IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR CITRUS COUNTY FLORIDA

Theresa M. MARTIN, )
)
Appellant, Petitioner, and Defendant below, )
)
v. ) Appellate cause no.: 2009-AP-2088
) Appellate cause no.: 2009-CA-3729
State of FLORIDA, ) Citrus County no.: 2008-CT-3440
)
Appellee, Respondent, and Plaintiff below. )
)
_______________________________________ )

Verified Motion For Rehearing

Comes now the Appellant, Theresa M. Martin1, and in direct support of moving the Court to

correct very grave and serious errors against the law and the facts of the case at bar, and upon the

various federal questions also raised, herein alleges, claims, states, and swears to the following:

NATURE AND BACKGROUND

1. The Chief Judge, Daniel B. Merritt, Sr., has recently issued an order dismissing appeal

and denying petition for writ of prohibition against the same trial court judge, Mark J. Yerman,

both actions alleging his manifest injustices against the law, and also upon my rights and person.

2. Said order, dismissing and denying, is replete with all manner of serious and plain errors

against both the law regarding, and the facts within, this case, and also clearly reveals that the

Chief Judge did not even faithfully read my pleadings, creating not only the serious due process

issue of meaningful review, but also an affirmative civil rights violation, actionable for damages.

3. This case has a natural catalyst for perfect Constitutional challenge in basic social justice.

1
Apologies are offered for previous clerical errors in the mistaken usage of “Therese” and “Therea”, while the long-
preferred, and also most appropriate, spelling of the Appellant’s full name is as provided here: “Theresa M. Martin”

1
 4. The State of Florida has created itself one fine mess; Eventually, the State will be sued in

appropriate federal court for civil damages; Whether any political subdivisions feel they should

spend their time and money being involved in such mess, is completely at their own discretions.

RELEVANT EVIDENTIARY FACTS

5. The undersigned mother of four children, Theresa M. Martin, obtained two (2) successive

orders of child custody and child support in her favor, the last via final hearing and judgment in

divorce, against her ex husband, Stephen P. Martin, who has four (4) felony convictions, directly

relevant herein, each count for child molestation, adjudicated in and by the State of Michigan2.

6. Mr. Martin, father of Theresa’s two youngest children, both daughters, was apparently not

satisfied with the legal conclusions and final judgments of the dissolution and other proceedings

that he had participated in, but, instead of filing appeal, he later absconded the two daughters out

of the State of Florida, under the cover of the night and during an outstanding arrest warrant for

child support, then hired a Pasco County attorney to file a fraudulent second divorce action, as a

horrific aiding, abetting and cover-up over kidnapping and unlawful physical retention of the two

minor girls - by a convicted felon with status that could not possibly, ever, have legal custody of

any children, in any state or federal jurisdiction, anywhere in the entirety of the United States.

7. An insane situation of manifest injustice, Pasco County allowed this circus to get worse.

8. The judge guilty in the above travesty, John K. Renke III, was removed from the bench3.

9. However, the courts of Pasco County never corrected the flagrant issue of child custody.

actually allowed Mr. Martin to continue retaining unlawful physical custody, further aggravated

the situation by suddenly erasing his several thousand dollar child support debt in direct defiance

2
Michigan Criminal Tracking Number 82-89-926705-01, Martin/Stephen/Paul, also MI8234900, MI820013A,
MI820031J. Four (4) counts of MCL 750.520C1A Felony Criminal Sexual Conduct 2nd Degree (Person Under 13).
3
Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 02-466, Re: Judge John Renke III, No. SC03-1846, Supreme Court of Florida,
933 So. 2d 482; 2006 Fla. LEXIS 941; 31 Fla. L. Weekly S 337; May 25, 2006, Decided.

2
and violation of the 1986 federal Bradley Amendment4, which absolutely prohibits the same, and

even ridiculously ordered and began to garnish hundreds of dollars in weekly child support from

the employment checks of the undersigned mother, who had never legally lost any child custody.

