🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------7EED22DF2B8B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

If you think Government and the Courts adhere to the constitution you 
need to read the following.  Involved are First Amendment (The right to 
Petition and Freedom of Speech), Fifth Amendment (Public taking of 
Private Property without just compensation) and Seventh Amendment 
(Guarantee of Trial in civil cases).  

The following message was sent to Representative Bob Casey, Florida 
House of Representatives.(Casey@afn.org) It contains 5 parts; (1)  THE 
LAW, (2) COURT'S OF APPEALS DECISIONS, (3) WHAT HAPPENED, (4) THE ISSUES 
AND (5) YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES. Portions of court files are included.  
The originals are in the Alachua County Court House, Gainesville, 
Florida, and the First District Court of Appeals, Tallahassee, Florida. 
 This is public record.

This shows how lawyers and judges manipulate clients, each other and the 
law.  If you have children, think to the future.  The same thing can 
happen to you. 

************************************************************************Dear Representative Casey: 

I decided to make your job easier.  What follows is the law, what 
happened and what I would like you to do as a lawmaker for me, the rest 
of your constituents and the people of Florida. 

THE LAW

The U.S. Supreme Court decreed anyone accused of criminal charges will 
be provided with legal counsel if he cannot afford it.  Florida, like 
other states, created the Public Defender to accomplish this purpose.  
To recoup some of these costs and regulate the process the legislature 
enacted Florida Statute 27.56.  

Florida Statute 27.56 states: 

At the sentencing hearing or at such stage in the proceedings as the 
court may deem appropriate, "the public defender, the special assistant 
public defender, or the private attorney representing such defendant 
shall move the court to assess attorney's fees and costs against the 
defendant."

	No lien thus created shall be foreclosed upon the homestead of 
such defendant-recipient or parent, nor shall any defendant-recipient or 
parent who is ordered to pay attorney's fees or costs be denied any of 
the protections afforded any other civil judgment debtor.

The court having jurisdiction of the defendant-recipient may, at such 
stage of the proceedings as the court may deem appropriate, determine 
the value of the services of the public defender, special assistant 
public defender, or appointed private legal counsel and costs, at which 
time the defendant-recipient or parent, after adequate notice thereof, 
shall have opportunity to be heard and offer objection (FIRST AMENDMENT 
- FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RIGHT TO PETITION) to the determination, and to 
be represented by counsel, with due opportunity to exercise and be 
accorded the procedures and rights provided in the laws and court rules 
pertaining to civil cases at law.

	When payment of attorney's fees or costs has been ordered by the 
court, there is hereby created in the name of the county in which such 
assistance was rendered a lien, enforceable as hereinafter provided, 
upon all the property, both real and personal, (VIOLATION FIFTH 
AMENDMENT ABSENT ASSERTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS) of any person who:
1.	Has received any assistance from any public defender of the 
state, from any special assistant public defender, or from any appointed 
private legal counsel; or
2.	Is a parent of a minor who is being, or has been, represented by 
any public defender of the state, by any special assistant public 
defender, or by any appointed private legal counsel.  Such lien shall 
constitute a claim against the defendant-recipient or parent and his 
estate, enforceable according to law, in an amount to be determined by 
the court in which such assistance was rendered.

	Immediately after the issuance of an order for the payment of 
attorney's fees or costs, a judgment showing the name and residence of 
the defendant-recipient or parent shall be filed for record in the 
office of the clerk of the circuit court in the, county where the 
defendant-recipient or parent resides and in each county in which such 
defendant-recipient or parent then owns or later acquires any property. 
 Such judgments shall be enforced on behalf of the county by the board 
of county commissioners of the county in which assistance was rendered.
3.	In lieu of the procedure above described, the court is 
authorized to require that the defendant-recipient of the services of 
the public defender, special assistant public defender, or appointed 
private legal counsel, or that the parent of a minor who has received 
such- services, execute a lien upon his real or personal property, 
presently owned or after-acquired, as security for the debt created 
hereby.  Such lien shall be recorded in the public records of the county 
at no charge by the clerk of the circuit court and shall be enforceable 
in the same manner as a mortgage.
4	The board of county commissioners of the county wherein the 
defendant-recipient was tried or received the services of a public 
defender, special assistant public defender, or appointed private legal 
counsel is authorized to enforce, satisfy, compromise, settle, 
subordinate, release, or "Otherwise dispose of any debt or lien hereby 
imposed."  A defendant-recipient or parent, who has been ordered to pay 
attorneys fees or costs and who is not in willful default in the payment 
thereof, may, at any time, petition the court (FIRST AMENDMENT - FREEDOM 
OF SPEECH; RIGHT TO PETITION) which entered the order for remission of 
the payment of attorney's fees or costs or of any unpaid portion 
thereof.  If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that payment of 
the amount due will impose manifest hardship on such person or his 
immediate family, the court may remit all or part of the amount due in 
attorney's fees or costs or may modify the method of payment.

