined that the flagrant mis-
representations made to the voting public during Judge Renke’s judicial campaign
and included the serious campaign financial misconduct and violations of law
found by the Commission. The Court further added that he was presently unfit to
hold office and that removal from the bench was the only appropriate sanction in
this case.
Note* today he is a private attorney practicing in New Port Richey, Florida.
The next real problem was a Florida attorney, by the name of Arnelle L.
Strand who was hired by Theresa’s former husband, Stephen Martin to defend him
in a second divorce action filed in July 27, 2004, approximately thirty-three days
after the final judgment was signed by Judge Renke from the first divorce on June
24, 2004.
I will now try my best to make this as simple as I can, in order to prove to
you that Theresa CAN NOT BE GUILTY OF THE CHARGES that the State of
Florida has alleged as a misdemeanor offense of driving with a suspended license.
I will try my best and show you that the state is not or at the least should be in-
volved in making our citizens criminal per se. I will try and do this in a chrono-

logical order in order to make it simpler to understand where our checks and bal-
ance went wrong in the Theresa Martins case.
First thing to be understood is that Theresa Martin in 2003 filed for Support
Unconnected with Dissolution of Marriage in Case No: 03-2537DRWS against her
husband Stephen in Pasco County Circuit Court.
Several months later Theresa filed for divorce against her husband in Case
51-2003-DR-2537WS. He was officially served a second time after he was first
served at his job but had already quit that job therefore, he wasn’t working there.
Mr. Martin never raised the issue of not being properly served EVER in that ac-
tion. Yet Mr. Martin went to a least one hearing and signed a quit claim of the
marital property to the wife.
In that final order for divorce it is very important to know that the Court ac-
cepted the general magistrates report and recommendations dated on March 6,
2003 and Judge Renke incorporated it into the Final Judgment for Dissolution of
Marriage on June 24, 2004.
It is important to understand that after the final judgment of divorce and the
filing of the second divorce action by the former husband, Stephen, several illegal
acts occurred that are VITAL to understanding the future legal problems that The-
resa will have to incur.


(1). May 9, 2003 Case No: 03-2537DRWS Motion for Support Unconnected
w/Dissolution filed by Theresa. Theresa filed for child support unconnected with
dissolution of marriage. The Court’s Finding of Fact and Recommended Order was
signed by Judge Renke where he ordered Stephen to pay the wife in the amount of
$792.59 per month.
(2). May 24, 2003 On Case No: 21-2003CA- 000589WS Judge Renke had a hear-
ing pertaining to the foreclosure of the parties’ home. Judge Renke ordered that
the foreclosure sale of the parties’ home would be held on June 24, 2003. Note*
Stephen failed to appear at the hearing in order to possibly stop the foreclosure of
their home.
(3). October 22, 2003 Hearing with General Magistrate Beverly Plummer on Case
No: 03-2537DRWS Support Unconnected W/Dissolution of Marriage. Neither
party had legal counsel at the hearing nor did Stephen file a financial affidavit as
previously instructed by the Magistrate Beverly Plummer. NOTE* Stephen was
now over $5,000 in child support arrearages.
(4). December 3, 2003 General Master Beverly Plummer recommended the Mo-
tion for Support Unconnected with Dissolution of Marriage Case No: 03-
2537DRWS granted Theresa the children’s primary custodial parent and Judge
RENKE signed the Order.
(5). January 9, 2004 Theresa filed for Dissolution of Marriage in Case No: 04-
(6). January 29, 2004 Stephen voluntarily quite his job.
(7). March 30, 2004 Ford Motor Credit was in the act of a repossession on Ste-
phen’s F150 Ford Truck from his address at 8816 Mike Street in Port Richey,
Florida. The address was provided by Theresa after the Ford Motor Credit repre-
sentative came to Theresa’s residence looking for her husband’s truck and she gave
them the address of the vehicle. Note* It was the same address as the process
server used in serving the first divorce papers to him.

(8). May 11, 2004 Stephen fled the jurisdiction of Florida seeking refuge with
his mother, Ms. Helene Ottinger in Roseville, Michigan. The reason Stephen fled
Florida’s jurisdiction was that there was a hearing on the motion for civil con-
tempt/ enforcement & dissolution of marriage to be held on May 26, 2004 and he
didn’t want to be there and answer to the court, so he deliberately chose not to at-
tend the hearing therefore; fled to mother’s arms for safety.

(9). May 26, 2004 Dissolution of Marriage Case No: 04-101DR and the Con-
tempt/Enforcement hearing Case No: 03-2537DRWS were consolidated into one
case, which was now referred to as Case No: 04-101DR. Stephen failed to appear
at this hearing and now was $10, 303.00 behind in child support.

(10). June 1, 2004 Stephen quit claimed the parties’ home over to Theresa and
this allowed Theresa to acquire a loan remodification from Midfirst Bank. This
was vital based on the former husband’s failure to provide any money for the past
several months mortgage payments on the parties’ home. When Stephen refused,
to pay his share of the mortgage and other financial obligations, this put Theresa in
a bad financial position, which resulted in a foreclosure status back in January of
2003. Since Stephen was failing to pay his child support obligation this forced
Theresa in defaulting on chapter 12 and ultimately made Stephen to grant the Quit

Claim to her. This put Theresa in the position that required her to refinance the
home with a loan thru Midfirst Bank. This would allow Theresa later in the early
part of August to receive a certificate of no sale that would be ordered by Judge

(11). June 11, 2004 Judge Renke issued a $1,000 warrant for Stephen due to the
fact he was in the arrears of over $10,000.00 based on the civil enforcement mo-
tion filed. Judge Renke this on General Master, Beverly Plumber’s recommenda-

(12). June 17, 2004 Theresa calls 911 due to physical confrontation with her
daughter Stephanie at home. Stephanie was throwing a temper tantrum. Theresa
had been told by children in need of services & family in need of services that
when your children get out of hand that she was to call the police and they would
take the problem child to the Rap House (a place of time out for troubled teens).
Theresa was advised by CINS/FINS that this was the proper course of action as she
had been taught by youth & family services. Theresa was involved in the program
CINS/FINS and they had previously instructed her that if one of her children hit
their mother, threatened her, refused to go to school, and missed a city curfew to
call the local police.