10. Upon a future point in time thereafter, the undersigned Appellant mother suddenly lost her

gainful employment of years, and the unlawfully-contrived child support orders against her then

began building up an accrued arrearage, triggering various letters from the FL Title IV-D system.

11. Each of these Title IV-D notices and letters was duly and urgently responded to, including

via tracked certified mail receipts, claiming dispute over any alleged amounts, whatsoever, also

directly advising assorted FL Title IV-D agencies and officials of the sheer nullity and voidness

of their any alleged child support enforcement actions, accounts, or arrearages against me, and,

as part of each and every such timely response, I demanded my right of administrative hearing, at

which I would present documented proof of all of the relevant facts beginning within ¶ 5 above.

12. Not a single one of these tracked receipts of administrative demands was ever responded

to, whatsoever, let alone granting the undersigned her lawful right to an administrative hearing.

13. Falsely depriving the undersigned Appellant of all semblances of due process, ethics and

morals, the FL Title IV-D system not only ignored every aspect of law in custody and support, as

well as its own rules and regulations for providing administrative hearings, it went even further,

to suspend my driving license – again, all without ever once responding to any written demands.

14. Even worse, after numerous direct complaints to government agencies and people having

interest, it seems not a single one has even basic competence regarding molestation and custody.

4
In United States law, the Bradley Amendment is the common name given to any of a number of amendments
offered by Senator Bill Bradley, the most notable of which is the amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c) which
requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations. The Amendment was passed in
1986 to automatically trigger a non expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due. The law overrides any
state's statute of limitations. The law disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges. The law
requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing
child support (the obligor) to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification.

3
 15. The undersigned Appellant knows – without a shadow of any doubt – that said suspension

of my driver’s license, for the clearly-violative allegation of child support arrearages against me,

cannot possibly be a valid order under the established laws of Florida and of the United States.

ENTER CITRUS COUNTY AND THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

16. The latest nightmare from the Florida system is unconstitutionally processing a secondary

enforcement action upon the Appellant, one that necessarily must fail at its legal core – the State,

via Citrus County, has criminally prosecuted the undersigned for driving on a suspended license,

when the administrative suspension itself (for alleged arrearage) was and is void and/or voidable.

17. The undersigned Appellant freely admits the error of merely speeding upon the roadways,

and would have simply paid the appropriate fine, if Citrus County would have also left it at that.

18. However, a landmark test case under the Federal Constitution was created at the instant of

criminally charging me for driving on my license that was unlawfully suspended by utterly failed

administrative procedures, all further aggravated by the underlying fraud with child molestation.

19. Fortunately, the lower trial court judge is none other than the nationally-famous Jessica’s

Law5 judge, Mark Yerman, well-known for his public hard stance against vicious child abusers,

and, confirmed yet again through the lesser-famous case regarding the Dollars, arrested in Utah6.

5
Jessica's Law is the informal name given to a 2005 Florida law, as well as laws in several other states, designed to
punish sex offenders and reduce their ability to re-offend. The name is also used by the media to designate all
legislation and potential legislation in other states modeled after the Florida law. Forty-two states have introduced
such legislation since Florida's law was passed. The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a young Florida girl who
was raped and murdered in February 2005 by John Couey, a previously convicted sex offender. Public outrage over
this case spurred Florida officials to introduce this legislation. Among the key provisions of the law are a mandatory
minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and lifetime electronic monitoring of adults convicted of lewd or lascivious
acts against a victim less than 12 years old. In Florida, sexual battery or rape of a child less than twelve years old is
punishable only by life imprisonment with no chance of parole. John Couey was tried before Judge Mark Yerman.
6
John and Linda Dollar, of Citrus County, Florida, were arrested in Utah after fleeing various aggravated child
abuse charges, including accusations of starving and beating five of their adopted children, who painted a horrific
picture for investigators, saying they were starved, shocked with a cattle prod, beaten with a hammer, and had
toenails yanked out with pliers. The Dollars' 16-year-old son - weighing less than 60 pounds - was taken to the
hospital with a head wound, and after all the criminal allegations came to light, investigators found a cattle prod, and
a pair of pliers along with appearance of toenails, in the home of the Dollars, who were tried before Judge Yerman.