5	The board of county commissioners of the county claiming such 
lien is authorized to contract with a collection agency for collection 
of such debts or liens, provided the fee for such collection shall be on 
a contingent basis not to exceed 50 percent of the recovery.  However, 
no fee shall be paid to any collection agency by reason of foreclosure 
proceedings against real property or from the proceeds from the sale or 
other disposition of real property.

6	No lien thus created shall be foreclosed upon the homestead of 
such defendant-recipient or parent, nor shall any defendant-recipient or 
parent who is ordered to pay attorney's fees or costs be denied any of 
the protections afforded any other civil judgment debtor. (FIFTH 
AMENDMENT AND SEVENTH AMENDMENT).
7	The court having jurisdiction of the defendant-recipient may, at 
such stage of the proceedings as the court may deem appropriate, 
determine the value of the services of the public defender, special 
assistant public defender, or appointed private legal counsel and costs, 
at which time the defendant-recipient or parent, after adequate notice 
thereof, shall have opportunity to be heard and offer objection to the 
determination (FIRST AMENDMENT), and to be represented by counsel 
(SEVENTH AMENDMENT), with due opportunity to exercise and be accorded 
the procedures and rights provided in the laws and court rules 
pertaining to civil cases at law.

COURTS OF APPEAL DECISIONS

Court of appeal decisions confirm and reinforce the defendant-recipient 
or parent's right to be heard and offer objection to the determination 
of fees in accordance with court rules pertaining to civil cases at law. 
 While not inclusive, what follows is a sampling of Courts of appeals 
decisions regarding this issue.  

	Imposition of attorney fees against defendant without affording 
defendant notice and opportunity to be heard at hearing to assess 
reasonable fee for appointed counsel was error; prior notice is 
indispensable to imposition of attorney fees.  Farmer v. State, App. 2 
Dist., 617, So.2d 447 ((1993)

	Trial court erred by failing to give defendant notice and 
opportunity to be heard before assessing attorney fees.  Crawford v. 
State,. App. 2 Dist., 616 So.2d 1158 (1993)

	Court assessing attorney fee lien against mother whose son was 
represented by court-appointed attorney in juvenile delinquent 
proceedings was required to provide mother with notice and opportunity 
to contest amount of lien.  L.A.D. v. State, App. 1 Dist., 616, So.2d 
106 (1993) review denied 624 So.2d 268

	Costs and attorney fees could not be assessed against indigent 
defendant without notice. Hotstzclaw v. State, App. 4 Dist., 561, So.2d 
1323 (1990)

	Public Defender�s fees could not be imposed without notice and 
opportunity to be heard, due process requirement that criminal defendant 
receive adequate notice and opportunity to be heard was fundamental and 
was not subject to requirement of contemporaneous objection nor implied 
waiver McMahon v. State, App. 5 Dist. 561 So.2d, 1284 (1990)

	If trial court awards attorney fees against defendant who has 
been represented by a public defender or appointed attorney, defendant 
must be informed of his right to contest the amount of set fees  Drumon 
v. State, App. 2 Dist., 598, So.2d 163 (1991)

	Prior notice is indispensable to imposition of attorney�s or 
public defender�s fees under statute.  In Interest of R.B., App. 4 
Dist., 582 So2d 163 (1991)

	It was error to order juvenile adjudicated a delinquent to pay 
public defender�s fee of $250, without prior notice and hearing.  In 
interest of R.B., App. 4 Dist., 582 So.2d 163 (1991)

	Statute governing assessment of attorney fees and costs against 
defendant expressly requires that public defender, not trial judge, file 
motion for fees; there is no provision for trial court to raise such 
motion sua sponte.  In Interest of R.B., App. 4 Dist., 582, So.2d 163 
(1991).