(13). June 17, 2004 June 17, 2004 Theresa is arrested in her home for child ne-
glect for not having enough food. This all came about because Theresa called the
local county sheriff’s office for the reason that, her daughter Stephanie was throw-
ing a tantrum in the home. After Officer Chuck Kepel, Jr. arrived from the sheriff’s
office and talked to the mother and daughter on what was the problem between the
two of them. Theresa explained “that her daughter was refusing to do things that

she was told to do by her”. Stephanie told Officer Chuck Kepel, Jr. and along with
his riding partner that her mother had not went grocery shopping in three weeks
and hardly ever cooks for her.

Officer Kepel determined that the daughter’s story was more credible, especially
after looking into the mothers cabinets and finding that there wasn’t that much
food in them. Officer Kepel made the determination that even though the mother
made the 911 call, that there was a case of child neglect by the mother and arrested
her. Theresa was in jail for approximately 20 hours and then was released on her
own recognize.

Note* It is interesting to note here, that Deputy Kepel had been to this residence
about sixty (60) days earlier on another call made by Theresa against her daughter
Stephanie who was cutting her mother’s clothes up with a pair of scissors. In that
incidence Officer Kepel made a police report and then Theresa filed charges
against her daughter for destruction of property. Later below you will see that a
judge orders Stephanie to make restitution to her mother.

(14). June 19, 2004 Stephen kidnaps two of the parties’ children across State lines
to Michigan. Theresa was at work at Price Waterhouse and Stephen came with Mi-
chael Nichols who was 24 years old at the time and was living with Theresa’s other
daughter Jennifer Nichols and few other people I believe also lived with her at her
residence. Stephen went and met with Theresa’s other children Jessica and Stepha-
nie both were under eighteen at this time and illegally took them out of the State of
Florida to Michigan with his mother’s car. NOTE* These two children were not
legally his, based on the fact that he was not listed on the children’s birth certifi-
cates as the biological father nor were the parties’ married when the children were

born therefore, by Florida Law they were not legally his and had no legal basis to
take them out of Florida.

(15). June 24, 2004 Judge Renke signs the Final Judgment for Dissolution of

(16). July1, 2004 Judge Renke signs the warrant for Stephen’s arrest on con-
tempt/enforcement for refusing to pay court ordered child support.


(17). July 27, 2004 Theresa served with new Petition of Dissolution of Marriage
filed by Stephan’s new attorney, Arnelle Strand. Stephen Martin claims to be the
better parent for the temporary and permanent care of children. Claims wife was
arrested and children’s father called to get children. Debts and property to be equi-
table divided between both parties. No mention of previous divorce action in the

(18). July 28, 2004 Theresa files an answer in response stating that they were al-
ready divorced a month earlier in June 24, 2004.

(19). August 2, 2004 Judge Lowell Bray signs the Pick-Up Minor Children Order
pertaining to Case No: 04-101-DR/03-2537DRWS.

(20). August 4, 2004 Former family home no longer listed as foreclosure status.
Theresa signs a loan that was given by Midfirst Bank as a result of former husband
giving former wife a quit claim deed.

(21). August 9, 2004 Theresa receives Notice of Emergency Temporary Custody
Hearing to be held in two days pertaining to Case No: 51-2004-DR-4764-WS/E.

(22). August 11, 2004 In that hearing the Court decide temporary custody of the
children should be awarded to Stephen Martin mainly on attorney Arnelle Strand
arguing that the arrest of Theresa for child neglect back in June of 2004. This per-
tained to the incident over Stephanie cutting her mother’s clothes, with a pair of
scissors and further alleging that Jessica & Stephanie were afraid of their mother
due to the mother’s abusive physical altercations with these two children on sev-
eral occasions. Judge Renke awarded custody to Stephen Martin while living in
Michigan. The Court further granted the responsibility of decision making to Ste-
phen, based on claims of alleged abuse by Theresa and that the two minor children
are in constant fear of their Mother. Mother had been denied contact with children
until Ordered to facilitate 51-2004-DR-4764-WS/E.

(23). August 25, 2004 Case No: 51-2004-DR-4764-WS/E was transferred from
Judge Renke to the Honorable Judge, William Webb.

(24). August 28, 2004 NOTE* In late AUGUST OF 2004 Helene Ottinger
(Stephen’s mother) of Roseville, Michigan paid the $1,000 Court ordered purge
order this had to be done in order to quash the warrant, that had been issued by
Judge Renke back in July 1, 2004 due to Stephen’s willful failure to pay any court
ordered child support. Detective Brush was overseeing the warrant that had been
issued by Judge Renke and told Theresa Martin that $1,000 Purge child support ar-
rearage payment was sent by the way of Helene Ottinger from Michigan, in order
to stop the arrest warrant on Case No: 04-101DR pertaining to the first divorce ac-

(25). Late August or early September of 2004 Theresa’s children Jennifer and
Michael Nichols decided to move back with their mother, because there lease was
up on their house. This is IMPORTANT, based on the fact Stephen was alleging
that Theresa, was an abusive mother to all of her children.

(26). September 1, 2004 Judge Webb signs an order allowing Stephanie & Jessica
to remain with their father in Michigan. One can only argue that the Court agreed
with the arguments of Stephen’s attorney, Arnelle Strand arguing that the mother
was facing a trial over the charge of child neglect by failing to feed her children as
Stephanie had previously alleged in June when the police were called to Thereas’s
residence. Judge Webb was also made aware of the pertinent facts of the divorce
action that was now before him 51-2004-DR-4764-WS/E (the second divorce ac-
tion) in August this judge was assigned to be hear the second divorce case.

(27). November 1, 2004 Thereas’s daughter Jennifer allowed former husband,

Stephen Martin into Theresa’s home that was now her home by order of the first
divorce action since, he had signed his rights away by a quit claim deed early in
June of 2004. Stephen while he was there in Theresa’s home removed several
items while the former wife was picking a jury for her upcoming trial on child ne-
glect in Pasco County. Theresa after learning from Jennifer that Stephan had taken
certain items immediately called the Pasco County Sheriff’s Department and re-
ported the illegal taking of personal property. A sheriff’s deputy from the Pasco
County Sheriff’s Department came to Theresa’s residence and made notes as
Theresa explained to him exactly what her daughter Jennifer had told her earlier.