4
 20. Since it is very easy to convince any jury that suspension of my driving license could not

possibly have followed due process, that is the crux of this case – it is a void and/or voidable

judgment, which can be collaterally attacked, at any time, and at any stage, of any proceedings.

21. Without a valid suspension, the State has no case against me for driving on a suspended,

and there is nothing - with jail time - left for the State, as the remainders are all mere infractions.

22. Accordingly, the validity of administrative suspension is directly material to the very focal

point of the criminal case, and I have right to collaterally attack it with overwhelming evidence,

every right to a basic competency of appointed counsel to wage that defense to sure dismissal on

that charge, and also every legal right to declare – and not be denied – that defense within court.

23. How fortunate one would have initially thought my position was: (a) the State, through its

family court, flagrantly screwed me regarding my children’s custody, and that would be obvious

to any jury; (b) there is no legal possibility that the administrative suspension of my license can

ever be supported under law, ergo, it is void and/or voidable; (c) independent from the fraud of

custody and support arrearages, itself, the failed administrative procedures for responding to my

urgent demands to hold Title IV-D hearing, nor to any of my letters to Title IV-D agents, at all,

provides an alternative and supplemental route to find the suspension in violation of due process;

and, (d), finally my quest for truth was before a judge with a public record against child abusers.

24. Yes, I should have received record-time justice from this judge, instead of what happened.

VIOLATIVE PROCEEDINGS WITHIN CITRUS COUNTY

25. At initial appearance on Dec. 4th, 2008, Judge Mark Yerman presiding, I perceived that

the particular young man being appointed onto defense cases seemed rather inexperienced, and

upon my turn to be appointed the same inexperienced man, I asked Judge Yerman for a different

attorney, due to the complexity in the preparation of my necessary defense, but was flatly denied.

5
 26. This was the first violation against my right to have competent and effective counsel at my

side, and establishes the need for that hearing to be transcribed down and entered into the record.

27. Between that hearing and the next scheduled for January 26th, 2009, and being without the

financial resources to hire private counsel, I then began to try to diligently work with Mr. Aaron

Baghdadi, appointed, in order to educate him towards my defense, and involved the assistance of

learned legal scholars to talk and meet with him, and to provide authority and argument to him.

28. Mr. Baghdadi listened and talked and debated legal theories with my advisers, and also

became quite clear on defense basics, including the facts within ¶¶ 5-15 and 20-22 above, and

especially the crucial issue of collaterally attacking the void/voidable administrative suspension.

29. However, in the end, Mr. Baghdadi refused my specific client defense instructions to him,

refused to enter that defense and prosecute it, and left me hanging without any defense, at all.

30. This was the second violation against my right to have competent and effective counsel.

31. Indeed, at said January 26th hearing, Judge Mark Yerman presiding, Mr. Baghdadi replied

to one of the Court’s queries with the death-toll answer of him not being aware of any defense.

32. This was the third violation against my right to have competent and effective counsel, and

establishes the first need for that hearing to also be transcribed down and entered into the record.

33. Left suddenly for dead, at the podium in open court, by my ineffective Public “Defender”,

I quickly entered into a discussion with Judge Yerman about my right of presenting a defense,

particularly with giving the Judge a quick overview version of the facts in ¶¶ 5-15 above.

34. Judge Yerman engaged the discussion in a lively manner, it was clear he also understood

the gravamen of my position, and he even lucidly confirmed that if the administrative suspension

of my driver’s license was actually void, then the State would have no case against me. Bingo!

