Brief That I, Lucas Smith, Wrote in Support of Kathy Garcia-Lawson & Intervener's Right To Petition

IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT
Case No. 4D10-839
On Appeal From The Circuit of the Fifteenth Judicial District,

Palm Beach County, Case No. 502005DR001269XXXNB
KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, Wife,

Appellant
v.
JEFFREY P. LAWSON, Husband,

Appellee
______________________________________________
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT KATHY ANN GARCIA-
LAWSON’S, WIFE, and the INTERVENORS’ RIGHT TO PETITION.
__________________________________________________
KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida Case No. 4D10-839. March 15, 2010.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Authorities…………………………………………..II, III, IV
Summary of the Argument…………………………………………1, 2
Argument………………………………………………………..…3-17
A. Honorable Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s Unconstitutional
Punishment and Reprisal of the Interveners For Exercising Their
First Amendment Right to Petition the Government…….……..2
B. Social Engineering Can Violate Our Fundamental Right to

Freedom of Religion……………………………………..……..6
C. Intervenors’ Fundamental Right to Petition Regarding A
Fundamental Right…………………………………………....14
Conclussion………………………………………………… ....17, 18

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Adderly v. Florida 385 U.S. 39 (1966)……………………………..….17
Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)..15
Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 (1877)…………………………………...15
Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) ………….……………..16, 17
United Mine Workers of America v Illinois State Bar Association 389

U.S. 217 (1967)………………………………………………………...16
United States v. Cruikshank, 92, U.S. 542 (1875)…………………..…15
Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)………………………….…....7
Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2nd 862 (Iowa 2009)……………….….9, 10
Statutes:
Florida Rule 9.030, Fla. R. App. P…………………………………….1
Fla. R. App. P. 9.190, 1996 comm. notes………………………….…..2

TABLE OR AUTHORITIES
(continued)
District of Columbia’s Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality

Amendment Act of 2009; D.C. Code §§1-204.101 to 1.204-107 (2001-
2006); D.C. Act 18-284; 57 D.C. Reg. 27 (Jan. 1, 2010)………......9, 10
Miscellaneous:
CNN.com, “Louisiana Justice Who Refused Interracial Marriage

Resigns.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/louisiana.interracial.marri age/
……………………………………………………………..………..7, 8
Declaration of Independence………………………………..………..15
Deuteronomy (Bible) 22:16…………………………………………...7
Exodus (Bible) 22:17………………………………………………….7
Genesis (Bible) 2:18-24……………………………………………….6
HuffingtonPost.com, “Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By
Louisiana Justice of the Peace.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/interracial-couple-
denied_n_322784.html ....................................................................7, 8
I Corinthians (Bible) 7:38…………………………………………..…7
Name of Persons for Whom Marriage Licenses Were Issued by the
Secretary of the Province or New York Previous to 1784., p. V. Printed
by Order of Gideon J. Tucker, Secretary of State …………………..14

TABLE OR AUTHORITIES
(continued)
New York General Entries. (book), I. p. 85; also published in the book
Name of Persons for Whom Marriage Licenses Were Issued by the
Secretary of the Province or New York Previous to 1784., p. IV.
Printed by Order of Gideon J. Tucker, Secretary of
State…………………………………………………………….…..…10
Pre-United States Constitution letter written in 1778 by Bishop W.M.
White to the Governor of the Commonwealth of the Pennsylvania in
protest of State-licensed marriage. (letter), published in the
Pennsylvania Archives, XII, 31, 314; also published in the book Name
of Persons for Whom Marriage Licenses Were Issued by the Secretary
of the Province or New York Previous to 1784., p. V, VI, VII. Printed
by Order of Gideon J. Tucker, Secretary of
State……………………………………………………..…11, 12, 13, 14
The Covenant Marriage Wedding Ceremony of Sarah Elizabeth Parkes
and Clifton Alan Muncy. (pamphlet), p. 5-6…………………….….…9
With This Ring I Wed Thee. (brochure) published by the Ohio State
Bar Association………………………………………………………...
…..9