Theresa along with her daughter told the deputy what motel that Stephen was
staying at. The deputy went over to the motel where Stephen was staying and

Stephen admitted to the illegal taking of her property and agreed to return all the
items to the deputy and the deputy returned them immediately back to Theresa’s
residence. Jennifer was with her mother, when the deputy returned the items from

(28). November 3, 2004 In Case No: 04-05172MMAWS-17 Theresa had her jury
trial for the ALLEGED CHILD NEGLECT CASE tried in Pasco County. Ms.
Kemba Johnson was assigned by the court to be Theresa’s defense attorney. There-
sa was informed by her that the state had to prove every element in the charge of
child neglect, and further beyond any reasonable doubt to the jury. After the jury
was seated, both sides made opening statements to the six member jury. After the
state presented their case with all their witnesses’ attorney, Kemba Johnson knew,
that the state failed to prove, each and every element required in a child neglect
prosecution case and immediately moved the Court, for a direct verdict. The Court
agreed that the state failed to prove all the necessary elements and granted the de-
fenses motion for acquittal.

The IRONY of this is that, the State of Florida had to have the two children of
Theresa’s testify against their own mother and since, they were minors and lived in
Michigan, they had to be accompanied by their father to Florida. The State of Flor-
ida had to pay for all three of them to fly here and then put them up in a motel until
after the trial was over, then fly them back to Michigan. The tax payers of Florida
took a hard hit on that case, especially when the state couldn’t prove all the neces-
sary elements it took to convict the children’s mother of child neglect. The police
officers who originally came to Theresa’s residence in June testified for the state as
well as two of Theresa’s minor children and yet the state had no valid case against
Theresa Marie Martin.

(29). November 12, 2004 Case No: 04-01349DLAWS Judge William Webb of
the Unified Family Court referred the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage back to
Judge Renke. The Court ordered Stephanie to pay restitution for the clothes that
she had cut with her mother’s scissors back in April of 2004. And the Court further
ordered a letter of apology to be written to her mother for the acts she committed
against her back in April of 2004.

(30). December of 2004 Theresa’s children Michael & Jennifer Nichols go to

Michigan to visit their father Stephan and while they are visiting with their father,
he (and his mother, Helen Ottinger) show and explain to them, his case against
their mother. This results in the children no longer wanting to live with their moth-
er, but rather stay living with the father who had illegally kidnapped them from the
State of Florida’s jurisdiction back in June of 2004.

(31). January 2005 The Pasco County Family Court orders Stephanie to make
restitution to her mother for destroying her clothes incident.

(32). February 1, 2005 Michael and Jennifer leave Thereas’s home, after trying to
convince their mother to go along with their fathers plan to keep Stephanie and
Jessica with Stephen in Michigan and just drop everything else. Theresa keeps ex-
plaining to them, that is not just that simple anymore and that it is not their deci-
sion or choice to make, but it is her decision based on “the best interest of the chil-
dren” based on a minor child’s future to be productive citizens in society When
Michael and Jennifer realize, that they cannot convince their mother that Stephen’s
way is a better alternative for everyone, (when Stephen had been doing all along by

using the older children to instill his private illegal plan). I Theresa told her adult
children, Michael and Jennifer that they had to leave the family home due to the
fact that they were being used by Stephen to get information in order for him to
win in court at all costs.

(33). March 2005 Stephen Martin files chapter 7 bankruptcy, in a Detroit, Michi-
gan Federal District Court Case No: 05-4888-mbm. Note* so how is Stephen pay-
ing his Florida attorney if he has no funds, of course his mother is paying his
enormous legal fees?

(34). June 2005 Theresa is allowed her first court ordered visitation with the par-
ties’ minor children. Theresa pays her children’s round trip tickets to Florida. The
two teenage girls were allowed by Stephen to travel approximately 1200 miles
with two teenage boys accompanying them. Theresa refused to allow her daugh-
ter’s boyfriends to stay at her home.

(35). June 13, 2005 Arnelle Strand files an amended petition for divorce removing
all statements referring to Theresa’s former criminal charges as an unfit mother.

(36). June 25, 2005 Peter O. Brick deposes Stephen Martin and Theresa attends
the deposition in the second divorce action.

(37). July 12, 2005 Judge Renke heard the motion on the Final hearing for Disso-
lution of Marriage. Stephanie and Jessica traveled with Stephen from Michigan to
Florida. The Court heard testimony from Stephanie, Jennifer, and Michael and not
one of these three children ever stated to the Court that they had occurred child
abuse, child neglect, or that they had fear of their mother’s actions towards them.
Michael did testify that he had just seen his mother in the mall and further stated

that it had ruined his day. Jennifer had testified that “ Theresa was vindictive”. All
three of the children said “that they loved their mother but wanted to stay in Mich-
igan with their father.

(38). October 20, 2005 Theresa filed notice of appeal to the Second District Court
of Appeals appealing the trial court’s order on the Final Judgment of Dissolution of

(40) October 25, 2005 Theresa given notice of a hearing date on Stephen’s Mo-
tion for Contempt/Enforcement for Child Support.

(41). November 2, 2005 Judge Renke issues his order on the trial on July 12,
2005. It was almost four (4) months later that the Court’s order was finally signed
and Stephen was granted primary custody of the two children and Theresa was or-
dered to pay child support to Stephen payable, though the state disbursement unit
which was to send payments to Stephen Martin’s Michigan address.

(42). November 2, 2005 Judge Renke hears Stephen’s Motion for Con-
tempt/Enforcement against Theresa Martin, alleging that she was not complying
with the Court’s previous hearing for dissolution of divorce on July 12, 2005. The
Court, had ordered Theresa to pay Stephen the sum of $766.42 per month. The
Court at the end of the hearing found that Theresa Martin was not in compliance
and was guilty of civil contempt.


I will know try in my feeble attempt to show, by the legal doctrine of stare de-
cisis, how this case was sabotaged by failing to follow this doctrine which has
COMMON LAW roots . Stare decisis has in its clearest sense, a meaning that “the
rule of adherence to judicial precedents finds its expression in this doctrine. This
doctrine is simply that when a point or principle of law has been once officially de-
cided or settled by the ruling of a competent court in a case in which in which it is
directly and necessarily involved, it will no longer be considered as open to exami-
nation or to a new ruling by the same tribunal by the same tribunal, or by those
which are bound to follow its adjudications, unless it be for urgent reasons and in
exceptional cases.” William M. Life et al. Brief Making and the Use of Law
Books 321 (3ed. 1914).

