“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