Death in a Judge’s Chambers (Melbourne, Florida): Notes from Last August: Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson against the Family Courts in Florida


RE: Grayson (capital punishment for alleged child support arrearages?)
Montag, den 31. August 2009, 15:00:06 Uhr

kathy Garcia-Lawson <> 

Kontakt anzeigen

An: Mike MCManus <>


You’re a news man right? The only reason that I thought this story was newsworthy is that a relatively harmless, decent, well-respected man died in a Judge’s chambers upon being sentenced to “immediate incarceration” concerning disputed arrearages in child support.
This man, Dr. Grayson, may not have been perfect: are you?  He undoubtedly had his faults and eccentricities.  He may have been unusual in some regards.  He was probably a sinful son of Adam.  He many not have been loved by every person he met in life: are you?
But did he deserve to die in handcuffs on the floor in front of a judge’s office desk?  Was this his preordained destiny, his time to die?
Or did the system finally kill him?  And are these newsworthy questions in your mind?
The circumstances are that this man has been struggling for ten years or more and has been frustrated and denied due process at every turn.  The judge made it clear that he had pre-determined a sentence of incarceration for a man in his sixties with a pre-existing and well-known heart condition who testified that being jailed would destroy his career and livelihood. This man showed symptoms of heart failure and was immediately handcuffed for this “offense”.
The Judge up in Melbourne, once it became obvious that the symptoms were real, “modified” his order of incarceration so that the victim dying on his floor would not have to be sent to a county medical facility.
This special set of circumstances seems to me something that would shock the conscience and disturb the tranquility of most readers, of most people in the United States, for the simple reason that it raises this question: at what stage of alleged “arrearage” and under what circumstances and at what stage of the litigation process does failure to pay child support become a Capital Offense?
Are compliant, sheep-like parents who submit to the system, in your eyes and conscience, “good people?” Are those who complain and resist, who, like trapped coyotes, would rather chew off their legs than remained trapped in the system, “bad people?”  Is a moral system which judges the compliant as good and the resisters as bad consistent with American values? with Christian values? with your values?  With the values of our grandparents who fought the Nazis and Japanese Imperialists and later tried to protect America from Godless Communism?  Where is equal protection in this system?  Where is due process?  Where can the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be found in the Family Courts, anywhere in America?
The Florida Family Code Statutes and Domestic Relations Courts supposedly exist to improve the lives and general welfare of the people by simplifying domestic disputes and facilitating wealth redistribution and welfare transfers among private parties so that members of economically “viable” families will not become dependent upon the “public dole” or “feeders at the public trough.”
How does the death of Dr. Grayson, as the direct and proximate result of a Family Court Judge’s oppressive ruling on a disputed question, improve public welfare or equitably redistribute the wealth of our now nearly socialist republic?  As to rationality, what is the relationship between economic rationality and honor?  At what price do you suggest we all submit to injustice?
Imagine this, if a small claims court judgment were entered unfairly against you for $60, and in your mind that judgment were the equivalent of theft, because it was obtained by lies and deceit, “does it make sense to you” that you, as a man of honor and integrity, might spend perhaps $300 to defend yourself in a small claims Court rather than submit to theft?
Many of us feel that no judgment ever issues from nor is ever handed down by a Florida Domestic Relations Court except by and through Judicially sanctioned and protected lies and deceit, and we do feel this is especially true in Florida although it appears to be the “norm” nationwide, and so we feel that to preserve our honor and individual integrity, we must fight every step of the way, and ultimately fight to eliminate the system.
I personally have resisted the Satantic temptation to turn my welfare and my daughter’s over to the state, although my Husband left home four years ago and has been seeking a decree of dissolution more-or-less actively ever since.
Now, having seen that the system will not yield to my personal pleas, I am inviting and seeking the assistance intervenors in my case, to join me in demanding that the Florida Domestic Relations Courts all abolish themselves, that they assemble and march out of our lives (without armed revolution) just as the British Imperial Army assembled and Marched out of India in 1947.
When human bodies such as Dr. Grayson’s drop dead in Family Court upon the rendering of judicial orders of incarceration relating to the handling of money in family affairs, I submit that the “public welfare” purpose of the Dissolution Courts has vanished.
When more children are abused in Foster Homes selected by the State than at the homes from which Foster children were removed, I submit that the child custody system has ceased working in “the best interests of the child.”
When post-dissolution litigation and disputes routinely and everywhere continue and go on until children turn 18 or graduate from college, I submit that the “peacekeeping” role of the courts has become utterly nugatory.
If you would be interested in reviewing my constitutional theories regarding the illegitimacy of the Domestic Relations jurisdiction in any court, I can send you the Notice of Intervention which I am inviting every interested in person in Florida to submit in my divorce.
I’ll tell you right now that my theory is based on consistent prongs of Supreme Court jurisprudence: (1) marriage and the private ordering of family relations are fundamental rights, especially when asserted as matters of freedom of philosophic or religious or moral expression, (2) no fundamental right, especially none protected by the First Amendment, may be limited by any state through a state approval, licensing or other monopolistic procedure, (3), the substitution of state statutes for religious sacraments and private control over family relations creates an excessive entanglement of government and private religious practice as well as private moral determination which is intolerable in a free and democratic republic, “conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
I for one am happy to be now engaged in a great struggle, to determine whether any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure….
Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson 561-624-8725

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:36:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Grayson


Let us assume that your friend did have his income falsely imputed.  It should ahve been $40,000 a year not $50,000 or whatever.  But he should have paid on the basis of the lower number, to be credible.  Instead he paid no child support, apparently spent $300,000 arguing for a lower figure.  Doesn’t make sense to me.

Am I wrong in stating the facts?


Michael J. McManus
syndicated columnist
“Ethics & Religion”
President & Co-Chair
Marriage Savers
9311 Harrington Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
301 469-5873

Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. Find out more.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s