This fundamental doctrine was NEVER ALLOWED in Judge Renke’s Court to

be applied in the Theresa Marie Martin case. The Renke Court, willfully failed to
follow his own oath to uphold the United States Constitution, the Florida Constitu-
tion, as well as Florida Laws and last but least, violated the Canons that Florida
Judges are to follow in their Code of Judicial Conduct. And this should be ad-
dressed, is the lawyers that were in this case are just as guilty, Ms. Strand failed to
ADHERE to Florida & Federal laws in order to protect the parties’ children, and
she failed to adhere to the Code of Professional Conduct. Theresa’s Attorney, Pe-
ter O. Brick, I feel had an obligation (also to his client) to report Ms. Strand to the
Florida Bar for ethical violations and a motion to recuse Judge Renke as soon as he
noticed that he was violating numerous state statutes and the mandates as the Su-
preme Court had set out for family court judges In Re Report Of Comm. Fam. Ct.
794 So2d 518 (2001). Mr. Peter O. Brick as Theresa’s attorney after realizing that
this judge was not even remotely going to follow the laws and dictates as set out by

the Supreme Court in family matters for judges to abide by had a duty to file the
motion to recuse knowing that this case involved a four (4) convicted child moles-
ter in order to protect the children that were in this courts hands.

This case has revealed that this was really a “MOCKERY OF JUSTICE IN
FLORIDA’S COURT’S” and exposed corruption that is present in our court sys-
tem and all for the sake of a PERVERTED, Michigan individual who was willing
to win at any cost, to use his own children to his advantage, to subvert the laws of
Florida, subvert the United States laws, and especially to violate Theresa Martin’s

I will address the ensuing issues that need to be addressed in this case in order
to better understand what legal principles and/or arguments of jurisprudence were
not adhered to in Theresa’s case and what should be be done, that might cure The-
reas’s case and help fix our corrupt judicial system. I will put forth a good attempt
for some good positive case law, on several issues there were raised and some that
have not been raised to cure this problematic case of Theresa’s.

I will start with addressing the issue of Res Judicata and how that directly ap-
plied in her first divorce action. Then move to the issue of the doctrine of unclean
hands and how important that is in any case that is before the court. I will then ex-
plain the issue of child custody in Florida and what court’s look for in deciding
custody issues. I will touch on the area of Federal law in child custody problems
and what the Federal legislatures have done regarding support and kidnapping
problems. What a Pasco County Grand Jury’s role should be in this case. And
what duty is owed by the public defender’s office in representing Theresa Martin,
accused of driving with a suspended license by the State If Florida.


All this really means is that an issue or a case that has been settled in judicial sys-
tem. And can be used as an affirmative defense barring the same parties from try-
ing the same claim all over again in the same court system. In other words you
couldn’t sue me for $600 in Duval County Small Claims Court and have the judge
or jury rule that I don’t have to pay you, because the facts as the jury or judge, said
you failed to prove that you even ever loaned me the $600. The court ruled that I
did not owe you the debt and you lost. You can’t go back to small claims court six
(6) months later and file the same case all over again. If you did after I was served
the legal papers, I would file my answer stating an affirmative defense that this
case was already tried and that you lost six (6) months ago in a Duval County
Court case and cite the case and docket number in my answer and ask the court to
dismiss the action and the court would under the doctrine of Res Judicata.

In applying this to Theresa’s case it is very simple she filed a divorce action in
January 9, 2004. Stephan was served the summons by a process server authorized
under Florida Law. Stephen signed over the parties’ home to her by a quitclaim,
(during the divorce action on his own free will) which now gave Theresa, sole
ownership of the family home.

In June 24, 2004 Judge Renke grants a final judgment of divorce and now both
parties are single again. It is obvious that Stephen did not like having to pay the
former wife child support, based on the fact that he fell way behind, then decides
that just because Judge Renke made her the custodial parent and the children were
to live with Theresa, he decides on his own on June 19, 2004, to leave Michigan
and comes to Florida using his mother’s car and he kidnaps the parties’ minor chil-
dren without notifying Theresa (THE CUSTODIAL MOTHER) and drives them
back to Michigan. The problems further escalates for Stephen, because Judge
Renke signs a warrant for Stephen’s arrest on July 1, 2004, on a motion filed by
Theresa for contempt/enforcement for refusing to pay court ordered child support.

Now that Stephen did as stated in the preceding paragraph, he has to know that
he is in a whirlwind of trouble. What does Stephen do, he hires Arnelle Strand an
attorney located in New Port Richey, Florida. What does Ms. Strand do, but file a
new divorce cause of action approximately thirty three (33) days after the first di-
vorce was granted a final judgment by Judge Renke.

Mr. Martin argues to the court, that he was not properly served. The record
showed that the process server had failed once to serve him at his job but he had
already quit. Theresa then has the process server, serve Stephen at his residence
and that time he was legally served and the process server files his affidavit of ser-
vice on Stephen at his residence in the court file. And since Mr. Martin had previ-
ously signed the quitclaim rights of the family home over to his wife (at the time
period not divorced yet), and she was taking and picking up the children at his
home, it is pretty safe to say, that Theresa knew where to tell the process server to
go a second time to serve the her husband. at that time and the fact that he never
raised the issue of not being properly served at any time in the first divorce action.

It is well established that a challenge of a default made before the entry of

judgment is generally found to be timely and easier to vacate. After a final judg-
ment is granted, then the factors weigh greater towards setting aside the default.
The defendant has to meet a higher standard of proof in order to have any success
in vacating/set aside a default.