35. However, Judge Yerman flatly refused to allow any collateral attacks in his courtroom.

6
 36. In fact, Judge Yerman’s demeanor during this January 26th hearing became increasingly

hostile, immediately after this central issue was finally hit upon – the need to collaterally attack

what absolutely must be a void and/or voidable administrative suspension of my driver’s license.

37. Judge Yerman had finally realized that the State had no valid case against me for driving

on a suspended license; He finally understood why I had requested that an attorney with more

experience be appointed to my defense; He knew I was not really guilty; And, I knew that I had

an absolute right to collaterally attack the validity of suspension; Ex dolo malo actio non oritur.

Argumentum ab impossibilii plurimum valet in lege. Fraus est celare fraudem.7

38. Everything hinged on my right to collateral attack, but when I justly persisted the issue,

Judge Yerman became adamant, and began defying the law, by stating he was not going to allow

my defense, that my defense would not be presented to the jury, that my issue would not make it

to the jury, that I would not be allowed a defense, that I have no defense, and that I was basically

guaranteed to be put into jail for one hundred and twenty (120) days upon completion of trial.

39. Judge Yerman also thereafter directly and unlawfully threatened me with an immediate

finding of contempt, placing me into jail, right then and there, if I dared persist in my defense,

and so, being threatened for speaking of my basic rights, I was wrongfully induced to stay silent.

40. These were the next horrendous violations of my rights, which fully establish additional

and plain need for that hearing to also be transcribed down and entered directly into the record.

41. Accordingly, within all instant state court proceedings, this Appellant was affirmatively

denied her basic Constitutional Due Process Rights to at least: (A) fair and competent tribunals;

(B) fair and competent defense counsel; (C) notice and opportunity to be heard; (D) have use

in defense of relevant and material evidence and of the applicable statutory defenses; and, etc.

7
A right of action cannot arise out of fraud. An argument from impossibility is very strong in law. It is a fraud to
conceal a fraud.

7
 42. In the period of time between that unsuccessful January 26th, 2009, hearing, and the jury

trial scheduled for March 16th, 2009, and still having no available choices but to continue to try

and work with Mr. Baghdadi as my Public Defender, I setup a physical meeting with advisers.

43. Upon this meeting at Mr. Baghdadi’s office, he delivered to me a CD copy of the audio

recording of the January 26th hearing, but emphatically stated he would not pursue any collateral

attack of the administrative suspension (yet, he heard Judge Yerman confirm the defense theory).

44. After that statement, Mr. Baghdadi was then introduced to the alternative “Outrageous

Government Conduct Defense” theory, similar in nature and goal to the collateral attack, and I

subsequently also instructed Mr. Baghdadi to file a motion for recusal against Judge Yerman, but

he refused that specific direction, as well, stating something to the effect of an impossibility.

45. There was little if any communication between Mr. Baghdadi and myself for a period of

time, and then the last week before trial, he suddenly reported to me that he could not use the

OGC Defense, with his wholly bald and ridiculous allegation to me that a Florida judge is “not a

state actor”, and so ostensibly therefore, we could not discuss what family court had done to me.

46. These were the next violations of my rights to have fair and competent counsel in defense,

and, I knew full well, by this time, that there simply would be no true justice for me in this case,

and, that I was certainly to be thrown into jail, since nobody in government obeys their own law.

47. It was upon this realization that I implemented the filing of a removal of this case to the

nearest United States District Court, under 28 USC § 1443, for wanton violations of civil rights,

on that last business day before trial, Friday, March 13th, 2009, and immediately faxed advance

copies to the various personnel involved, which prompted a three-way conversation between me,

Mr. Aaron Baghdadi, and one of my advisers, on Saturday, March 14th, 2009, during which Mr.

Baghdadi was duly advised as to the various ramifications of removal on the state’s jurisdiction.

8
 48. Title 28, Section 1443 of the United States Code clearly states and provides that any State

court case – including a criminal case – “may be removed by the defendant to the district court

of the United States” for various complaints against state due process described also therein.

49. Title 28, Section 1446 of the United States Code, subsection (c)(3) clearly states that the

State court, herein the Citrus County court, was precluded, after removal was filed, from entering

any judgment of conviction, and so I knew that federal law automatically protected me from jail,

at least on that day, no matter what kind of fraudulent dog and pony show Judge Yerman and

fellow conspirators would want to put on for “trial” in the courtroom, and I knew my right to it.

50. However, it was readily apparent that other people had also timely received their faxed

copies of my filed removal to federal court, because the first thing that happened when I showed

up for trial on the morning of March 16th, 2009, was Mr. Baghdadi taking me into a private room

where I was introduced to one of his apparent superiors, who then both together emphatically

“advised” me that my filing of removal to federal court didn’t mean anything, for their ostensible

reason that only the State Attorney could remove a case to federal court – a ridiculous notion that

is directly and unambiguously contrary against the plainly written language of that law. See ¶ 48.

51. Indeed, within the removal of a State criminal case as described by law, the State Attorney

could never remove the case, but only the defense in a State criminal case could ever so remove.

52. Incredibly, and in violation of numerous explicit laws, rules, and procedures, let alone any

and all common sense, the same Florida court system which had previously entered res judicata

final judgments, more than once, allowed a four-time convicted child molester to get away with

evading a large support warrant, and with him also having no state residence court standing,

reversed all previous final judgments and gave custody to the convicted molester, wiped out the

molester’s entire child support arrearage in violation of the Bradley Amendment, ordered this

9
Appellant to reward child support to the molester, garnishing my income at hardship and extreme

burden, also later garnishing my unemployment benefits, took the entirety of my desperately-

needed federal tax refunds by interception falsely based upon said child support arrearages, also

implemented the subsequently false suspension of my driver’s license, and was now perpetrating

an abusive hoax criminal case against me, when it was the State, itself, that had created this

entire ludicrous mess, in the first place, violating me every step of the way, over and over again.

ILLEGALLY COERCED AND INVOLUNTARY NATURE OF PLEA

53. By this time, just before trial was about to begin, I knew there was no possibility of even

the faintest remote basics of due process to be allowed within these Citrus County proceedings.

54. I perceived that the Judge knew I was not legally guilty of driving on a suspended license,

and that he well understood the clear need for collateral attack, but simply refused to allow it to

happen within his courtroom, violating my obvious right to basic justice, instead to suffer fraud.

55. I knew that my appointed Public Defender was egregiously incompetent as to the relevant

law of my case, that he refused virtually all of my direct client instructions, that, especially, he

refused to prepare any defense into readiness for trial, and that he refused to lodge formally

directed motions in affirmative relief on my behalf, and that he even lied directly against the law,

so as to falsely induce his own client into taking a plea bargain, or leaving her to hang otherwise.

56. I also knew that nobody of formal legal education within the Citrus County proceedings I

was being railroaded with was going to either accept or obey the partial stop on state jurisdiction

as automatic from the filing of federal removal, and that they would just throw me in jail for one

hundred and twenty (120) days, regardless of the law, regardless of the facts, regardless, period.

57. This is why I was compelled, as answer to Judge Yerman during acceptance of the plea, to

state the reason I was taking the plea was because I could not get a fair trial in his courtroom.

10
 58. These were the next horrendous violations of my rights, which fully establish additional

and plain need for that hearing to also be transcribed down and entered directly into the record.

59. I emphatically state that I was affirmatively threatened and coerced into taking the plea.

UNLAWFUL CRIMINAL CHARGING AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

60. Count Two (2) of the State’s criminal information filed against me is and was utterly false

and bogus, and reveals a clearly unlawful act of false criminal charge and malicious prosecution.

