Anda di halaman 1dari 7




Edna Jane Favreau



Edna Jane Favreau nee Stewart was a successful real estate salesperson who accumulated some
property on her own account. She married a charming conman without any means other than his
clothes and Air Force retirement income. He kept her books of account, and regularly abused her
shortly after the ink had dried on the marriage license. Finally, he nearly killed her by
strangulation. He was convicted of battery and given a light sentence for the strangulation
incident: one year’s probation. The judge also ordered him to make restitution to Jane, with
liquidated damages to be determined. The State Attorney’s office in Brevard County was
negligent and failed to follow up on the restitution order, so Jane filed her own lien with the clerk
of the court. Her husband had already taken all her cash out of the bank accounts, and she was
forced to go into hiding due to his continual threats. The persistent abuse and the oxygen
deprivation to her brain as well as back injuries sustained in the attacks had left her physically
and mentally disabled. Her former husband remarried, and died. Jane’s marital assets wound up
under his control, thanks to his misconduct and that of his attorneys; when he died, his new wife
took them over. Jane wound up in several courts in two counties; she did not obtain just
settlement in divorce court, and she was instructed to file a tort action in another court; and then
she was in probate court. Not only were multiple cases involved, the Brevard County judges
rotated as if they were playing musical chairs, so no one judge really had a full grasp on her
situation; but she was clearly a female, disabled “victim” and was roundly abused in that
unwanted role – some authorities may kick a dog when it is down to demonstrate their own
power, for fear of being powerless and abused themselves; the dog winds up in a kennel with
obvious symptoms of distress and may have to be put out of its misery. Compounding Jane’s

Page 1 of 7 
confusion was the fact that she would have several strokes in the process, a process whereby she
was forced to represent herself on a “pro se” (‘for oneself’) basis – approximately 80% of family
law cases in Florida have one person on either side representing his or her own self. Rendered
indigent and impaired by her husband and by fraud on the court, she has fought the good fight
for eighteen years, all the while seeking an attorney to take up her righteous cause, trying to
rectify the injustice done to her by way of the fraud on the court. It is not surprising that the
initial errors were compounded in the process. She is not an attorney, and her disabilities were
aggravated by the abusive courts. Her PTS (post traumatic stress syndrome), for instance, was
worsened by the constant bulling by members of the Bar hence she has LAS (legal abuse
syndrome) to boot. She chokes up when under pressure to speak; women and children are often
beaten for “something I said,” and continued abuse renders them intimidated and fearful in the
physical presence of persons with authority. Jane cannot speak up well extemporaneously, but
she can sit down and write at length when alone. She suffers from “hypergraphia” as well;
hypergraphia is a term of art for an obsessive-compulsive urge to write, a characteristic observed
in manic-depressive persons. Jane filed so many motions, briefs, affidavits, and pleadings with
the court that eventually she was ordered to shut up, to file nothing more except through a
licensed attorney. A judge ordered her future filings to be shredded. She literally could not shut
up, and, appealing to the court, pleaded that shutting her up violated her Constitutional rights.
She has pointed out that judges often have contempt for pro se litigants, even when they are
competent, and abuse them accordingly, not bothering to read their filings. Although her
pleadings are many in number and prolix, and their content naturally demonstrates her confusion,
and are sometimes not on point in the particular context of the legal procedure, they have moral
and jurisprudential merit. After all, she is only trying, in the best way she can given her
disabilities, to obtain the justice that someone with wealth would normally get through an
attorney-at-law and a court that is duly respectful of the law because it is dealing with wealthy
and powerful individuals. What follows is an edited and condensed version of one of her many
filings, originally entitled ‘Exhibit in Support of Motion For Remand.’ The words and grammar
are mainly hers; redundancies are omitted along with case and rule citations; certain paragraphs
have been shifted to put the document in a more coherent order. The compulsion to write
characteristic of hypergraphia, by the way, is considered abnormal because it is not regulated by
the organizing or editing lobe of the brain. David Arthur Walters, Ed.

Exhibit in Support of Motion for Remand
I did not expect the court to grant me an attorney’s help at the beginning of
my court cases, so I hired an attorney named Pam Huddleston to take the case to
trial. She was paid to take the case to trial, and she agreed to request additional
attorney fees from the advantaged side as allowed by Florida law. Instead, she
sold out to the other side and canceled that important hearing for interim fees, and
then she went skiing.

I was eventually stripped of all my assets by unethical lawyers and judges,

and was left indigent i.e. without the means to hire attorneys, and public legal aid

Page 2 of 7 
was denied to me, allegedly due to a lack of resources and because my case was
not unusual.

I first came to court expecting fairness and justice, rules to be validated, and
laws upheld. I knew the officers of the court had taken an oath to uphold the laws,
to go by the rules of court, and to abide by the Constitution. But then I discovered
that even though citizens are put under oath to tell the truth, and even though the
officers of the court have already taken an oath, somehow the court overlooks the
lies that are told.

No, the attorneys did not seem to be under an oath to tell the truth in court. I
questioned The Florida Bar about this, and I was told, “Yes, it’s a dirty business;
they say and do anything to win or confuse the issues.”

While I was medically certified as impaired and disabled, the Brevard

County Court illegally sold my homestead; my children had to go into debt to buy
back my homestead. The Brevard Court also illegally sold my property in Volusia
County. The Court never accounted for the proceeds. I had placed a restitution lien
on the property, as I was entitled by Florida law to do as a victim of my former
husband’s foul crime against me, for which he was convicted. The Court in
Volusia County, without any lawful authority, lifted those liens for restitution and
the debt still owed me, thus thwarting the legislative intent of the statutes and
violating established law.

The Court clearly was in excess of its jurisdiction when it turned the
proceeds of that sale, as well as all the other assets I had invested in, over to my
abusive former husband, never accounting for any of them. The Court did not
follow the laws, and the acts it committed should be investigated by a grand jury.

No judge in his or her right mind would ever give a wife’s assets over to a
criminal husband, convicted of severe spouse abuse and sentenced to a year in jail,
for him to hold and control after a divorce due to severe spouse abuse.

The misconduct in Brevard and Volusia County does not pass the smell test.
The courts reek of malfeasance and need to be investigated. Just saying ‘all is
well’ does not make it so. The Judge should answer, for example, for selling my
property when no testimony was taken under oath nor certified evidence allowed to
be presented at a hearing, which was scheduled and then fraudulently canceled; the
judge prematurely lifted allowable liens and cancelled the hearing.

The transcript in that case reveals how the judge was so unconcerned about
what to do about the ‘certified’ exhibits he was given to look at before he made a
Page 3 of 7 
ruling in the case; he just started mentioning, in an apathetic way, that the appeals
court would read the records in the matter and come to its own conclusion if I were
to appeal his ruling. Yes, he had a conspicuous lack of concern about his ruling;
that fact alone would cause a reasonable person to conclude that he was being
indifferent to the debt still owed to me, a victim of domestic violence.

I was clearly tricked by the devious Brevard County officers of the court in
my cases. For example, in one instance the Brevard County Clerk shredded my
motions for insolvency to appeal, and failed to send the rest of the paper work to
the appeals court, so the case was dismissed without going before a panel of judges
because the paper work and fee were not provided,

Brevard County Court Judge Rouse, for example, did not care about the
early lifting of the liens, which caused me great harm. The debt still owed to me is
clearly relevant to my cases; I worked for those assets in the first place, and those
liens were to protect the debt owed under the law. He said his decision could be
appealed if I faulted his ruling, and the 5th District Court of Appeals could decide
if he ruled incorrectly. There already was an evidentiary hearing scheduled to
present evidence on why I had a right, as a victim of a crime, to legally place the
lien on the property, but the judge canceled that important hearing; unknown to
me, the property was sold that very same afternoon. That is, the judge went ahead
and ruled prematurely before a scheduled evidentiary hearing could be held for the
purpose of giving sworn testimony and evidence under oath. The judge used a
bushwhacking approach against me. Why? Why was he so impatient?

By lifting the lien, the judge let my assets go. By what statute law or
precedent case did he do this awful thing? Judge Rouse said that, if I could show
him case laws, he would consider them. So why did he quickly make his ruling
before the evidentiary hearing? I immediately appealed his premature ruling. And
then, because the judge would not abide by the applicable Rule of Appellate
Procedure, I had to voluntary withdraw the appeal so the lower court could
reconsider the evidence. But reconsideration did not happen. Supposedly to
correct the court mistakes, a new evidentiary hearing was given, but still the judge
refused to listen or look at things by the standard of law so he gave the same
results. The hearing was a sham, mere pretence. No one was put under oath. The
evidence was not even considered.

The so-called evidence filed by my former husband’s attorney was false,

clearly contradicted by the certified copy of the restitution order supporting my
complaint. The documents I filed with the clerk of the court, for the judge to
review, were based on specific facts, and not mere allegations, and should not have
Page 4 of 7 
been ignored, or shredded to cover up malfeasance. The summary judgment was
appealed, but the property was sold before the appeal might be heard.

There were genuine issues of material fact that indeed established a prima
facie case of guilt against my former husband; that alone should have barred a
summary judgment. However, the Brevard Circuit Court refused to admit the truth
that it was aware of, that my former husband’s attorney had clearly falsified the
Complaint and had disregarded the allowable evidence that I had given pro se to
prove that I was owed money from the Estate of my former husband, Walter
Favreau. This was discrimination against me as a female pro se litigant, favoring
the man who could afford a male attorney [for example: a Puerto Rican female
attorney was openly denigrated by my former husband’s attorney in another case,
and was disciplined for that typical Brevard County Court behavior] Ignoring good
evidence and refusing to acknowledge the ‘certified evidence’ was a deviation and
departure from standards set down by Florida Statutes and court rules, and cruelly
discriminated against me, because I am a woman, in favor of a man, because he is

The Court can and should correct mistakes and misprisions. Indeed, legal
cannons specify that the Court and its officers have a duty to turn this malfeasance
over to the proper authorities when wrongs are committed. White collar crimes by
officers of the court should be investigated by grand jury straight away.

Covering up wrongs done by judges and their favorite lawyers is definitely

improper and illegal. One expects judges to know the laws, to be unbiased and
know the rules, to be fair and consistently impartial. At the very least they should
find the facts and uphold Constitutional standards; indeed, nothing less should be
tolerated. Those officers of the court who did not follow the Rules or Statutes in
my case should be adequately sanctioned to the fullest extent of the law.
Furthermore, in order to discourage future misprisions and misconduct by officer
of the court in respect to the malfeasance and violation of laws in my case, the
miscreant officers of the court should have to pay for the pain and suffering they
have caused me.

Obstructing justice and/or inaptly interfering in justice is plainly wrong and

against the rule of law. Blocking a person from court, as I have been blocked –
from filing pleas, which are shredded, and from making calls to court officials,
from appearing in person at the Clerk’s office or judges’ chambers, and from the
case scheduling process – should not be an option. And, just pretending that no
problem exists does not solve a problem.

Page 5 of 7 
When officers of the court harm their victim by entanglements in multiple
courts and conspire to obstruct the dispensation of justice to her, she should be
granted relief. When officers of the court come in ‘sheep’s clothing’, pretending
they can help a victim, they come as wolves in disguise. When they victimize
someone, they do not fulfill their duty; they should be punished by sanctions to the
fullest extent of the law. And officers of the court and judges and court
administrators who put spin-control on the issues and/or cover up the obstructions
that take place should be sanctioned also. Indeed, they should be ashamed of what
they have done, instead of trying to hide and pretending that nothing’s wrong, that
what they do is just business-as-usual.

The judiciary would have nothing to lose if it simply allowed my case to be

fully and impartially investigated, that is, if the judiciary has nothing to hide.
Having full evidentiary hearing, with meaningful investigation, and redressing the
wrongs would gain back respect and integrity for the judiciary, for doing the right
thing. Public confidence would be restored if things that were done wrong were

As it now appears, it is obvious that the intricate trap to render me homeless

was intentionally set up by my former husband and his attorneys to intentionally do
harm to a woman battered and nearly murdered by him, and that the Bar of Florida
aggravated the damages to me, denuding me of the means and ability to obtain
redress. First of all, the homestead set up to accommodate my disabilities, my
sanctuary from harm, never should have been sold. Perhaps, to accomplish a fair
settlement given the mix of marital properties, it could have been traded for
another marital property in such a way that I would remain secure in it, but it never
should have been sold out from under me.

The gross malfeasance on the part of the Brevard County Court officers
should be addressed. I was denied access to justice in more ways than one. I am a
disabled person protected by the ADA, and the Court was fully aware of my
disabilities; for instance, my speech impediments when under pressure in court,
and the post-traumatic stress that causes me to write and file many long briefs. The
Court should not have denied me my right to come to court for redress of my
grievances and for the malfeasance of it lawyers and judges.

The wealthy of our nation are not treated as I have been; they are treated
well and things are done properly for them in the courts of law. Many wrongs were
done with intentions to harm me, a pro se litigant only representing myself because
I was deprived by the unjust judicial system of the means to obtain representation.
What is done willfully, inaptly and wrongfully, with intentional and callous
Page 6 of 7 
indifference to an indigent citizen’s right to be in the right court of justice, and
with malicious intent to cover up the past misconduct and malfeasance by fellow
officers of the court, calls for redress; and that included redress under the ADA law
for the failure of the court to reasonably accommodate certified disabilities.

Some courts have recognized that victims of abuse like me are routinely
discriminated against and denied representation, just as I have been. The remedies
that justice entitles me to in the courts are obvious: 1) my cases should be
consolidated; 2) the marital assets should be accounted for, clawed back and
appropriate settled; 3) the unethical attorneys and judges should be sanctioned and
sued for damages; 4) an independent panel or grand jury, and not the friendly
Florida Bar or Judicial Qualification Commission, should investigate the
potentially criminal misconduct of the lawyers and judges involved – the Florida
Bar and Judicial Qualification Commission have already proved that they only
ignore indigent and disabled victims like me, leaving them with no genuine legal
recourse to correct outrageous miscarriages of justice, including intentionally
putting them in the wrong courts as I was.

In my cases, a dishonorable judge allowed the opposing attorney to get away

with his deception, and for that reason alone my cases must be reversed and
remanded with instructions to consolidate the related cases to bring closure and
justice. Fraud upon the court caused me grievous damage, and, if the courts keep
ignoring the facts, I shall be even further damaged. My cases need to be
consolidated somehow, and hearings held to determine how the officers of the
court must replace what was lost by me, a disabled victim who was left to flounder
about in the wrong courts. My former husband’s and his attorney’s fraudulent
misrepresentations and coercion in the first trial were the biggest factors in my
inability to obtain justice from the defrauded court. The appellate court should
reverse the lower court judgments and instruct the lower courts to have proper
hearings to consider all of the facts, for proper procedures require a full
presentation of the facts.

Page 7 of 7