It is accepted that a court has personal jurisdiction over a person through a valid
service of process; however, is a fundamental issue that may be raised by a de-
faulted party at any time. In the instant case because of the doctrine of unclean
hands and the past sexual criminal record, it would be very hard to convince a
Florida Court that the past few years of Stephen Martin, his character and credibil-
ity would be central in a court setting aside/vacating a motion to vacate the final

If Stephen was to allege that the service of the summons by the process server
never happened, and in the courts file the process server states in his affidavit as
filed, that he did personally served Stephen, at the time stated and at a the address
listed on the affidavit. Stephen would now have a very high standard of proof to
overcome the affidavit of a NON INTERESTED party. Stephen would have to
prove where he did live and where he was at the time as specified in the affidavit,
filed by the process server therefore; the process server is the main witness in this
issue to vacate/set aside the default in the first divorce action. This if true, that Ste-
phen could prove that he was not legally served and that the process server, did in
fact file a fraudulent affidavit, this then could allow Theresa to seek legal action
against that company who attempted the original service on Stephen Martin.

Florida case law establishes that, after a final judgment has been issued, in order
to have a valid default judgment set aside, the defendant must show (1) excusable
neglect, (2) the existence of a meritorious defense, (3) and due diligence in seeking
relief after learning of the default. It should be noted that excusable neglect is gen-
erally the most common basis used to vacate under Fla. R. Civ. P 1.540, but fraud
can be used to set aside a default.

If the judgment has been authentically entered, then all three (3) grounds must
be affirmatively shown. The defendant has to establish all three (3) elements or it
will result in a denial of the motion to vacate/set aside the default.

The question that needs to be answered was this first divorce legally brought to
its final judgment? In Wade V. Hirschman, 903 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2005) the Florida
Supreme Court further clarified that after the trial court enters its final judgment
decree, it is res judicata within child custody matters. And there is a favor of the
reasonableness of the original decree. Relying on Wade a prior custody and as well
as any support issues can only be modified according to the substantial change test.

What this does is it completely prohibits Stephen from filing a second divorce
action and if he should file another with the clerk of court, the Court h as a legal
obligation to dismiss the action under the doctrine of res judicata. And require
him to file a Supplemental Motion to Modify Visitation or Modify Support.

Stephen is also prohibited from filing a second divorce action based on the ar-
gument he is not a Florida resident and fails to come under the exceptions in
§48.193(1) – (5). Stephen Martin and his attorney committed fraud upon the Court
and Judge Renke allowed at to go on and knew that it was illegal but just didn’t
care and I believe it is because he was bought off.


When this petitioner, Stephen Martin filed a second divorce action, he was re-
quired to do it with clean hands. Adams v. Reynolds, 101 Fla. 271, 134 So. 45
(1931). This legal maxim is one of the oldest most fundamental principles of eq-
uity jurisprudence in our legal system. Town of Howey-in-the-Hills v. Graessle,
160 Fla. 638, 36 So. 2d 619 (1948); City of Fort Meyers v. Heitmann, 148 Fla. 432,
4 So. 2d 871 (1941). This maxim of equity jurisprudence is founded upon con-
science and good faith. City of Sarasota v. Dixon, 146 Fla. 369, 1 So. 2d 198
(1941). The simple truth is since equity is a court of CONSCIENCE; it demands
fair dealings in all who seek relief and requires decency, good faith, fairness, and
justice. Henry v. Ecker, 415 So. 2d 137 (Fla. Dist. Ct. APP. 5th Dist. 1982). There-
fore, any person filing an action in equity cannot be invoking it for a selfish or ulte-
rior purpose. Losey v. State ex rel. Giblin, 158 Fla. 381, 28 So. 2d 604 (1947).

Theresa understood that the doctrine of clean hands, rested in the sound discretion
of Pasco County Circuit Courts. Cain v. Cain, 436 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
4th Dist. 1983). However, that Pasco County Circuit Court should have carefully
considered the issue, since Theresa had invoked the doctrine to be applied in her
case. Hauer v. Thum, 67 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1953).

Theresa understood that by her filing her motions to correct the injustice in the
Pasco Court, she knew she didn’t need to have a blameless life; by the mere fact
that the doctrine of clean hands is not a judicial strait jacket. Pennington v. Pen-
nington, 390 So. 2d 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1980). For this doctrine to be
effective, Stephen’s improper actions must be one that existed at the time the relief
was sought. Pilafian v. Cherry, 355 So. 2d 847 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1978).
Stephen’s improper actions were multitude in nature 1. When he ILLEGALLY
kidnapped the children and took them to Michigan. 2. By failing to pay Theresa
her Court ordered child support as was required in the first divorce action. 3. Ste-
phen mislead the court by not living in this state, did not and could not have legal
standing to file a divorce action, since he lived in Michigan, but could have filed in
that state, if he thought that he needed to file for divorce. 4. Stephen had a legal

duty not to commit misdemeanor and felony crimes in order to file for a second di-
vorce and to file motions to challenge the validity of the default, before the Court
granted a Final Judgment. 5. Stephen at the very least had a legal duty to disclose
the fact, that he is forbidden to have right to any child, by the very nature of his
four felony convictions and should have filed a motion to appoint a guardian ad li-
tem in order to protect the parties two remaining minor children. There are others
worth mentioning but too time consuming to go into great detail on this issue here.

Based on the motions filed on Theresa’s behalf, such as the motion that included her
three (3) affirmative defenses that showed that Court the severe credibility issues of
the Petitioner, Stephen Martin. The Court should have concluded, that the doctrine of
unclean hands should have been honored, because of Stephen’s misconduct was con-
nected with the matter in that litigation. McCollem v. Chidness, 832 So. 2d 194 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2002). In McCollem, the Court stated a party must prove that
he or she was injured in order for the unclean hands doctrine to apply. Id. at 196. It
can be well argued, that Theresa was greatly injured by the mere fact, that Stephen re-
fused to pay court ordered child support, kidnapped the two minor children and took
them to Michigan, and his attorney refused, to really address his felony convictions as
a major problem in protecting the children from his record of FOUR CHILD MO-
LESTATION CONVICTIONS, which is in direct violation of our Supreme Court’s
idea of thought was to instill, the safeguards to make sure that problems like this don’t
happen to injured parties, by using the Supreme Court’s Committee’s Case Manage-
ment Recommendations and one of the recommendations that the Supreme Court
adopted was 4(c) that that court should monitor the continued needs of the par-
ties’ two children. In order to protect Theresa and the two children from the father’s
continued indoctrination of trying to convince them, that he needed custody of the
children was paramount to Stephen not having to pay support to Theresa and/or allow-
ing her to be the custodial parent, and additionally trying to prove that Theresa was a
neglectful parent as charged by the state. This in turn would have promoted public
trust and confidence in the judicial system for Theresa. And our citizens deserve a
court system with the necessary resources to protect our children and their families.
In Re: Report of Committee on Fam. Ct.794 So.2d 518 (2001) at 535-536.