WHAT HAPPENED

On January 9, 1995, the state attorney's office issued a petition of 
delinquency ordering my wife, my son and me to appear in court because 
of my son's trespass on Fort Clarke School grounds on September 27, 
1994. 

My wife and I received a notice of arraignment (Case No. 94-0292-CJ-A) 
and I appeared in court with my son on January 25, 1995.  My son plead 
guilty at this hearing, waived his right to counsel and the court 
ordered a presentence investigation.  We met with HRS worker Melany 
Kretzman, at 1500, February 2, 1995. She conducted the presentence 
investigation. 

Notice of disposition was signed by the court on January 25, 1995.  
Disposition was set for February 15, 1995, on January 26, 1995.  The 
court did not send us a notice to appear at this hearing. We did receive 
notices to appear at two subsequent disposition hearings on February 22, 
1995, and March 1,1995. 

I learned of the February 15, 1995, disposition hearing upon Susan 
Ohnstadt's return from court that date.  She told me our son appeared in 
court and changed his plea. The record shows my son signed an Affidavit 
of Indigency at this hearing.  Judge Chance ordered appointment of a 
Public Defender in our absence.  Our signature appears nowhere on this 
affidavit. The court purposefully excluded our presence by not noticing 
us to appear.  

I appeared in court on February 22, 1995, and March 1, 1995, as a result 
of the aforementioned notices.  My son failed to appear at the February 
22, 1995, hearing but he did appear at the March 1, 1995, hearing.  The 
court sentenced him to community control after he plead guilty a second 
time. The Court remanded my son to HRS supervision because his 18th  
birthday was 27 days hence and he was not living at home.  My wife and I 
learned he was doing drugs.  We also caught him stealing from us.  

The record shows my son never came to see his appointed attorney.  Her 
only contact with my son was less than two minutes at the podium when he 
plead guilty the second time.  Consequently, it was a shock when we 
received an order assessing $200.00 attorney fees. The record shows 
Judge Chester Chance issued this order on his own motion (SUA SPONTE) on 
March 21st, 1995.  (VIOLATION OF FIFTH AND SEVENTH AMENDMENT) 

As a result of this order I sought advice from John G. Maguire, an 
Assistant Public Defender.  He told me of the requirement for a hearing 
before imposition of this fee.  He also advised me to pay the fee.   

The record shows I submitted a motion for a hearing on March 29, 1995.  
I complied with the order and paid the $200.00 assessment on April 6, 
1995.  Judge Chance denied my motion (VIOLATION FIFTH AND SEVENTH 
AMENDMENT) telling me, through his secretary, to take it up with the 
County Commission.  

With Judge Chance's denial of my right to a hearing I talked to C. 
Richard Parker, the Public Defender, for the Eighth Judicial Circuit.  
Mr. Parker directed Assistant Public Defender Susan Ohnstad to file a 
motion to Rescind Attorney's Fees and Costs subsequent to the required 
hearing.  If that failed he was willing to file a Writ of Mandamus.  

The record shows Ms. Ohnstadt  filed her motion on April 19, 1995. 
(ADHERENCE TO FIRST, FIFTH SEVENTH AMENDMENT) Judge Chance told her he 
would deny her motion (see my memos dated April 5th and May 15th).  
Given the Court's brusque treatment of Ms. Ohnstadt, it was obvious Ms. 
Ohnstadt was afraid to stand up to Judge Chance.  She kept asking 
Assistant Public Defender Johnny Kearns for help.  As a result Mr. 
Kearns went to Judge Chance.  This resulted in a "don't call me, I'll 
call you" deal.  

My May 15,1995, Memo to Assistant Public Defender Susan Ohnstadt shows I 
decided to file the Writ of Mandamus. (See Memo at the end of this 
message)   I filed my Writ of Mandamus pro se on May 19, 1995.  I did so 
because:

The required 30 day period required by FS � 27.56 had past with Judge 
Chance denying our motions. 