61. Count Two (2), Citation 1861FJG, was criminal charged as Second Degree Misdemeanor,

for supposedly violating F.S. § 320.07(3C) [sic], which clearly states: “Any person whose motor

vehicle or mobile home registration has been expired for more than 6 months, upon a second or

subsequent offense, commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s.

775.082 or s. 775.083.” (emphasis added).

62. However, there was no “second of subsequent offense” involved, and the State knew that

it couldn’t charge me with that offense, from the very beginning; I have since learned that the

State often files fraudulent additional charges, to create false illusions during plea negotiations.

ILLEGALITY OF SENTENCE IMPOSED

63. Moreover, whether you consider only Count One (1) of the criminal information filed, the

driving on a suspended license, or even if you include the bogus Count Two (2), the imposition

of sentence ultimately imposed violates the Constitution, and is an illegal sentence, regardless.

64. The sentence imposed upon acceptance of “plea” includes a still ongoing six (6) months

of probation, however the maximum sentence under *either* Count was only sixty (60) days, and

even if you add both of those together, and run them on consecutively, sentence imposed still

exceeds the maximum aggregate of the total time possible to be served in jail, and that’s illegal.

65. The Constitution does not allow sentencing to exceed the total potential term spent in jail.

11
 COLLATERAL ATTACK OF VOID AND/OR VOIDABLE JUDGMENTS

66. Again, this case hinges, in part, upon the availability to collaterally attack the suspension.

67. The trial court unlawfully found that prior judgments cannot be collaterally attacked in his

courtroom, and refused to allow any such collateral attack; Hence, a fraud upon the court was

affirmatively committed, and that act renders the entire proceedings null and void.

68. The elements of a fraud upon the court are (1) conduct by an officer of the court (2)

directed towards the judicial machinery itself that is (3) intentionally false, willfully blind to the

truth or is in reckless disregard for the truth and (4) a positive averment or concealment, when

one is under a duty to disclose, and that (5) deceives the court. Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d

338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993).

69. The obvious truth of the matter is, instead, that judgments not only may, in fact, be

collaterally attacked, they may be collaterally attacked at any time.

70. For example, an illegal sentence may be attacked collaterally or directly "at any time."

Hull v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1178, 1181 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Beanblossom v. State, 637

N.E.2d 1345, 1349 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied ("A judgment which is void can be

attacked directly or collaterally at any time.")).

71. Not only may an illegal sentence be challenged at any time, but [every] court is "duty

bound" to correct an illegal sentence. Id. (citing Golden v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1219, 1223-24 (Ind.

Ct. App. 1990), trans. denied).

72. Lack of personal jurisdiction is also fatal and, in its absence, an order can be attacked at

any time. Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152, 1154-56 (Ind. 1998).

73. Certainly this Court has heard of habeas corpus before – the entire root premise of such

actions is precisely in attacking a judgment collaterally.

12
 74. Furthermore, surely this Court is aware of the provisions of Criminal Rule 3.850, which

expressly allows collateral attacks against previous judgments for numerous and various reasons.

75. In fact, there are all sorts of judicial and legal devices which purposefully use collateral

attack against prior finding, order and judgment, so as to remember Equity in the process of Law.

76. It is very difficult to believe that Judge Yerman did not understand the basic right of using

collateral attack upon a fraudulent judgment, or which was otherwise violative of due process.

SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

77. In fact, it is very difficult to believe that all of the players of Citrus County that were also

involved in my case could, each one of them, somehow miss the basic important parts of my case

that would otherwise leave me with clear justice, or moreover to even violate my rights, instead.

78. Could it actually be routine, within the various proceedings of Citrus County, to falsely

charge untold numbers of people with bogus crimes, to falsely deprive untold numbers of people

of their otherwise protected rights to defense, to willfully ignore, lie and cheat against both state

and federal law, whenever such purposes seemed to coincide miraculously with their positions?

79. Indeed, upon belief and information, the Appellant has sufficient cause and grounds to

demand investigations into clear patterns of widespread, systemic violations of basic civil rights.

CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

80. The undersigned Appellant is clearly entitled to immediate and full correction of the many

injuries and injustices she has suffered herein; The above facts are all true and self-explanatory.

81. The sentence imposed was illegal by greatly exceeding the maximum time that could be

served in jail; The plea was involuntary, coerced, threatened, and intimidated into fruition; The

State has no legally-winnable case for driving on a suspended license, because there is more than

one way that the proceedings leading up to administrative suspension utterly failed due process.

13
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF IN THE ALTERNATIVES

82. Under the correct law, Appellant has never owed anything, and forever owes nothing, in

the way of “child support”, at all, and is entitled to total refund of all “child support” monies ever

paid to or taken by the State of Florida and/or the Federal Government – let alone civil damages.

83. Under the correct law, Appellant should have never suffered the humiliating nightmare of

injustice she has been forced to endure within and by the hands of The County of Citrus, Florida.

84. While I have been learning a great deal about the sua sponte duties and responsibilities of

judges to immediately correct the kinds of manifest justice displayed herein, and so an argument

can be made that the Citrus County courts should, in fact, look into correcting the fallacies of the

family court proceedings that the Appellant complains of herein, the alternative route for justice

in this matter comes from holding the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) responsible for its

miserably failed, and, more to the point, premature actions taken against me, including intercepts

of my tax returns during these past two calendar years, and, of course, the license suspension.

85. I swear that I have been complaining in writing to the various entities of the Florida Title

IV-D system, also with timely demands for holding administrative hearing, from months before

my first intercepted federal tax return was wrongfully withheld from me in February of 2008.

86. Should the courts of Citrus County decide to take advantage of the first available way out

of this mess, by holding the Florida Title IV-D system at fault, alleviating the need to delve into

“other matters” for seeking justice done herein, an appropriate ruling would include: vacating,

annulling, or otherwise setting aside the criminal conviction at bar; directing the County to then

reimburse the several hundred dollars in costs and expenses incurred by the undersigned in the

direct defense of this matter; also ordering the Florida DOR to refund my intercepted tax returns

and investigate the child support collections of the Martin family, and then closing this case.

14
 WHEREFORE, the undersigned Appellant, Theresa M. Martin, now prays this Court for the

immediate delivery of either of the two avenues of relief as more fully herein described above,

and further moves for all other relief that may be deemed as just and proper in the premises.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________

Theresa M. Martin
10918 Norwood Avenue
Port Richey, FL 34668
(727) 857-4193
amothersfight@yahoo.com

VERIFICATION

I hereby declare, verify, certify and state, pursuant to the penalties of perjury under the laws

of the United States, and by the provisions of 28 USC § 1746, that all of the above and foregoing

representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed at Port Richey, Florida, this ___13th___ day of August, 2009.

_________________________

Theresa M. Martin

15
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify: that on this __13th__ day of August, 2009, a true and complete copy of the

foregoing verified motion for rehearing, by promptly depositing the same in first class United

States postal mail, properly addressed to each, has been duly served upon:

Mark J. Yerman
Citrus County Courthouse
110 North Apopka Avenue
Inverness, FL 34450

Joshua Houston
Citrus County Prosecutor’s Office
110 North Apopka Avenue
Inverness, FL 34450

Bradley E. King, State Attorney

5th Judicial Circuit
19 North West Pine Avenue
Ocala, FL 32670

Robert B. Battista, County Attorney

Citrus County Attorney’s Office
110 North Apopka Avenue
Inverness, FL 34450

Garth C. Coller, County Attorney

Hernando County Attorney's Office
20 North Main Street, Suite 462
Brooksville, FL 34601
______________________________

Theresa M. Martin
10918 Norwood Avenue
Port Richey, FL 34668
(727) 857-4193
amothersfight@yahoo.com
Theresa M. Martin
10918 Norwood Avenue
Port Richey, FL 34668
(727) 857-4193
amothersfight@yahoo.com

16