The Renke Trial Court should have separately tried the question of whether the
doctrine of unclean hands should have been efficiently used against Stephen Mar-
tin. Hauer, supra at 196. That court in determining if the doctrine was applicable
should have been disturbed, when Thereas’s claims were supported by substantial
evidence as outlined in several of her court documents, including the one that gave
Stephens’s complete history of four (4) felony convictions of child molestation.
Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1956). The doctrine is also applicable,
when the court concludes that the evidence as presented WAS NOT CLEARLY
ERRONEOUS. Terex Trailer Corp. v. McIlwain, 579 So. 2d 237 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 1st Dist. 1991).

The principle that a party cannot seek equitable relief or assert an equitable de-
fense if that party has violated an equitable principle, such as good faith. Such a
party is described as having “unclean hands.” For example § 8 of the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction Act contains an unclean-hands provision that forbids a
court from exercising jurisdiction in a child-custody suit in certain situations, as
when ONE PARTY has improperly retained custody of a child after visitation, or
has wrongfully removed a child from the person with custody. The clean-hands
doctrine evolved from the discretionary nature of equitable relief in English courts
of equity, such as Chancery. Black’s Law Dictionary 127 (8th Ed. 2000); and as
acts by a party that have been vexatious, wanton or carved out for oppressive rea-

sons. Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 93 S. Ct. 1943, 35 L. Ed. 2d 702 (1973). Theresa
firmly believes that Stephen Martin’s willful and deliberate actions, by kidnapping
the minor children, by secret without telling Theresa (the custodial parent that he
owed a large amount of child support) that he was taking them out of state, which
violated her Constitutional right to raise the minor children as she saw fit, and as
the Florida custodial parent were vexatious, wanton, and carved out to fit his op-
pressive reasons.

This long established legal maxim that a “suitor in equity must come into court
with clean hands and must continually keep them clean after entry and throughout
ALL THE PROCEEDINGS” must apply here. Theresa came into that Pasco Coun-
ty Circuit Court with “clean hands” and has continued with “clean hands” through-
out that entire case. The petitioner, Stephen Martin on the other hand, from the
time of the petitioner filing his motion for a second divorce in order to go around
the final judgment in the first divorce action already had “unclean hands” and has
continued even during that entire case with “unclean hands” based on his filing an
illegal divorce petition, kidnapping the children, violating many Florida Laws as
well as Federal laws in order for Stephen’s scheme to win at all costs.


I will now address the real problem in Judge Renke’s Order for Final Judgment
that was issued on November 2, 2005. Judge Renke’s order contains thirty one (31)
paragraphs and in paragraph (1) ordered and adjudged section of the order, the
Court deals with the issue of Theresa’s Martin first divorce action. The Court
found that the default from the Court’s Final Judgment ENTERED on June 24,
2004 as to the children, needed to be set aside based on “the best interest of the

children” as stated by facts, testimony, and argument of counsel presented at the
final hearing on the dissolution of marriage. Judge Renke further states that the
husband waives any right to the marital assets and wishes to proceed only on cus-
tody issues pertaining to the first section of the order.

The real problem aside from my argument above on the doctrine of res judicata,
is a Florida Court, cannot piece meal an order pertaining to the former final judg-
ment. When a court finds that a former final judgment is to be vacated for what-
ever legal reason, it is to vacate the whole former action and allow a new action to
be filed if desired by either party. This Court had apparently found that Thereas’s
process server failed to serve the former husband at his residence but never states it
in any part of the order.

The Renke Court should not use the language as stated in ¶ 5 of the first section
by referring that has been a substantial and material change in circumstances since
the entry of the 2004 default judgment. If the Court was really vacating the first
divorce action then language should be used primarily in Supplemental Motions to
Modify Custody or Support after a Final Judgment has been entered. I believe that
the Court never legally vacated the whole first divorce action as found in the lan-
guage of its final judgment on the second divorce. If the Court truly found that the
first judgment needed to be vacated based on Stephen’s argument of law then the
Court has to start all over again by vacating the whole first action, as if there was
never a divorce action filed. Judge Renke had no legal basis or legal authority to
set aside a final judgment based on the “best interest of the children” standard. This
legal standard is not a legal reason to vacate a final judgment and the Court had no
legal precedent for this unconsciousable judicial act from the pen of former Judge

In paragraphs 6-9 of the first section the Court stated the issue who and why
would have primary custody of the children based on its witnesses, evidence, and
arguments of counsel, the Court stated that it had great concerns for the physical
safety of the parties’ children, to be with their mother, and that the age of the chil-
dren would soon be reaching the age of eighteen (18) that the children might cause
her harm due to their rebelliousness.

The Court fails to explain, pertaining that the former husband had illegally kid-
napped the children, in direct violation, from his previous court order of June 2004,
that he is only PARTIALLY vacating, which had to mean that it was still in effect
when he wrote that final order in November of 2005.

It needs to be argued that, Stephen right before the first divorce action was final
and he also kidnapped the children from Florida to his and /or his mother’s resi-
dence in Michigan that this was clearly in violation of Florida Law. In
§61.13001(3) he was at least required to file a notice to relocate with child form, if
he wanted to allow the court to see if he could allowed that permission. If Theresa
knew that her husband was going to take the children out of Florida’s jurisdiction
she should have been at the very least allowed to file a Writ of Ne Exeat in order to
prohibit him from taking the two minor children. I know because I have filed one
these writs for ne exeat back in the late 80’s.

When Stephen kidnapped the children without any approval from Theresa or the
Court Stephen violated Federal Law as titled “The Parental Kidnapping Act”, a
Federal Statute title 42 §11601et Seq.; 28 USC §1738 and since 1980 It has been
used when one parent kidnaps the child or children. This law is to be used in all
states to recognize and enforce the custody and visitation decisions of courts in

other states rather than making new, possibly contradictory rulings on custody or
visitation. And both the UCCJEA and the PKPA provide for jurisdiction in the
“home state” of the child. Department of Children & Family Servs. v. D.N., 858 So
2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). In other words Stephen had a lot to lose since he
took them from Florida, (without court approval) and was taking them to live in

Florida has a particular statute that deals with Interference of custody in

§787.03 (1) Whoever, without lawful authority, knowingly or recklessly takes or
entices, or aids, abets, hires, or otherwise procures another to take or entice, any
minor or any incompetent person from the custody of the minor's or incompetent
person's parent, his or her guardian, a public agency having the lawful charge of
the minor or incompetent person, or any other lawful custodian commits the of-
fense of interference with custody and commits a felony of the third degree, pun-
ishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) In the absence of a court order determining rights to custody or visitation

with any minor or with any incompetent person, any parent of the minor or incom-
petent person, whether natural or adoptive, stepparent, legal guardian, or relative of
the minor or incompetent person who has custody thereof and who takes, detains,
conceals, or entices away that minor or incompetent person within or without the
state with malicious intent to deprive another person of his or her right to custody
of the minor or incompetent person commits a felony of the third degree, punish-
able as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The Court in the first section does state in ¶ nine (9) that the children are doing
well in school and have better attitudes since (being kidnapped from their Florida

residence) June of 2004. The Court never states how or why they are doing better,
that can be understandable, because there was no custody evaluator or guardian ad
litem in any of the hearings to prove to the Court that a four (4) times convicted
child molester would be having the children all by himself. Yet the Court in its or-
der in the second part in ¶ two (2) grants the primary responsibility of the minor
children to Stephen. This directly contradicts the law as codified in § 39.0139
when our legislature allowed it to be titled as "Keeping Children Safe Act." In this
statute it is the LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT to protect children that
are at risk of suffering from further harm during visitation or other contact from
sexual abuse §39.0139 1&2. In ¶ 3 it goes on to state that visitation with a person
who has abused children may use that time to color the child’s testimony. And any
time there is any hearing in a divorce action relating to a person in chapter 39,
there is a rebuttable presumption of detriment to a child is created when a parent or
caregiver has been convicted (such as Stephen was in Michigan four (4) times) of
molestation charges, a MANDATORY hearing MUST BE held to determine if
they are allowed any type of visitation and the court at the hearing MUST appoint
an attorney ad litem or a guardian ad litem for the child(ren) if one has not already
been appointed. Any attorney ad litem or guardian ad litem appointed shall have
special training in the dynamics of child sexual abuse as in §39.0139(4)(a). Where
was Judge Renke on this law? Ms. Martin had filed his criminal Michigan records
with the clerk of court, given a copy of his record to Stephen’s attorney Arnelle
Strand, also a copy to her attorney Peter O. Brick And various other people.

In commenting on this, I would argue that this judge blatantly and willfully vio-
lated Florida’s Supreme Court mandates that they ordered to be implemented IN
RE: Report of Comm. On Fam. Ct. 794 So.2d 518 (2001) Having reviewed the

Committee's recommendations, we strongly endorse the guiding principles and
characteristics of the model family court developed therein and we reaffirm our
commitment to the principles we espoused in In re Report of Commission on Fam-
ily Courts, 588 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1991) (Family Courts I) and Family Courts II.
In so doing, our goal continues to be the creation of "a fully integrated, compre-
hensive approach to handling all cases involving children and families," Family
Courts II, 633 So. 2d at 17, while at the same time resolving family disputes IN A
FAIR, timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner. (EMPAHASIS ADDED). In
Theresa’s case there was nothing fair or just about that case.

Family Ct. IV also emphasized that our endorsement of these guiding principles
in no way changes our view that the primary role of the judge is to enforce and
uphold the rule of law. Id. 13. Based upon that directive, the Committee devel-
oped the recommendations proposed here, which represent the Committee's con-
cept of the best practices for a model family court in accordance with its study of
nationwide trends in this area. The Court adopted the twelve principles from the
committee and I will list some of the relevant principles that Judge Renke violated
in Thereas’s Divorce from Family IV decision (1) Children should live in safe and
permanent homes. (2) The needs and best interests of children should be the pri-
mary consideration of any family court. (3) All persons, whether children or adults,
should be treated with objectivity, sensitivity, dignity and respect. (4) Therapeutic
justice should be a key part of the family court process. Therapeutic justice is a
process that attempts to address the family’s interrelated legal and non legal prob-
lems to produce a result that improves the family's functioning. The process should
empower families through skills development, assist them to resolve their own dis-
putes, provide access to appropriate services, and offer a variety of dispute resolu-

tion forums where the family can resolve problems without additional emotional
trauma. (5) The court's role in family restructuring is to identify services and craft
solutions that are appropriate for long-term stability and that minimize the need for
subsequent court action. (6) Court services should be available to litigants at a rea-
sonable cost and accessible without economic discrimination. Id 8-9. As I have al-
ready stated Judge Renke violated the mandates that were given him by the Florida
Supreme Court and none of the lawyers in that case forced the judge’s hand to fol-
low those rules.
In the Courts third set of recommendations that are essential elements or funda-
mental to a family court model (1) Guardian ad Litem – Utilizing guardian ad li-
tems in all family cases involving abused abandoned or neglected children, and
children at risk of harm. (2) Custody Evaluation – Providing the court with evalua-
tive information in proceedings involving custody disputes. Where was this judge
in following these guidelines when he spells these problems out in the order? Id
20. The only thought here is this judge was not interested in Theresa, her children,
only in making sure that Stephen won his case through his lawyer by hook or crook
and forget all the safe guards that this Supreme Court put in Place to protect people
and children.
In Judge Renke’s ordered & adjudged section, in paragraphs 10-14 states that
the wife will now pay Stephen $766.42 per month in child support and retroactive
child support for the past 11½ months. He further found that Theresa had the abil-
ity to pay Stephen court ordered child support and cancels all previous amounts
owed to Theresa by Stephen as the Court found evidence from witnesses and ar-
guments of counsel that this was also to be in the “best interest of the children”.
This again violates all similitude of Florida Law as in reduction of child support,
that is already owed may not be made absent a finding of extraordinary or compel-
ling circumstances. Niblack v. DOR, 32 FLW D1429 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (unpaid
child support payments remain a vested right of the child and cannot be canceled
or reduced retrospectively absent extraordinary or compelling circumstances);
Ulander v. Ulander, 824 So 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); D.O.R. v. Thomas, 675
So 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (if trial court wishes to reduce past due child sup-
port arrearages, it must be guided by law that, absent extraordinary or compelling
circumstances such as waiver, latches, estoppel or reprehensible conduct on part of
custodial parent, trial court cannot retrospectively reduce amount of past due in-
stallments owed). The trial court made no finding that extraordinary and compel-
ling circumstances were shown by the record as stated by the evidence, testimony,
or argument of counsel in order to apply a legal argument of a waiver, latches, es-
toppel or reprehensible conduct on part of custodial parent therefore; the trial court
cannot retrospectively reduce or totally eliminate husband’s past arrearages. The
Court stated the arrearages would be set aside because, the Court by its own deter-
mination found it would be better for “the best interest of the children”. This does
not meet the extraordinary and compelling circumstances test as held
Niblack and Ulander.

