“On April 9, 1997, I stood up to object in front of witnesses to the denial of my rights, and Judge Bruce Jacobus told me to sit down. He refused to acknowledge my objection. He intimidated and bullied me, even sent the bailiff over to make me sit down, saying he would have me thrown out of the courtroom if I did not sit down. He clearly denied me my due process in that hearing. It took a lot of courage for me to stand up before Judge Jacobus. He abused his power. I did not get a fair hearing. A witness made out an affidavit describing what happened just after the hearing. Below is a true copy of the affidavit, which is Document No. 356 on the court’s record.” Edna Jane Favreau nee Stewart

AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND PAUL CRISSINGER

In re Abusive Conduct
of Florida Judge Bruce Jacobus
and Attorney Henry Martocci towards
Edna Jane Favreau

[I swear] that this Affidavit  be  the truth as  I  witnessed  it on April 9, 1997 in the courtroom of Judge Bruce Jacobus, and also in the courtroom of  Judge Burke  on  Aug. 15, 1997.

In these hearings I take and retain my notes. My presence at the Viera Justice Center was  to  assist  my  friend,  Ms. Favreau,  because she is subject to panic attacks and under  the  ADA  guidelines is allowed  to  take a friend with her to court to help her with papers.   Also on occasions, because of physical handicaps, Ms. Favreau must be pushed in a wheel chair when her blood pressure is high due to Court related stress. 

My personal observance of this gentle lady over the past several years  has  been  that  she  is  of  good  moral  character  and  of  sound mind  although  she  has  panic attacks  induced  most often by  the  stress  of  the  court room  when she is  near  her  former  husband  and  his  bombastic  attorney.  I  have  also met her daughter and some  of  her grandchildren  and  they  are  also  of  good  moral  character.

Before the 4/9/97 hearing even started, it was demanded, by attorney Henry Martocci, that I be banned from sitting with Ms. Favreau during the court hearing. Prior to this hearing on 4/9/97, I  had previously sat with Ms. Favreau during other hearings because she needs help with her papers, and her  medical  condition  of  panic  attacks  from the former  husband’s beatings – police records and medical doctors’ reports are in the records about this.

It  was  clearly  understood  by  myself  I  would  not  speak,  just  help  with  papers.   I was instructed not to address the court at any time, but I did take notes.

I state this now as I believe the court reporter was not engaged as the hearing had not officially begun. Judge Jacobus denied the attorneys’ protest to my being there, and I did sit with Ms. Favreau. I consider this above ruling, ‘that I could sit with Ms. Favreau’ to be the only fair ruling during the entire time; and knowing that under ADA title II that the judge did not have much choice in this matter. 

I state this also: that  attorney Martocci  throughout this hearing  stared  and glared  to try  and  intimidate  me  and  seemed  upset  that  Ms. Favreau could not see him all the time, because I  was  between  him  and  Ms. Favreau.    Attorney  Martocci’s  constant  belching, coughing, hacking, and  making  of  throat  noises  were  remarkably   loud   and  unnerving. I noticed that the attorney only made those inarticulate noises when Ms. Favreau was about to say something.

Due to my being   with  Ms. Favreau, attorney   Martocci   stared continually deliberately  showing  antagonistic  glaring at me in  crude  and  rude  way, and  his  extreme vulgarities   brought to my mind the past accounts of how the judge in the Charles Manson case had to banish or  reprimand  Manson  from  the courtroom for these types of glares and antagonistic  interruptions to the court.

I  lived  in California  at  that  time, and  my  brother  who  is  in  the  Music  Business  had  a  friend  that  personally knew Sharon Tate. I  followed  that  trial with some interest through  TV and newspaper articles, and  attorney  Martocci’s  disgusting  glares  and interruptions reminded  me how  “Charles Manson”  had  tried  to   intimidate  people in the court, and how Manson was banned from the court room  for  glaring,  staring,  and  doing antics designed  to  unnerve the people in the  room,  but  in  that  case  the  judge kept control of the courtroom and  reprimanded  Manson  when  he  tried  those  tactics. The  tactics  of  attorney  Martocci  could  be  paralleled  directly  in  the  same  fashion  as  Manson’s - that  is  how  intense his staring was - directed  at  myself and Ms. Favreau. Again, accompanying attorney Martocci were his “out breaks” of belching, hacking, and flamboyant coughing fits. Again, these only appeared when Ms. Favreau was speaking or addressing the court. Several times, because she could not be heard, she paused to wait for attorney Martocci to settle down. Not one of these obnoxious and blatant rudeness's and continual vulgarities were ever addressed by the judge. The judge seemed to support the attorneys  rude, and  vulgar  outbreaks  by  just  allowing  them  to  go  on  and  on.

In  particular,  the  judge  was  asking  about  the  worth of  the Holly Hill rental property  jointly  owned by both parties.   I  heard  the  judge  ask  the  Defendant,  Mr. W. Favreau,  if  the Holly Hill  home  had  any  worth and I heard him tell  the  judge “not much”, “very, very  little  or  none in fact.” When on March 26, 1997, just a little over one month earlier the  defendant and  I  personally  took  part  in  the  bidding on  that  Holly Hill  house, I  heard  Mr. Favreau tell the clerk of  the  court  his  bid  was 25,000.00(and  that  is  on record in the files)  the  court  orders  said  if  Ms. Favreau could not come up with the funds to pay for the house by 2:00 p.m. that day  that the bid  automatically  would  belong  to  Mr. Favreau.    The land records show the house has about 30,000.00 in equity.