I wanted to ensure I met the time requirements for filing a Writ of 
Mandamus.  Tardiness would abrogate my right to appeal. 

Mr. Kearns' deal was a political deal that jeopardized my right to 
redress in the face of a law violation by an elected public official.  
Mr. Kearns' concern was the politics of justice, not justice itself.  
His deal put justice at the mercy of a person who violates the law and 
imposes fines that the dream team would find embarrassing to ask for, 
for less than two minutes at the podium. 

I was also concerned about possible ramifications and fair treatment of 
future clients represented by the Public Defender's office.  Given Judge 
Chance's ungentlemanly conduct and ravings at Ms. Ohnstadt I did not 
want to jeopardize her representation of future clients before this 
court.  My filing the Writ of Mandamus took the onus off the Public 
Defender's Office and put it on me.  

I wanted to restore to the public record the honor, dignity, respect and 
reputation of the woman who loved so much, worked so hard, and whose 
name remains maligned by this order. 

The record shows the first district court of appeals responded to my 
Writ of Mandamus on May 24, 1995.  They assigned this case a First 
District Court of Appeals case number of 95-01785.  They requested I 
fill out a docketing statement and affidavit of indigency.  I forwarded 
these documents to the First District Court of Appeals on May 31, 1995. 
 

Question #6 on the docketing statement asks for a listing of judges "on 
this Court who should not participate in this case, stating your reasons 
for that belief."  My response reflects a foreboding of what eventually 
happened:  

"None that I know of. While I am not naive enough to believe no judge on 
the panel knows the presiding judge in this case, I do not know of any 
political or social connections the presiding judge may have with 
members of this court that will preclude the expected standard of 
fairness desired in this case."

As justification for the affidavit of indigency I stated: 

	COMES NOW THE PETITIONER, pro se, who respectfully submits this 
Affidavit of Indigency. 
	In support of this Affidavit the Petitioner would show:

1.  The Petitioner was previously adjudged indigent by the Court that 
imposed the fee in question. 

	2.	The $250.00 filing fee is in excess of the fee already 
paid by the Petitioner that by law, was illegally imposed.

	3.	The $250.00 filing fee represents an additional fine to 
that which has already been imposed that impedes the Petitioner's right 
to a fair and just hearing in this cause.

	4.	The Petitioner realizes the $250.00 filing fee 
represents the cost of doing business and limits frivolous appeals.

	5.	This affidavit is tendered to save time, money, and 
effort. Should this court determine the $250.00 filing fee is required 
the petitioner will, with sadness but in the interest of justice, make 
every effort to recoup this fee (legally, publicly and politically) 
because this appeal would not be necessary had not the public official, 
who imposed the original fine, violated the law which caused this 
action.

	6.	Wherefore, the Petitioner, Roy G. Callahan, as party in 
interest in this case, moves this Honorable Court pursuant to the 
Florida Constitution, Article 5, Section 3, to issue its Writ of 
Mandamus compelling the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, 
Juvenile Division, through an assigned judge other than Chester B. 
Chance, to set hearing on the Petitioner's motion for hearing on Public 
Defender fee in this cause. 

	Shortly after filing these documents I received an order from 
the First District Court of Appeals ordering me to "File a proper 
affidavit of indigency and motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 10 
days."  I responded to that order and filed my Motion to Proceed on June 
26, 1996.  It read: 


	Comes now the Petitioner, Roy G. Callahan, as party in interest 
in this cause, pro se, and moves this Honorable Court pursuant to 
Florida Constitution, Article 5, Section 3, to issue its Writ of 
Mandamus compelling the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, 
Juvenile Division, through its assigned Judge, Chester B. Chance, or in 
the alternative, another court, to set hearing on the petitioner's 
motion for hearing on Public Defender fee in this cause. 

	As ground the petitioner would show:

	1.	The petitioner is an ordinary citizen of the State of 
Florida whose right to a hearing on Attorney costs has been denied by 
the Honorable Chester B. Chance, Circuit Court Judge, Eight Judicial 
Circuit. 

	2.	The petitioner is not an attorney, a member of the bar, 
a legal intern, a legal scholar or a want-to-be. Therefore, the 
petitioner does not know the difference between a "proper" or "improper" 
affidavit of indigency. 

	3.	The record shows the Honorable Chester B. Chance imposed 
the status of indigent on me when he appointed a Public Defender. He did 
so in my absence, without my knowledge and without my consent. I had no 
part in claiming this status.

	4.	For purposes of this appeal I accepted Judge Chance's 
order of indigency, maintained that status, and filed my Writ of 
Manadmus. I did so after attempting to obtain my right to the hearing 
required by law. The Honorable Chester B. Chance denied me this right. 

	5.	I received this Court's order directing me to "pay the 
filing fee or file a proper affidavit of indigency and motion to proceed 
in forma pauperis" on June 23, 1995.  This motion addresses this order. 

	6.	For purposes of this appeal I cannot, in conscience, 
continue the fa�ade begun by the Honorable Chester B. Chance. I own 
property in the state of Florida, I pay taxes and I vote. By legal 
definition I am not indigent. Therefore, filing this appeal in forma 
pauperis would be, on my part, a perjurous an unlawful act. I cannot 
comply with this court's order to continue in this form. Two wrongs do 
not make a right.

	7.	Conversely, this court has ordered me to pay a $250.00 
filing fee if I do not file the required Affidavit of Indigency in Forma 
Pauperis. This fee is in addition to the $200.00 in silver ordered and 
paid to Herod. I paid this fee because it was ordered and I believed 
payment would guarantee my right to be heard. Now Herod's big brother 
demands more silver to exercise a right that is guaranteed by law and 
our constitution. 

	8.	I would happily pay the additional $250.00 in filing fee 
if I knew the results would be fair and just. I would also pay if I knew 
that action would be forthcoming to insure the events seen in this case, 
that led to this appeal, would not happen again. However, given the 
sometimes twisted logic, political and intra-personal relationships that 
enter into these decisions I have no guarantee that what happens will be 
fair, just and in accordance with the law as it is written. Therefore, I 
decline to pay the $250.00 in filing fee demanded. I am not a gambler 
and putting good money on top of what has proved to be a bad investment 
is not logical.

	9.	Your order attempts to put the decision making as to 
whether this cause goes forward into my hands. I believe the decision is 
a joint decision and there are two choices. 
	a.	Granting this motion and proceeding without the $250.00 
filing fee or the fa�ade of indigency in forma pauperis confirms an 
ordinary citizen's right to be heard. The rule of law is upheld. 

	b.	Denial of this motion or letting this case die confirms 
protection of the status quo, justice belongs only to those who can 
afford it and the last five words in the pledge of allegiance are no 
longer applicable. It also upholds a judge's right to impose a fee or a 
tax absent the force of law or representation, a condition over which 
the people of 13 colonies started a revolution two hundred years ago and 
formed a new country and government.

	10.	If this court decides to continue this process absent 
the $250.00 filing fee and a "proper affidavit of indigency in forma 
pauperis" I am requesting that my original affidavit of indigency be 
accepted under a new title, whatever the court decides it should be, and 
that all but the fifth paragraph be preserved. 

	11.	The fifth paragraph was written in haste and frustration 
but with honesty. I intend to exercise my First Amendment right to free 
speech and contact my representatives and others, whatever the outcome. 
No American should ever have to go through this ordeal. Nevertheless, 
because paragraph 5 in the original affidavit can be construed as a 
threat, which was not intended, I would request that it be stricken. It 
is not an appropriate part of this affidavit. 

	12.	This motion and the record speak for itself. What this 
court decides determines whether an ordinary citizen has the right to be 
heard in a court of law in a manner that promotes fairness and justice. 
Your decision also determines whether politics, position, title and 
wealth is preeminent. I leave it to those who know of this case and 
future generations of Americans who view this record to decide the 
efficacy and fairness of this court. In the meantime I await your 
decision, or the lack of one, which in itself is a decision.

13.  Wherefore, the Petitioner, Roy G. Callahan, as party in interest in 
this case, moves this Honorable Court pursuant to the Florida 
Constitution, Article 5, Section 3, to issue its Writ of Mandamus 
compelling the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Juvenile 
Division, through an assigned Judge other than Chester B. Chance, to set 
hearing on the Petitioner's motion for hearing on Public Defender fee in 
this cause.

I received an order from the First District Court of Appeals on July 13, 
1996, notifying me  my "request is denied and this appeal is hereby 
dismissed for" my failure "to obey the rules and orders of this court." 
 They told me "this disposition is without prejudice to appellant's 
right to file a motion to reinstate within 30 days accompanied by the 
filing fee." Of $250.00   The record shows I did not respond to this 
order.  My reasons for not responding are clear in the foregoing.  


THE ISSUES

The lawless nature of some in society plus social policy decreed by 
congress, individual legislatures and activist supreme courts makes the 
Public Defender system mandatory.  I support the system.  

The issues presented in the court files and this document are concise.  
They require no elaboration or explanation.  At issue is a citizens 
right to a fair and impartial hearing in a court of law.  The record 
shows this right was abridged. 

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES


As the Representative for District 22, Florida House of Representatives, 
I have furnished you court  files that defile the standard of justice 
called for by the Florida and United States Constitution.  The 
debasement of this standard was done for political purposes.  

I do not want you to > > > remove that judge?  Are you being 
realistic>>> as you asked in your message of >>>Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 
01:33:15 -0500>>>.  >> I don't want those files back and you know it.  
However, I did not send them to you to sit in your files and get dusty. 
>> 

In your messages  Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 21:22:00 -0500 you told me  > > 
> That is why I have supported for two years in Tallahassee, an effort to remove the oversight of the legal profession, from the Florida Bar to 
an independent agency. >>> 

I support your effort and will do anything I can to help.  You can use 
this document and the files I gave you to support your case.  They 
provide factual information that would take an investigator time and 
money to dig out of court files.  

I believe parents have rights.  They also have responsibilities.  The 
records I sent you show my wife and I were responsible.  They also show 
we were unwilling to go to jail for an errant child.  They also show we 
don't support the system.  We believe education is hard work and HRS 
should be put out of business.  We also believe the family comes first 
as do family values.  Florida's spanking bill plus the thought process 
my son was exposed to in school and the media prevented me from doing 
what I had to do to keep him straight.  

As an example I cite an incident where my wife and I caught our son 
stealing from us. Questioned about his transgression and caught 
red-handed, my wife and I talked with him for hours. 

We begged, pleaded, cajoled and joked trying to get him to admit to the 
error of his ways.  Knowing he was angry, frustrated and backed into a 
corner I touched his shoulder to comfort and calm him.  His response was 
"take your hands off of me. I don't like you rubbing all over me." My 
blood ran cold and my wife turned pale.  I never touched him again.  
Neither has his mother.

I make this point because it gets to the crux of the problem. My son had 
us over a barrel.  He could falsely claim abuse of one kind or another 
and get away with it.  I refuse to subject this family to this kind of 
punishment just because my minor son wants to be disrespectful, 
dishonest, irresponsible and willful.  He did not learn this thought 
process at home; he learned it elsewhere and he knew how to use it.  The 
court was well aware of this episode and others.  So are you.  It's in 
the court files I sent you. 

The tragedy in this episode points to what asinine laws and the creation 
of governmental institutions has done to society.  They have pitted 
family members against each other recognizing that self interest is 
supreme.  

Government has also pitted neighbor against neighbor.  People do not get 
involved with each other because they are afraid.  One person with a 
different opinion can wreak havoc on many.  It's because of this, and 
the power of the state, that people do not interact with one another.  
It is almost like the state, through politicians and asinine laws, has 
found a way to divide and conquer. 

You were correct when you stated:  " You continue to think perhaps 
because of your emotional attachment to the issue that because you don't 
hear about it, nothing is being done about it. "  Little is being done 
about it.  

You are also correct if you believe I am angry.  My son taught me a 
valuable lesson.  So did Judge Chance.  I am angry because I am the 
father of five and the grandfather of three.  I am afraid to spend time 
alone with any of my grandchildren or for that matter, any other child 
because I believe love, discipline and responsibility are synonymous.  
Because of my beliefs the state has taken away from me something that is 
very precious.  I refuse to be alone with any child unless the parent is 
present.  The record shows my wife and I are responsible.  We were fined 
for our responsibility and our fear.