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This brief will set out why the Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Interveners’
have a fundamental 1st Amendment right to Petition the Government regarding a fundamental
right.
This brief will address how and why the Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s and the
Interveners’ fundamental 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Religion has been violated.
This brief will address the violation of Appellant’s and Intervener’s 14th Amendment
right to Due Process of the Law.
Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Intervenors filed for Motion to Intrevene
Pursuant To Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230 of which the Honorable Judge Richard L.
Oftedal denied in his passionate February 8th, 2010, [Non-Final] Order Denying Motion For
Leave To Intervene. A copy of Honorable Judge Oftedal’s order is attached as exhibit A.
Appealant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Intervenors appeal Honorable Judge
Oftedal’s [Non-Final] Order Denying Motion For Leave To Intervene pursuant to Florida Rule
9.030, Fla. R. App. P., which outlines jurisdiction as authorized by the Florida Supreme Court
through the power vested therein by the Florida Constitution:
“District courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals, that may be
taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders trial courts…They
[District court of appeals] may review interlocutory orders in such cases to the

extent provided by the rules adopted by the supreme court.” See Fla. R. App. P.
9.190, 1996 comm. notes.
Appealant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson also appeals Honorable Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s
February 19th, 2009, [Non-Final] Order To Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed
Against Respondent/ Wife For Failure To Comply With Order Setting Case For Trial. A copy
of Honorable Judge Oftedal’s order is attached as exhibit B.

ARGUMENT
A. Honorable Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s Unconstitutional

Punishment and Reprisal of the Interveners For Exercising Their
First Amendment Right to Petition the Government.
An intervenor is an outside party that, despite not being a named party in a lawsuit,
voluntarily enters into the lawsuit because it has a direct interest in the subject matter. A party
has the right to intervene as long as it has standing to complain, and shows that it has an interest
in the subject of the litigation, that deciding the lawsuit without its presence would hurt its ability
to protect its interest, and that its interest is not adequately represented by current parties to the
suit. Even if the outside party does not meet all of these requirements, the court can, if it
chooses, allow the party to intervene in certain situation.
In Honorable Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s February 8th, 2010 non-final Order he
passionately directed the Clerk of Court to immediately begin to “refuse for filing any further
pleadings, motions, or other document’s tendered by Intervenors or other individuals seeking or
claiming intervention on behalf of Wife [appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson] unless ordered by
this court (sic).” Honorable Judge Richard L. Oftedal noted in the same Order that he, on more
than one occasion, had lamented as to how the Wife had successfully for five years now engaged
in delay tactics designed to prolong the litigation in his Court. Oftedal stated in the same Order
that the “Intervenor’s pleadings are not only frivolous, untimely, and filed in bad faith, but they
have caused an unnecessary expenditure of valuable court resources as well…all of which had to
be painstakingly docketed, filed, and electronically scanned by employees of the Clerk at great
expense, both in time and money.”

Appellant Kathy Ann Garica-Lawson and the Intervenors have not engaged in delay
tactics for five years but rather the Honorable Court, in its practice of enforcing unconstitutional
Florida Statutory Family/Domestic relation law, has inadvertently marshaled litigated protest of
such unconstitutional law. Actions of the Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the
Intervenors are not atypical of any other litigated protest of unconstitutional law. Litigated
protest of an unconstitutional law, as Your Honors are well aware, can continue on for years and
even for decades.
Costs incurred by the Court are much less than they were a few years ago before the
onset of electrically scanned filings and electronic storage of documents. In any case, there
should be no set accessed monetary price affixed to the worth of individual’s civil rights and
their protection of those said rights which are entitled to them by The Constitution of the United
States of America.
Court filing fees suffice in weeding out a large majority of what might be frivolous
litigation. Not only do filing fees aid in the paying of the stipends of Court employees and in
covering expenditures of the Honorable Court but these same fees also compel us to consider and
contemplate whether our cause is one with merit and not a frivolous one. Appellant Kathy Ann
Garcia-Lawson and the Intervenors find the Honorable Court’s impassioned grito in regards to
its loss of valuable court resources, i.e., money and time, to be one that is repugnant and
objectionable.
Are we that bring litigation before the Honorable Court not drained of our precious
resources to suffice the gimongous (sic) monetary costs of bringing such litigation? Filing fees
are not the only costs that we incur. Does the Honorable Court think us to be dependants of the
State? Does the Court think us to be the recipients of entitlement programs and/or

supplemental income programs of which the members of the welfare class of America have
convinced themselves that they cannot suffice life without? We beg pardon of this Honorable
Court in that we respectfully implore the Honorable Court to consider the tremendous financial
burden that we as citizens of this great state of Florida incur when defending our Constitutional
rights in the Court.
The average American and/or citizen of the great State of Florida, being educate and
literate, has not much understanding of the intricate rules, procedures and laws which govern
how, what, where, why, and when a citizen can litigate in the Honorable Court. Most of us are
forced, indeed forced, into the hiring attorneys to represent us. Attorneys are not exactly the
cheapest of all expenditures that one makes in his or her lifetime. Purchase of a house comes to
mind as one of the more expensive and important purchase that one will make in his or her
lifetime. Yet the price of paying for representation in Court, i.e., an attorney, can easily match,
exceed or come near the price that one pays for their home.
Those citizens that choose (or that have no other choice) to represent themselves, pro se,
are forced to cut valuable time from work and to truncate precious time with one’s family in
order to conduct their own research, investigation and analysis of material that must marshaled in
their defense or in support of their causes. Furthermore, we that represent ourselves, once we
have marshaled materials necessary for Court and have conducted our research we are then lost
when it comes to just how to officially present and argue our findings in the Honorable Court.
Unlike Your Honors and other esteemed employees of the Honorable Court we are not paid a
monetary stipend for our research and analysis of the law. On the contrary, we make monetary
expenditure to make our research possible and in our attempt to educate ourselves in areas that
we have not degrees nor diplomas in. Some of us psychologists, archaeologists, teachers,

engineers, plumbers, salesmen, truck drivers, farmers and cooks. Most of us are not attorneys
nor have we attended law school.
Furthermore, we (the citizen tax payers) not only pay the Honorable Court with filing
fees when and if we file a document with Honorable Court but we also pay the salaries of You
Honor and the expenditures of the Honorable Court with our tax dollars which are paid
regardless of if we ever set foot inside of a Courthouse or Courtoom.
B. Social Engineering Can Violate Our Fundamental Right
To Feedom of Religion
In Honorable Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s Order Denying Motion for Leave to Interevene
he states, “The Motion to Intervene is a prolix and rambling pleading containing several
irrelevant and wholly immaterial articles, including one apparently authored by Wife, which
seeks as its goal a declaration “that the entire Statutory Scheme of the Florida Domestic
Relations courts (sic) be declared unconstitutional” and that “that the Florida Family
Division/Domestic relation courts (sic) she be abolished, razed to the ground, and power and
freedom returned to the people”.
Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Intervenors reassert here in this appeal that
that the Florida Family Divsions/Domestic relations Courts are unconstitutional. The following
discussion is in support of.
Why should it be illegal to marry without a State’s permission? More importantly, why
should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (See
Genesis 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel

before state officials to seek it. What if we apply and the State says “no”? We must understand
that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition confers a right
to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.
The Court cannot violate our fundamental right to freedom of religion. Government
stipulation or law which requires that we first obtain a marriage license from the Court before
we can legally obtain a certificate of marriage from the Church is in violation of our
fundamental right to freedom religion.
In Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), US Supreme Court found that Amish
children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade, as it violates their
parent’s fundamental right to freedom of religion. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Yoder in a 7 to 0 decision. The same would apply to a State that requires its citizens to obtain a
State marriage license before they can legally marry in the Church and obtain and Certificate of
Marriage in the Church. State-licensed marriage invades and removes God-given parental
authority. When we read the Bible we see that God intended for children to have their father’s
blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers
(See Deuteronomy 22:16; Exodus 22:17; I Corinthians 7:38). We have a vestige of this in
our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the alter and the minister
asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”
We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state
officials to seek it. What if we apply and the State says “no”? We must understand that the
authority to license implies the power to prohibit. Appellant and the Intervenors have found that
the Courts have said, “no”, when other citizens have applied for a State-licensed marriage. We
need look no further back in time and history than October the 6th, 2009 to see that State-licensed

marriages have been denied by Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell, in Tangipahoa Parish,
Louisiana.
Keith Bardwell, Louisiana justice of the peace said that he refused to issue a marriage
license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Bardwell
estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career. Bardwell stated,
“I’ve been a Justice of the Peace for more than 34 years and I don’t think I’ve ever mistreated
anybody.”
Bardwell has married blacks and has married whites but he will not marry them outside
of their race, i.e., interracial marriages. If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must
do the same for all, he said. “I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.
“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” he said, “I have piles
and piles or black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I
treat them just like everyone else.”
Bardwell said that he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with
witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society
does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I
think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”
When we marry with a marriage license (State-licensed marriage), we grant the State
jurisdiction over our marriage. When we marry with a marriage license, our marriage is a
creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State. The State then has jurisdiction over our
marriage including the fruit of our marriage, i.e., our children and every piece of property that we
own. There is plenty of case law in America jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993 parents in the Wisconsin were upset because a test was being administered to
their children in the government schools which was tremendously invasive of the family’s
privacy. Parents complained and after having complained they were shocked by the school
bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test because they
(the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the
bureaucrats what gave them (the bureaucrats) jurisdiction the bureaucrats then said, “your
marriage license and their birth certificates.” See The Covenant Marriage Wedding
Ceremony of Sarah Elizabeth Parkes and Clifton Alan Muncy. (pamphlet), p. 5-6. Judicially,
and in increasing fashion, our State marriage licenses have far reaching implications.
State-licensed marriage is not a monogamous marriage. State-licensed marriage is a
polygamous marriage. From the State’s point of view when we marry with a marriage license
we are not just marrying our spouse but we are also marrying the State. The most blatant,
conspicuous and profoundly overt declaration of this fact that we have a record of is a brochure
entitled, “With This Ring I Thee Wed.” This brochure can be found in county courthouses
across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. The brochure is published by the
Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle “Marriage Vows” states,
“Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are
three parties to that contract. 1. You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3.
The State of Ohio.”
We must ask ourselves just what is a marriage. The District of Columbia now permits
same-sex marriage. See District of Columbia’s Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage
Equality Amendment Act of 2009; D.C. Code §§1-204.101 to 1.204-107 (2001-2006); D.C. Act
18-284; 57 D.C. Reg. 27 (Jan. 1, 2010). States such as Iowa now permit gay men to marry with

men and lesbian women to marry with women with a State-licensed marriage. See Varnum v.
Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862, 879 n.7 (Iowa 2009).
So, if a man and woman decide to marry without a State-licensed marriage....then just
who is really married….is it the two gay men with a State-licensed marriage or is it the man and
woman who have married without a State-licensed marriage?
State-licensed marriage sets precedence for obligation by law to obtain a license from the
State to be a parent. We should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone
anymore than we should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent. Yet, in some
academic and legislative circles, “parent licenses” are being pushing to be made law.
Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Interveners and trace State-licensed
marriage in the United States of America and the former colonies as far back as the 29th of
December 1664 in the Colony of New York (See New York General Entries, I. p. 85.). The
Colony of New York had that same year been transferred from Dutch possession to English
possession.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “license” as, “The permission by competent authority
to do and act which without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not
allowable” Another edition (7th) of Black’s Law defines a “license” as, “a revocable permission
to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful.”
Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Interveners and are not the first to protest
State-licensed marriage. Protests of State-licensed marriage can be traced back to times which
predate “unconstitutional” being that protest of State-licensed marriage can be traced back to
colonial days which predate the signing of The Constitution of the United States of America. In
a 1778, nine years before the US Consitution was written, a letter was written by Bishop White

to the Governor of the Commonwealth Pennsylvania in protest of State-licensed marriage. The
letter is a follow and is verbatim and not paraphrased:
“Sir, [1778]
When I had ye Honor, yesterday, of stating to your Excellency my Objections to ye
present System of Marriage Licenses & you condescended to recommend to me ye
promoting of a clerical Representation of ye Subject; I expressed my Doubts as to ye
Expediency of such a Measure. My Reason is, that I do not think ye Clergy, as such,
materially interested in the correcting of ye Evil. We marry whom we please, under no
other Restriction than what should prevail in every Line of Life, if not invading of ye
Rights of others. It is true, a Stranger may be imposed on, by his imagining that a
License from the Government is something more than a blank Paper. But to prevent
this, I have made it my Business to advertise every such, of ye Church under my care, of
ye State of ye Case & of his own Responsibility.
It was as a citizen that I introduced ye Subject to your Excellency; And ye Evils which,
as such I reprobate in ye present System are as follow:
1. The Practice of issuing Licenses is, as I apprehend, without any Foundation of
Law. The only Passage in our Acts of Assembly that can be supposed applicable, & this
can be so by Implication only, defines a lawful License to be which contains ye Consent
of the Parent or Guardian expressed in ye Body of it. But such a License I never saw,
nor do I know of any Clergyman who has.
2dly. It seems to me (I speak it with submission) disreputable to Government to be in
ye Exercise of an Act of Authority, disregarded (as far as I can hear) & that with
Impunity, by the most respectable Clergyman in this City; who instead of thinking

