09-3590 Motion to Strike

1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN AND FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

5DCA CASE NO.: 5D09-3590

Theresa Marie MARTIN, ) in an appeal from summary denials

Petitioner/Appellant, ) of collateral relief from traffic court

)

v. ) Citrus County Circuit Court cases:

) 2009-AP-2088 & 2009-CA-3729

State of FLORIDA, )

Respondent/Appellee, ) The Honorables Yerman & Merritt,

) Fifth Judicial Circuit, at Inverness

_______________________________ ) ________________________________

Motion to Strike Answer Brief for Willful Fraud Upon the Court; or, in the alternative; Conditional Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Motion, and Corresponding No Objection to Striking Same from the Record

Comes now the Appellant, Theresa M. Martin, providing alternatives to and for

this Court’s convenience and wisdom in ruling, properly, by stating the following:

1. This appeal is, by no means, worried about any mere corrections of errors in

procedure, rule and/or law, but a planned formality in exhaustion of state remedies,

prior to strict obedience of Ephesians 5:11, Matthew 18:17, and etc., in center stage

of the United States District Court, along with all mandated law enforcement units.

2. Appellant Theresa has lengthy, routine experiences, and like expectations, of

Florida courts, judges, attorneys and related persons as incompetent and/or corrupt,

and one has only to review all the materials and history herein, to deduce the same.

2

3. Appellee’s Answer Brief did dramatically sour the present situation, as being

fully replete with example after example of unmitigated, reckless and willful fraud.

4. In addition to such examples already demonstrated against the acts of State’s

counsel in sheer disgrace (falsified conclusory statements - Reply Brief, at 10-11)

(dereliction of legal duties, conspiracy, and conflict of interest - Reply Brief, at 12)

(fraud upon the court - Reply Brief, generally), Mr. Corrente has also attempted to

criminally defraud the law in these matters using additional schemes: i.e., by trying

to defraud that this review only comes through one (1) procedural device of writ of

certiorari, when this matter arises, in fact, through a dual framework of inextricably

intertwined review from both discretionary and direct appeal routes, both in one,

and, indeed, had there existed sufficient page limits room for the Reply Brief, the

arguments would have been raised that the State, by seeking to address and answer

only the discretionary prong of this appeal (“writ of certiorari”, “no departure from

the essential requirements of law”), has also waived and conceded Theresa’s direct

review prong in this appeal, further entitling Theresa to absolute relief in her favor.

5. Mr. Corrente even “conjured up” new “facts” out of thin, blue air, such as

arguing about “Leon County” (Answer Brief, 7) (Leon County is not involved…).

6. In fact, the remainder of Mr. Corrente’s “Answer Brief” seems as if nothing

but an ongoing tirade of meritless desperation, chock-full of highly prejudicial, but

otherwise wholly irrelevant, statements averred through criminally fraudulent lens.

3

7. Heck, Mr. Corrente even miserably failed to include a standard of review for

this Court, and to *actually* sign his Certificate of Service, i.e., his Answer is void.

8. One could go on and on, shredding nearly every single averment of Corrente

as willful fraud and criminal action, but it is hoped the point has been made clear.

9. Without doubt, Mr. Corrente’s design was to “influence” this Court, with his

plethora of written dung droppings, enough to defraud and obstruct the due course

of established law within these matters, and to further shield/assist criminal perps.

10. Moreover, had Mr. Corrente’s fraudulent scheme enjoyed a modicum of any

success, and this Court had ruled in favor of the State, then his fraud upon the court

would be complete, per the elements of law (see, e.g., Bulloch v. United States, 763

F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985); Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7

Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23; and, etc.), and, in that event, Mr.

Corrente would have pulled the relevant Justices here into an untenable situation,

as co-defendants with himself and the lower fools under civil lawsuit, whether that

would be a certain-named three (3) Justices on panel assigned, or the full en banc

Court, if a fraudulent ruling would emanate by the form of a per curiam opinion.

11. Even further, Mr. Corrente’s wicked scheme to embroil the Justices of this

Fifth District into molten-hot fraud and criminal activity would have induced new

cause of action in the federal proceedings to seek immediate federal takeover and

supervision of the entire Florida court system, due to a then-100% record of fraud.

4

12. This Court should now, accordingly, find itself extremely disturbed over Mr.

Corrente’s subterfuge, and begin to weigh out the proper addressing of that issue.

13. Now, see, due to the State’s once-again total disdain for ethics, its own laws,

or even a scintilla of decency, let alone fair play, Theresa shall not be satisfied with

receiving any relief less than as was specifically detailed. See Initial Brief, 44-45.

14. This Motion to Strike the Appellee’s Answer Brief is quite lawfully and

strongly based on documented argument, facts and law, and Theresa would have

every right to insist - and to enforce - this Court’s immediate granting of the same.

15. However, that will be unnecessary, should this Court conclude that Theresa

is fully entitled to all relief that she seeks within her Initial Brief, and order same.

16. In that latter event, Theresa voluntarily dismisses this Motion to Strike, and

further, has no objections to the Court even striking this instant motion to strike.

17. There is not enough reason to send additional persons to federal prison, and

have more retirement accounts, pensions, and all other benefits erased under F.S. §

112.3173, just in order for Theresa to now be finally restored with the justice she

should have had under law, years ago, and to have all her monies finally returned.

18. Appellant, therefore, strongly urges this Court to exude impeccable wisdom

in determining the latter course of above-suggested relief shall be the proper result.

WHEREFORE, the undersigned Appellant provides alternatives to and for this

Honorable Court’s convenience and wisdom, and urges the latter now be Ordered.

5

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Theresa M. Martin

____________________________

Theresa M. Martin

10918 Norwood Avenue

Port Richey, FL 34668

727-857-4193

[email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify: that on this __29__ day of March, 2010, a true and complete

copy of the foregoing alternative motions in relief, by depositing the same in the

United States mail, first class postage preaffixed, has been duly served upon:

(Attorney for the Appellee):

Carmen F. Corrente

Office of the Attorney General

444 Seabreeze Blvd., 5th

Floor

Daytona Beach, FL 32118

/s/ Theresa M. Martin

____________________________

Theresa M. Martin

Appellant pro se

Theresa M. Martin



727-857-4193

[email protected]

Theresa M. Martin



727-857-4193

[email protected]

09-3590 Motion to Strike

Documents

Transcript of 09-3590 Motion to Strike