The state, through school and the media, has taught my grandchildren and 
others how to manipulate their parents, the system and society.  My son 
proved that.  So did the court and the First District Court of Appeals. 
 We have done our time and paid our fine.  

I have come to terms with what happened to my wife and me.  I am working 
diligently to make sure it does not happen to another American. 

You are my representative in the Florida House.  Having acknowledged you 
know what happened is wrong I expect you to use the bully pulpit of your 
office to amend or rewrite the law so that all parties are heard, 
parents included. 

Pastor Martin Niemoeller said it best when he said: 

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I 
wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up 
because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I 
didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came for 
the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.  Then 
they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Wishing you fair winds and following seas. 

ROY G. CALLAHAN
UNITED STATES NAVY, RETIRED

--------------7EED22DF2B8B
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="4-05-95 - April 5th Memo to Susan Ohnstadt regarding attorney's fees.doc"

<encoded_portion_removed>
--------------7EED22DF2B8B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="5-15-95 May 15th Memo to Susan Ohnstadt.doc"

��ࡱ�
To:Susan OhnstadtFrom:RoyDate:May 15, 1995Subject:Writ on Mandamus1.	On April 26, 1995, you told me that Judge Chance reconsidered his position about allowing the required hearing on Attorney Fees in my son's case. You indicated that Johnny Kearns spoke with Judge Chance about this matter and he changed his mind. You also told me that I should not call him. He will call me. Being a team player I decided to agree with this new turn of events and see what happens. 
2.	During a brief conversation on May 1, 1995, I asked you if Judge Chance said anything about an impending hearing. My concern at this time was my impending trip to the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, on May 4, 1995. If Judge Chance elected to have a hearing on the 4th or 5th of May I would not be there. You assured me he had not said anything and told me it would be safe to go to South Carolina as planned.
3.	On May 10, 1995, after my trip, I saw you briefly in passing. I asked you if Judge Chance was going to have the hearing. You said you would check. I have not heard anything as of this writing.
4.	As you well know the required 30 day period required by FS � 27.56 in which to demand a hearing regarding attorneys' fees long passed. Your oral motion on April 20, 1995, was rebuffed with the statement by the Court that the "Court would strike any motion you presented." Consequently, a Writ of Mandamus was directed which prompted Johnny Kearns to speak with Judge Chance. The result of this meeting was the "don't call me, I'll call you" decision that is now in effect. 
5.	The purpose of this memo is to advise you of my decision to submit a Writ of Mandamus pro se. The reasons for this decision are as follows:
	a.	Deals and politics usually don't work and we both know that deals not made in writing are deals that are made to be broken. It bothers me that the settlement of this case depends on the mercy and whim of a man who denies my right to a fair hearing. While I understand that deals made between "honorable men" should stand the test of time I also know those times are long past. I have concerns about the "honor" of a man who holds a position of authority and high public office who violates the laws he is sworn to uphold.
	b.	I also have concerns that the "don't call me, I'll call you" arrangement will result in no call at all. This usually happens when one party hopes the problem goes away. I do not intend to go away. Most of our clients get this line when they apply for a job. We know their telephones seldom ring. Because this is the case I want to make sure I meet all the time requirements for filing a Writ of Mandamus. I do not want to abrogate my right to appeal based on time. 
	c.	If I file the Writ of Mandamus, my filing takes the onus off you and our office. Given the record I believe I have valid concerns regarding the current and future welfare of your clients and your practice of law. My filing puts you in the position of only having to tell the truth about the case; it is a far less adversarial position and it puts the onus on me. 
6.	The issues involved in this case are, for me, a matter of principle. If I file I will argue the record created and entered into the Court file exists because of societal and political changes that made us protect our good name and interests. Because the record speaks for itself it should vindicate 17 years of love, hard work and responsibility. Most of all, however, I want to restore in the public record the honor, dignity, respect and reputation of the woman who loved so much and worked so hard, and whose name, on this Mother's day, remains maligned by this order. 