It further violates that Federal law as written in 42 U.S.C. §6669(a)(9)(c). In §

666 is the requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effective-
ness of child support enforcement. In §(a) describes the types of procedures re-
quired in order to satisfy section 654 (20)(A) of this title. And in paragraph (9)
Procedures which require that any payment or installment of support under any
child support order, whether ordered through the State judicial system or through
the expedited processes required by paragraph (2), is (on and after the date it is

due). And finally § (c) is not subject to retroactive modification by such State or by
any other State;

These statutes were designed that once support obligations were granted by a
state court to an individual, that these child support payments were not in any form
to be dismissed through bankruptcy or any other means, but were not subject to ret-
roactive modification. They were a permanent debt that could not be vacated or
waived away and states were to uphold this federal law by incorporating into their

When Judge Renke, wiped out this approximately $10,000 child support debt
which; Stephen Martin willfully and blatantly refused to pay and was legally owed
to Theresa for past child support, for his children, the Court violated the United
States Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Raich 545 U. S. 1(2005). The Su-
premacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between fed-
eral and state law, federal law shall prevail. id 29. Judge Renke failed to state why
he was willing to vacate this retroactive modification, but only found it was in “the
best interest of the children” standard which fails the Gonzales Court’s test. One
can only say, what more could have Judge Renke done to violate the rights of The-
resa and her two minor children Jessica and Stephanie in a Pasco County, Florida
Family Court proceeding?

What more could Theresa Martin do on her own in this previous two divorce
cases? If a court system of attorneys and Judges of this State are willing to violate
the rules of civil, criminal procedure, laws of Florida. The U. S. & Florida Consti-
tutions, The Judicial Canons for judges, and the Rules of Professional Conduct for
lawyers what hope is there for anyone in the State of Florida to be able to have a
court case where they will receive a fair and constitutional treatment of their di-
vorce action in a circuit court of law in Florida. What more is a pro se person such
as Theresa Martin supposed to do, as she legally filed her first divorce action and
received a lawful default judgment; only later find out that the same judge allows a
non resident, in violation of state law to file a second action divorce action.
Then the same Judge strips her of her lawful child support order, and as the cus-
todial primary parent status, then reverses everything by using the “best interest of
the children” test rather than applying the facts of the case to Florida established
law. If a court in this State fails to uphold the law, as a judges sworn oath requires
he/she to do how can anyone respect the court system in this state? If a judge now
makes a lawful resident into a criminal how are we going to have any hope of jus-
tice in this country, if justice is for sale as apparent it was in this case?
When Judge Renke ordered that Stephen no longer owed Theresa back child
support by invalidating the first final judgment in direct violation of state and fed-
eral laws, it is quite obvious to anyone taking an honest look at the facts as re-
corded in the second divorce case that is a classic case of a miscarriage of justice.
I feel it is your offices legal and constitutional mandate to help correct this
problem, which can only be done by a thoroughly deposing former judge Renke,
Ms Arnelle Strand (Stephen’s lawyer) and Mr. Peter O. Brick (Thereas’s attorney)
as to why and how they willfully and blatantly violated Florida and Federal Laws
in Theresa’s and her children’s Constitutional rights to be protected from a four (4)
time convicted child molester. I also believe that it is very hard to get across to ju-
ries the idea of jury nullification but much easier to use the necessity defense in or-

der to show that she was trapped and forced by the State of Florida in becoming an
alleged violator of having a suspended driver’s license.
I just spoke to Nicky in the traffic division, of the clerk of court’s office and she
has informed me that there have been no subpoenas issued for depositions, no dis-
covery by the public defender’s office, or any other recent motions filed in There-
sa’s defense I find this hard to believe. How can any attorney with the facts that are
in this case not have a valid defense to present, especially if there has been no dis-
covery of any kind?
Sir, I find this very appalling, that your office I believe is failing to abide by
Strickland v. Washington 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984). In Strickland they agreed that the
Sixth Amendment imposes on counsel a duty to investigate, because reasonably
effective assistance must be based on professional decisions and informed legal
choices can be made only after investigation of options. The court observed that
counsel's investigatory decisions must be assessed in light of the information
known at the time of the decisions, not in hindsight, and that "[the] amount of pre-
trial investigation that is reasonable defies precise measurement." The Court fur-
ther stated most states have now adopted the "reasonably effective assistance"
standard in one formulation or another. For that reason, the Court has recognized
that "the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel
In Strickland a two prong test is to be used (1) criminal defendant may not ob-
tain relief unless he can show that counsel's performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness, (2) and that counsel's performance gives rise to a rea-
sonable probability that, if counsel had performed adequately, the result of the pro-
ceeding the trial, the sentencing hearing, the appeal would have been different. In
this case I feel that by your recent e-mail to Theresa that you feel the State has al-
ready won and that there is nothing you can do based on your legal training. I
simply do not agree based on all the facts of this case, and since there has been no
discovery in her case, I fail to see how you can comply with Strickland based on
performance and prejudice of your office in her case.
I will now leave the rest up to you and Theresa, but I feel she should file a mo-
tion to immediately remove you as her legal counsel and file a complaint against
your office and petition the court for private counsel citing a conflict of interest
AGAINST YOUR OFFICE whether the judge agrees with the motion or not it will
be on the record, if she would ever have to appeal her case IT WILL BE NOTED
May you find it in your heart to reconsider your legal options in this case and if
I can be of any assistance please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

P. H. Heidemann