themselves under any Obligation, either of Law or of Morals, to ask for ye Licence,
consider it rather as a Snare, against which they are to be on their Guard.
3dly. The Licenses, as issued, are a most cruel Invasion of domestic Rights. For, as if
it were not enough, that ye Citizens has ye Peace of his Family exposed to ye Acts of ye
desperate Adventure, ye Villain robs him of his Child under a warrant with ye Seal of ye
State annexed to it, & signed by ye first Magistrate. I hope your Excellency will not
mistake me; I am as much an Enemy to domestic Tyranny as to ye civil; And I know that
there sho’d be a certain Age when young People may dispose of themselves without the
Consent of their Parents. What I contend for is, that there should also be a Period,
during which ye Parent should have a uncontroulable Authority over ye Child, in ye
Article of preventing Marriage.
As to ye Bond of £100 taken at the office, I think nothing of it. To my certain
Knowledge it has been taken, both before & since ye Revolution, from persons not worth
100 pence; And besides, there are Doubts as to ye Recovery of ye Penalty. I should be
sorry to be understood, in this Part of ye Subject, as reflecting either on ye worthy
Gentleman who has, nominally, ye Administration of ye Licenses, or on his Deputy, who
is supposed to do his Business. On ye contrary, I declare that I believe ye Fault to be,
not in them, but in ye System, which while it prevails, must involve ye present
Consequences, let who will have ye Administration. And besides, I have not seen above
one or two Licenses during Col. Biddle’s Secretaryship nor long before.
4thly. It may be of Importance to mention that ye Practice has been stigmatized as
illegal by ye Council or Censors. I speak from Report, not having seen their Resolves on
ye Subject. But my Authority is such that I cannot doubt ye Truth of it.

And now, Sir, if your Excellency is disposed to listen to my Proposal of a Remedy, it is
as follows:
1. In regard to all Persons marrying agreeably to ye Notification required by their
respective religious Societies, ye Clergyman celebrating ye Marriage sh’d be responsible
in a pecuniary, or, if you please, on repeated Transgression, in a corporal Penalty. If
meer publication be made sufficient, it will amount to Nothing; because it may be made
(& is made in some Congregations) in such a Manner as to be a meer Evasion.
2dly. As to Persons who may not come within ye Rules of any religious Society, some
Mode of Publication sh’d be provided for them. There is one indeed, but it is though
insufficient.
3dly. The License sh’d be considered as a Dispensation from ye Notoriety of
Publication; And accordingly, Government sh’d assume ye Responsibility. The
dispensing Officer should have a Reward proportioned to his Trouble & Risque. He
sh’d be liable to a Penalty, according to ye Damage sustained at ye Discretion of ye
Court, within certain Limits. He sh’d therefore, be ye Judge of ye Amount of ye Security
to be required; And if he take insufficient Bondmen, it sh’d be at his Peril. The most
material Difficulty that can occur in ye above Plan is ye discretionary Power of ye Court.
But I know no other Substitute for ye English Mode, which is ye taking of Oaths that
there is no legal Impediment.
Your Exellency’s desiring of me to state my Sentiments in writing has occasioned you
ye Trouble of reading this long Letter. I am not tenacious of any Advice I have
presumed to offer; But am fixed in my knowledge of Fact & I hope ye Freedom of ye

Citizen will justify my declaring it, that ye present Practice makes Government contribute
to ye sacrificing of ye Peace, Honor & Fortune of Families.
I have ye Honor to subscribe myself,
Your Excellency’s very humble Servant,
WM. WHITE.
His Excell’y, Thos. Miffin, Esq.
The forgoing letter written in 1778 by Bishop White can be found in the Pennsylvania
Archives, XII, 31, 314.
Bishop White penned subsequent letters to the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania regarding State-licensed marriage. The records shows that these letters continued
on thru, at least, 1790. A period of at least 11 to 12 years.
The practice of issuing Marriage Licenses fell into total desuetude in the New York in
1783. The practice of issuing Marriage Licenses continued for some years longer in the
Pennsylvania. (See Names of Persons for Whom Marriage Licenses Were Issued by the
Secretary of the Province of New York Previous to 1784. Printed By Order of Gideon J.
Tucker, Secretary Of State.)
C. Intervenor’s Fundamental Right to Petition Regarding A
Fundamental Right
The right to petition is one of the fundamental freedoms of all Americans, and is
documented in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Interveners have the right to appeal to
government in favor of or against policies that affect them or in which they feel strongly. This
freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause. This right is guaranteed in
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the right of the people peaceably
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”
The right to petition government is a freedom that has been firmly upheld by the Supreme
Court of the United States on a plethora of occasions, proving that it is considered an inalienable
right by the U.S. Government.
Originally the right of assembly was closely tied to the right to petition. One notable
case involving the two rights was United States v. Cruikshank, 92, U.S. 542 (1875). There the
US Supreme Court held that citizens may “assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for
a redress of grievances.” Essentially, it was held that the right to assemble was secondary, while
the right to petition was primary. Later cases, however, have expanded the meaning of the right
to assemble. Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), for
instance, refers to the right to assemble for the “communications of views on national questions”
and for “disseminating information.”
Appellant and the Interveners assert that State-licensed marriage is illegal and that the
Family/Domestic Relations Courts are both illegal and unconstitutional. See Meister v. Moore
96 U.S. 76 (1877), “marriage is a thing of common right... any other construction would compel
holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law”.
On July 4th, 1776, the founder fathers of the United States of America adopted a famous
statement of principles and list of grievances, declaring that:

“In every state of these Opressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most
humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated
injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define
a Tyrant, is unfit to be ruler of a free people.” Declaration of Independence.
In United Mine Workers of America v Illinois State Bar Association 389 U.S. 217
(1967), the U.S. Supreme Court exalted the right to Petition as “among the most precious
liberties safeguard by the Bill of Rights” and implicit in “the very idea of government.”
In Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982); 102 S. Ct. 1388; 71 L. Ed. 2d 59, the U.S.
Supreme Court found that a clear and convincing standard was necessary to protect petitioners’
due process rights; and vacated and remanded so that a hearing could by conducted under a
constitutionally proper standing. Originally the New York Family Court terminated parent
rights in regards to the natural parents’ three children. The parents challenged the
constitutionality of a provision of a New York statute under which the state may terminate the
rights of parents in their natural child upon a finding that the child is "permanently neglected,"
when such a finding is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The Family Court
rejected the challenge, weighed the evidence under the "fair preponderance of the evidence"
standard, found permanent neglect, and ultimately ruled that the best interests of the children
required permanent termination of the parents' custody. The Appellate Division of the New
York Supreme Court affirmed, holding application of the preponderance of the evidence
standard proper and constitutional, and the New York Court of Appeals dismissed the parents'
appeal to that court. United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded. In an opinion by
Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan, Marshall, Powell and Stevens, JJ., it was held that (1) process
is constitutionally due a natural parent at a state's parental rights termination proceeding, and (2)

the "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard prescribed by the state statute violated the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, due process requiring proof by clear and
convincing evidence in such a proceeding.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas broadened the meaning of the provision
with his opinion in Adderly v. Florida 385 U.S. 39 (1966):
“The right to petition for redress of grievances has an ancient history, and is not
limited to writing a letter or sending a telegram to Congressman; it is not
confined to appearing before local city council, or writing letters to the President
or Governor or Mayor. Conventional methods of petitioning may be, and often
have been, shut off to large groups of our citizens. Legislators may turn deaf
ears, formal complaints may be routed endlessly through a bureaucratic maze;
courts may let the wheels of justice grind very slowly. Those who do not control
television and radio, those who cannot afford to advertise in newspaper or
circulate elaborate pamphlets may only have a limited type of access to public
officials. Their methods should not be condemned as tactics of obstruction and
harassment as long as the assembly and petition are peaceable…”
CONCLUSSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson and the Interveners
respectfully request that
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Respectfully Submitted,
____________________________________
Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D.,
Appellant pro se
2620 Nature’s Way
Telephone: 561-624-8725; Facsimile: 561-691-1423
Email: garcialawson@hotmail.com
______________________________________
Rebecca Potter, Intervenor, pro se
1417 Michigan Drive
Lake Worth, Florida 33461
Email: Tlc211@gmail.com

_____________________________________
Mary Riale, Intervenor, pro se
1605 South US Hwy #1, Sealofters 16A
Jupiter, Florida 3347
Email: mriale21@aol.com
_____________________________________
Melissa Gillespie, Intervenor, pro se
13206 Glenmoor Drive
West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Email: costcogypsy@hotmail.com
____________________________________
Donna Gioeli, Intervenor, pro se
425 4th Terrace
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418
Telephone: 561-346-5977
Email: TFCafe@aol.com
_____________________________________
Darin Gioeli, Intervenor, pro se
425 4th Terrace
Telephone: 561-346-5977
Email: TFCafe@aol.com
______________________________________
Charles Edward Lincoln, III, Intervenor, pro se
2620 Nature’s Way
Email: Lincoln_for_california@rocketmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
I, the undersigned Appellant Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, do HEREBY CERTIFY that I

filed and original signed of the above-and-foregoing APPEAL & BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
APPEAL with the Fourth District Court Of Appeal, Florida, and simultaneously served a true
and correct copy of the same one each of the following known parties to the above captioned and
entitled cause as follows:
Clerk of the Fourth District Court of Appeal

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
561-242-2000
Mr. Jeffrey P. Lawson

c/o Steve Marchildon
113 Ashley Court
Jupiter, Florida 33408
Respectfully signed, served and submitted to the Courts on this________________,

March_______, 2010, in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410.
_____________________________________
Dr. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson, Ph.D., pro se
2620 Nature’s Way
Telephone: 561-624-8724
Facsimile: 561-691-1423
Email: garcialawson@hotmail.com

EXHIBIT A.
HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARD L. OFTEDAL’S
FEBRUARY 8th, 2010, [Non-Final] ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
INTEREVNE.

EXHIBIT B.
HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARD L. OFTEDAL’S
FEBRUARY 19th, 2010, [Non-Final] ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
BE IMPOSSED AGAINST RESPONDENT/ WIFE
FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ORDER
SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL


Brief That I, Lucas Smith, Wrote in Support of Kathy Garcia-Lawson & Intervener's Right To Petition

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Brief That I, Lucas Smith, Wrote in Support of Kathy Garcia-Lawson & Intervener's Right To Petition

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IN THE

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

Case No. 4D10-839

On Appeal From The Circuit of the Fifteenth Judicial District,

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, Wife,

JEFFREY P. LAWSON, Husband,

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

Table of Authorities…………………………………………..II, III, IV

Summary of the Argument…………………………………………1, 2

B. Social Engineering Can Violate Our Fundamental Right to

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

Adderly v. Florida 385 U.S. 39 (1966)……………………………..….17

Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, 307 U.S. 496 (1939)..15

Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 (1877)…………………………………...15

Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982) ………….……………..16, 17

United Mine Workers of America v Illinois State Bar Association 389

United States v. Cruikshank, 92, U.S. 542 (1875)…………………..…15

Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)………………………….…....7

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2nd 862 (Iowa 2009)……………….….9, 10

Florida Rule 9.030, Fla. R. App. P…………………………………….1

Fla. R. App. P. 9.190, 1996 comm. notes………………………….…..2

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

District of Columbia’s Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality

CNN.com, “Louisiana Justice Who Refused Interracial Marriage

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

right to Due Process of the Law.

Leave To Intervene. A copy of Honorable Judge Oftedal’s order is attached as exhibit A.

through the power vested therein by the Florida Constitution:

taken as a matter of right, from final judgments or orders trial courts…They

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

9.190, 1996 comm. notes.

of Honorable Judge Oftedal’s order is attached as exhibit B.

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

A. Honorable Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s Unconstitutional

chooses, allow the party to intervene in certain situation.

In Honorable Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s February 8th, 2010 non-final Order he

pleadings, motions, or other document’s tendered by Intervenors or other individuals seeking or

expense, both in time and money.”

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

even for decades.

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

rights in the Court.

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

nor have we attended law school.

regardless of if we ever set foot inside of a Courthouse or Courtoom.

B. Social Engineering Can Violate Our Fundamental Right

freedom returned to the people”.

discussion is in support of.

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

fundamental right to freedom religion.

asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

treat them just like everyone else.”

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

State-licensed marriage is not a monogamous marriage. State-licensed marriage is a

The State of Ohio.”

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.

Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862, 879 n.7 (Iowa 2009).

woman who have married without a State-licensed marriage?

to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful.”

KATHY ANN GARCIA-LAWSON, WIFE , v. JEFFREY P. LAWSON, HUSBAND.