ROY
CC:	C. Richard Parker, Public Defender; Johnny Kearns, Assistant Public Defender


</center>


</CENTER>

���6��	|G�.�K)��H�h���E37	m�&�t
?+�$O0�i�*k[0a�ΡȜԠ�-���!kzhg��Ht�����1�э&\_6m�;(�<��a�rFqY]זdp���Hw�6�O�31HIG:�.�\O��&2E{��u�kWg}ˠ\?�=�H��b�V�����㧑}�2��!y���#�3Zd��BE��$�z8�o�������g	����f��Z�D
�j�~�������N��8§�	B�(NcC
���X��|s˹FXP����W�<0l�fS:�?��ҲE�iz
5T[3�CM��1���?��&��J�P��������c�|/�����+8������""�!�H���Q�m�:/�`8�C1�R6ev�lϸ
˚��x��y������T�0�!�
c�'>j%��n�b|��̡q�\w�L6�k�� ��td�1��~@�CH�Q�>&e�.�#���;&�E��\����V3�����*����+�Q�W��U{��2:5���@A��*�Jn��66f�B}cC�G�[�g
����C�k���l�(�¬����mDJ��H'��:�M������-�!a�
F"q�w�<�k��8���*}&$��C���zbD�qy;��t.rJV#��������e�RH�Ы(N?���D₰��dQo!o�n�q{\��W0F�g��*�_�{���|Yo.ʆ��,[H(%�>9ًdyꃇy�=��n�‰q^�]B���޲W���ǵݤ=?%%V����]���f�%~.��g_<��1L
�}���� $=5��s��^����B�QW;Xly-ZMÎ.3��|�BJ�=�J�*��f"�}��f�˿F��!auWH�PX%=
]�9i/��KWث�y��7)}�j�&I$L��
��Qn�Y�#��Q�,~L��I�~��Ք��� E�]�u�6�8���׽A�X�x����qZ��h��a
�F��
�Xs�<*Q�����u�-;P�<�o
:U�
F�{1�s�X��^����D5�4}#7�c��I#o݂%���!}Ո����	��?��ǒ�f�
d�[�ǐ�����~�$�t�����n ��|�4���2�I�S�2�E�F�8���y����'��*}0�7��A)���k�Ua/3A��㉑,�>�aŲ�d����?���	Z��4r�3-����CyC>r�5��
�f @T{�����o�JEgA>���/X�:
V9�����/�Ey򾶨ͮm>��߱�\���.0��$/}�֘f��E��h�֑l�~��m|�X%�誡
��qRfܣ��z��,&*���n�B���I�����p,�S@L)�[n���(�y�c��Wa���N>cxˤ��\�
J� I��E�̾��P`u
���.�f�$�
N6�B�n���	�y��$}�y50���ϧxV7D��+���Фc�
����6*�F�z�o��V��^�%�w
��e�?�K��9xՂ7Ň(�\��
F�B}�1n�82�%5��I����u�P"��E����oANH���b�Ǎ�!�|I	�m˦ {'���v*�,3{")�
�ˆ%�Ls/\��e�����Q��؉�bz��\��V���r>��+aD�h��1&���h�Cۅ!����f|a�
9��j��<�i2�)�F���a��
t�"��{M0eu�Wi�*a!���f�CF��4��|��%���
�L�WUT�־y�6M���Y���9�ۍ�O�'�_ܟ�+7�3.���x>
�$@c����f5P[�����=�sF��O<����2u|&$���Oh����|��O^�$�,���j/��mx��x���X^9#*����U�w�o7�EcW7{F�4PCI2!¡h�K�� ���0G���0�C����L��\8�)�	����/��k@�h��_�C�0��-��k�:��3s�8ز�7�����r�ҡ�*0�ٌw]\�:�?�֩�EOZ�o�ZV��2���&9�~��*ͮJQT0:T�q����[w�m�d@�𼆖S
��ŕ�XP>[4\�Qm�$���ѣS\S!��Ϥ`Nzj��b�g�Lg9+��D����JE'`A�,��V\5�da�"�r�˅I�kuA��;��O�@���|?$���&�TG17��w,u������r���~Ƙ����
A��ފ&b�C%ԡ����FF[J	�uR�	�����E--------------7EED22DF2B8B--