Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s Second Appeal of Remand: Civil Rights Laws should be Race-Neutral and Colorblind


07-02-10_Appellant’s Opening Brief_KAGL_2nd

Appellant’s Opening Brief Cover Sheet July 2 2010


Civil Rights Removal should be permissible whenever State Law absolutely precludes the possibility that the Defendant will win on the core issue at stake in the suit. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has simply raised the undeniable truth that it is impossible, in the State of Florida, for a Respondent, once served with a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, to stop the dissolution of marriage. This is called “No Fault” divorce, but it is actually “strict liability” for divorce—the rule is, or would appear to be: if you are once married, you must become divorced immediately or else you are to be condemned as an anti-social pariah.

April 29 2010 Judge Oftedal’s Final Judgment of Dissolution

It is completely obvious that the policy of breaking down the American Family is the most important in all State and Federal Government. That is the conclusion one has to reach by reviewing the Lawson v. Lawson litigation and the dispositions entered by Florida State Circuit Judge Oftedal and U.S. District Judge Marra’s against Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson.


It’s amazing to think of a default being entered under circumstances wherein Kathy had so vigorously opposed this process every step of the way. It was as if Oftedal had to silence her or lose all his “credibility” as a good Florida Circuit Court Judge: “Who will rid me of this Troublesome Woman?” Someone must have said? (Cf. “Murder in the Cathedral” by T.S. Eliot).

2-24-2010 Notice of Appeal of Two Oftedal Orders per Florida 9-130

Kathy filed two Notices of Appeal of Non-Final Orders pursuant to Fla. App. Rule 9-130. The question is whether the express language of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9-130 renders Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s Final Judgment, entered April 29, 2010, null and void? Will the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals uphold the plain letter of the law, or will it weasel around and find that Kathy’s constitutional challenge to the basic Florida Marital and Dissolution Statutes was so “obstructionist” as to justify Judge Oftedal’s actions in ignoring the plain letter of the law. Since when is “obstructionism” based on constitutional arguments an evil thing? Is it that the Constitution has become hazardous to our Government’s feelings of absolute control over the population, so that Constitutionalists must all be eliminated and/or severely repressed/suppressed/ or just ridiculed and belittled until they become psychologically depressed? If the Courts, State and Federal, can apply just enough “pressure” on all people like Kathy who assert their rights, maybe there won’t be any people like Kathy anymore, and the Courts can act as arbitrarily and capriciously as they want in the name of “public health and welfare” and the “best interests of the child.”

Marra’s April 19 2010 Order Denying Kathy Garcia-Lawson’s Rule 59(e)

Divorce is much more important than Marriage. State disposition of martial rules is much more important the private contract or private arrangements regarding private life. And above all, the State’s complete usurpation of power over marriage and child-rearing is NOT communistic, NOT even socialist, and is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOT AN EFFECTIVE ESTABLISHMENT OF SECULAR-HUMANIST RELIGION BY THE POWER OF THE STATE UNDER THE GUISE OF THE STATE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH & WELFARE.

KAGL Objections to Order Setting Trial February 26 2010

Since when is vigorous assertion of constitutional rights so offensive to a court that a Judge dares to strike all such assertive pleadings and enter a default against the party asserting constitutional rights to be heard and complain about the way the system works? Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has spent the past five years challenging the Florida state statutory scheme, as well as the judicial customs, practices, and policies implementing this legislative panorama. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson contends that it is wrong, it is a violation of the American spirit, of the American dream of liberty and freedom, that the State and Federal government have ganged up to force and require that all individuals and family depend for their personal relations and family life, which lie at the heart of every person’s “pursuit of happiness”, on the arbitrary and capricious whims of state judges. Only with the abolition of State Family Court systems, of all State and Federal interference with domestic relations, can real freedom be restored in the United States of America, or in any of the countries of the world which have copied our extremely bad example…..or the bad examples that we copied (such as, truly but surprisingly, the old, now defunct and collapsed, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

April 13 2010 KAGAL Rule 59(e) Motion for REVOCATION OF REMAND.doc- Kathy’s draft

Was it Manifest Error to Ignore the Plain, Racially Neutral, Statutory Language of 28 U.S.C. Section 1443? Or was it Manifest Error for the Supreme Court of the United States to construe 28 U.S.C. Section 1443 Civil Rights Removal so as to judicially insert or apply race-based criteria or classification schemes to race-neutral statutory language, especially when this was done during the “Civil Rights Movement” which was supposedly removing racial divisions as motivating factors, or factors of competition or oppression, among the people of the United States? Or could it be that Population-wide-Equal Civil Rights were not the real concern of the United States Supreme Court?


The autonomy of the Family and Private Property, the freedom of the individual and his closest worldly associates to arrange all of their affairs free from governmental interference, is the foundation for Capitalism and the Democratic-Republican State.  No issues are more important today than to restrict the overweening power of the Family and Probate Courts, which are responsible for more day-to-day infringements upon the rights and liberties of the vast majority of the people than the penal system, however horrible and corrupt, will ever be.  The greatest deception is that the government exercises power through the Family and Probate Courts for the benefit and promotion of welfare.  The reality is that Federal regulations enacted or promulgated pursuant to the Federal Power of Public Health and Welfare, Title 42, is the most egregious and oppressive intrusion into private life in the history of the world.

Civil Rights Laws may have evolved in the context of racial conflict, within the context of United States history, but until the Civil Rights laws are enforced in a race-neutral and colorblind manner, the status and concept of Civil Rights in the United States will remain hopelessly perverted.

2 responses to “Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s Second Appeal of Remand: Civil Rights Laws should be Race-Neutral and Colorblind

  1. I don’t wish to be mean, but why would this woman want to stay married to a man who clearly did not wish to stay married to her? In my opinion, a loveless marriage is worse than no marriage at all.

    • Dear Jennifer C:
      To me the phrase “a loveless marriage is worse than no marriage at all” is only true for the most spoiled of all children in the world: namely the American adults who get married and divorced in an endless circus of fragile, futile relationships whose primary purpose is to keep society unstable and property ownership in turmoil. In short, the fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto and the dream or nightmare of “the Brave New World.” Marriage is a complex institution, because it is both a sacrament in many if not all of the world’s religions, it is a contract in all of the world’s economic systems, and it is the human manifestation of the reproduction of the species which is at the center of human evolution. There’s a song Sinatra sings, “Love and Marriage, Love and Marriage, they go together like a horse and carriage,” BUT, historical fact check: in the days of horses and carriages, love and marriage were largely irrelevant to each other. No rational person in the 16th or 17th centuries (nor any time before that) ever married for love or let marriage interfere with love. This began to change in the 18th century with the first stirrings of the movement appropriately called “romanticism” and soon courtship and romantic love were all tangled up with marriage. This would have seemed simply hilarious to the Mediaeval Troubadors, whose records of the “Code of Chivalrous Love” or “Courtly Love” never once admitted that anything so “bourgeois” as Richard Wagner’s marriage of Elsa to Lohengrin in consideration of what can only be called, “legal defense services” (albeit conducted in that most wonderful of Mediaeval Institutions—the trial-by-combat)—and yet in the 19th century that one marriage was so widely celebrated that the accompanying music has come to define Western European and North American (and quite a few Latin American, Australian, and South African) marriages all together.
      I will not attempt to speak for Kathy, but my perspective as a law student is that marriage is a contract. As a student of anthropology and history, my perspective is that stable marriages are good for the family, for the raising of children, and for the maintenance of real property. None of this is the real point of Kathy’s Removal, Appeal, and Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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