In  other  words,   to  tell  the  judge  there  was  no  worth to the Holly Hill  home  was  a  lie  told  to  the  court  by  the  defendant  Mr. Favreau.    I  remember  Mr. Favreau trying to tell  the Clerk,  Joe  Maly  (that was selling the houses)  that he wanted me forbidden to go into the “Public Sale” and made  a  loud  fuss  about  it  in  the  hall  way  trying  to  intimidate  his former  wife  from  trying  to  save  her  homestead  from the  illegal  sale  that  was  taking place.     The Law  books  say  the  judge  is  not  supposed  to  sell  her  part of  the  homestead but that  it  is  to  be  partitioned  among the parties.    I  took  part  in  the  biding  because when under  stress  I  have  observed  how  Ms. Favreau  can’t  speak  fast  and  stutters  a  lot.     I  am  sure  it  is from the Post Trauma Stress Disorder  she  has,  and  when  she  panics  she  can’t  move  or  speak.    I   have  observed   this   in   her  so  I  went  with  her  to  help   save  her  small  two bedroom homestead-  that  is  the  only  place  she  seems  to  feel  safe   after  she  filed for the order of protection.   I saw the police  affidavit  showing  the  husband  tried  to kill her.

Ms. Favreau petitioned  the judge to trade the properties, but it has been apparent that it  is  the  goal of  the  former husband  to  do  harm  to Ms. Favreau,  by  these  his  fraudulent actions.   The  home  is  set  up  to  accommodate Ms. Favreau’s  medical  disabilities  and  the  judge  should  not  have  even  considered  that  sale  because  it’s   against  Florida Statutes.   And under ADA title II the judge should have given reasonable accommodations.  

Now  to  the  main  point  of  this  affidavit:   it  is  to show that  the  court  inattentively  denied Ms. Favreau her  Substantive  and  Procedural  Due  Process  of  Law.  I  personally  watched while Ms. Favreau stood on her feet and  objected  to  the  defendant  falsifying  the amount the Holly Hill  house was  worth for the court. Ms. Favreau was  trying  to  tell  the court the real value,  but  the judge  just  ignored  her  in  a  reckless  way  that was so heedless I  could  hardly  believe  what  was  going  on.   

   It  was  obvious  that Judge  Jacobus  was  favoring  attorney Martocci  and  his  client,  and  would  cut  her  off  and  never let her speak clearly  denying  her  procedural  due  process.   See the  Transcript,  pages  5  and 6…

When  attorney Martocci’s  client  was  addressed  about  the  Holly Hill property, there were discrepancies  concerning  his  statement  of  worth  in  the  April 9, 1997  hearing  as  opposed  to  his  bid  of  25,000  in a  prior  auction  (March 26, 1997), he  became  angered.  He turned red  in  the face  and  threw  his  glasses  across  the  table  expressing  a   tantrum  so  intense  that  Judge  Jacobus  sat  back  in  his  chair  clearly  intimidated  by  Mr. Favreau’s  outburst.   Judge   Jacobus   did   not  say  a  word  or  utter  a  reprimand  concerning  this  event!

It  then  became  even  more  clear  of  judge  Jacobus’  bias  toward  Ms. Favreau  as  a  pro se  when  she  stood  up  to  object  to  false  information  stated  by Mr. Favreau – concerning  joint  properties;  and  when  Ms. Favreau   continued  to  object-  Judge  Jacobus  summoned the bailiff  to remove Ms. Favreau from the court room  if  she  did  not  sit  down.   In  view  of  the  opposing parties  continual  tirades  this  action  by Judge  Jacobus  was  inappropriate  and  uncalled  for!

The next time I was  in a  hearing  with  Ms. Favreau  was  Aug. 15, 1997  in  front  of   Judge Burke   ( 97-2345 CA).   Judge  Burk  was  even  more  abusive,  more  disrespectful,  and   inattentive  to  Ms. Favreau’s  handicaps  than  judge  Jacobus.    The demeanor of Judge Burk  was  one  of  outright  cruelty.    As  a  minister,  I  have dealt  with  many  people’s  different  levels  of  frustration  and  anger-  Judge Burk  definitely on  that  day  exhibited  the  soul  of  an  angry  and  frustrated  man.     In  a  civil  court  of  Law  there  should  be no  room  for  such  behavior -  too  much  is  at  stake!

I  also  state  that  in  my  limited  time  viewing  the  courtroom  procedures  and   in studying  cases  in  the  law  library;   then  comparing  them  not  only  to  Ms. Favreau’s  case  but  to  some  recent   and   famous   national   trials-   ( O. J.   murder   trial,    Rodney  King,  Jon Bennet Ramsey  investigations )  is  that  the problems underlying our judicial process and  procedures is  not  due  to  the  written Laws.   For truly my  studies  have  revealed functional Laws based  on  the  Federal  Constitution;   Laws  which  allow  every  U.S.  citizen  their  due process  in  court  either  as  a  pro se  or  with  an  attorney;  the  problems  exist  in  the  interpretation  of  these  laws  by  Judges  and  officers  of  the  court  and  the  fact  that  laws  are   interpreted  rather  than  justly  applied.    If  the  courts  would  stick  to  the  laws  as written  and  apply  them equally  and  fairly— there would be fairness to all, and much quicker settlements.

I  state  this  affidavit  and  much  more  left  unsaid  to  be  true.    Every United States citizen is entitled to their Procedural Due Process in courts.

Signed copy in the records, Document Number 356, Case 96-9544

EXCERPT of Docket:
03/03/2000      355   AFFIDAVIT
03/07/2000      354   REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
03/07/2000      356   AFFIDAVIT  REV.  PAUL  CRISSINGER
03/07/2000      359   NOTICE COURT HEARING
03/09/2000      357   PETITION MODIFICATION (THIRD) ORDER  PROTECTION & CONSOLIDATING CASES                             03/13/2000      361   MOTION TO HAVE ORDER TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERS
03/14/2000      360   MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 
03/17/2000      363   MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE