IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 51-2004-004764-DR-WS/E

Stephen Paul MARTIN, )

Petitioner/Father, )
)
v. )
)
Theresa Marie MARTIN, )
Respondent/Mother. )
____________________________ )

Rule 1.540 Motion to Correct Clerical Errors in Child Support, and to

Direct the Clerk and the Department of Revenue to Update Records

Comes now Theresa M. Martin, and in support of her motion to the Court for correction of

very large clerical errors in child support amounts, now and hereby alleges, states, and provides:

Introduction, Notice, and Warning

1.This motion is brought pursuant to the authority of the Florida Civil Rules of Procedure,

generally Rule 1.540, and specifically the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) thereunder.

2.Every dollar amount included upon this Court’s recent support orders is wildly incorrect.

3.Said figures of the same child support orders were always tendered by Ms. Strand, but Ms.

Strand’s incompetent figures rarely even add up to each other, let alone reality, or prior figures.

4.There is sheer incompetence in this case, as to an apparent lack of even third-grade-level

mathematical ability, by any other person or party, besides myself, involved with any issuance or

promulgation of calculations of any child support monies owed between the two parties herein.

5.Moreover, this Court and opposing counsel Ms. Strand have been duly provided correct

figures for the reality of this case’s child support previously, and at multiple times. There will be

no further lawful defenses, or plausible excuses, for why the basic mathematics are still ignored.

1
 6.I have been more than patient with the Judge of this Court, but if she cannot handle even

basic mathematics, basic logic, basic reasoning, and basic law, then she must be deemed as too

incompetent to remain on the bench further, and I must proceed with all available legal options.

7.The exact same accountability intentions apply equally, if not even more, to Ms. Strand.

8.Therefore, if these child support calculation matters are not promptly, fully, and accurately

corrected, then I will have no choice but to file civil suit in the United States District Court,

against both the Judge of this Court, and Ms. Strand, in their individual and official capacities,

and against each of their bonds, titles, and positions, along with the Petitioner Father for civil

damages in regards to an apparent conspiracy to defraud a court of law and to defraud a federal

funding scheme, and along with the following probable co-defendants, each for their vicarious

and/or respondant superior liabilities of gross negligence in failing to ensure that Florida judges

and attorneys are even capable in the basic use of a simple calculator: (1) the Florida Supreme

Court; (2) Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis; (3) the Office of the State Courts Administrator; (4) State

Courts Administrator Lisa Goodner; (5) Sixth Judicial Trial Courts Administrator Gay Lynne

Inskeep; (6) the Florida Board of Bar Examiners; (7) the Florida Bar's Continuing Legal

Education (CLE) program; and, (8) CLE Family Law Administrator Debby Beck; and, I shall

fully intend to make sure that all Florida state and all national news organizations are aware of a

federal lawsuit filed to force Florida judges and attorneys to learn how to use calculators.

9.Further, if you fool yourself into believing that I will just sit around and wait for weeks or

months, while this Court hem-haws around with what to do or not, you are all sadly mistaken.

10.Let me make that perfectly clear again, so there is no further confusion:

a)I do not expect to witness either basic competence or basic justice in this Court; and,

b)Therefore, I expect to proceed with the above, to expose this violative incompetence.

2
 The True Facts and Figures

11.Because of the continual miscalculations and slew of serious clerical errors over the past

few years, there is no reasonable starting point to try and reconcile any currently flawed figures,

from basing them upon any other figures that were, and are, also flawed during the same mess.

Instead, it is much simpler to just look at what support was court ordered, against whom, and

from when to when, and compare that to what payments were made. The net differences are, of

course, what the two parties owe(d) each other regarding their respective “noncustodial” periods.

12.There are and have been two (2) child support “directions” in this entire matter, including

the initial period when the Respondent Mother had custody of the minor children and the

Petitioner Father owed (but rarely paid) child support to her, and the presently-continuing period

wherein Petitioner Father claims custody of the minor children and the Respondent Mother has

been ordered to pay child support to him. These correspond directly, of course, to the CSE cases

created to administer the same custodial and child support situations wrought by this Court:

FIRST CSE CASE (# 1196192477):

December 3, 2003: Court awarded Theresa Martin custody of both minor children. The Court
also that same day ordered Stephen Martin to pay $792.59 monthly to Theresa Martin for the
support of the children, plus $100/month towards the then-existing arrearage of $5548.13 (see
Record). As of June 4, 2004, Stephen Martin was in total arrears of $10,303.67, having never
paid anything towards support by then (see Record). After that entire period, Stephen only made
fourteen (14) payments of exactly $100.00 each, plus the $1000 purge + $35 costs amount to
avoid arrest on child support contempt paid on August 12, 2004 (see Record), plus one
intercepted and disbursed 2005 tax return of Stephen’s in the amount of $2664.00, finally
received by Theresa in June of 2006 (stipulated). Stephen’s continuing child support obligation
and accrual ceased by order of the Court on July 1, 2005, but his total amount owed to Theresa
Martin by then was, and still remains:
-- $792.59/month, from Dec. 3, 2003, through July 1, 2005, for a total of 19 months ($15059.21)
-- minus payments made by Stephen to Theresa (14 x $100.00) + ($1035) + ($2664) = ($5099)
-- leaves $9960.21 in support still owed by Stephen to Theresa to this very day, plus any interest

SECOND CSE CASE (# 1222601991):

As of July 1, 2005, permanent residential child custody changed from Theresa to Stephen, and
Theresa was ordered to begin paying Stephen $766.42/month in child support, as of that date,
plus an additional amount of $76 in some sort of supposed “arrearage” that obviously could not

3
legally exist yet, since it was the very first child support order ever issued against Theresa. As of
January 25, 2007, the child support amount against Theresa was ordered modified to
$247.11/month plus $24.70/month in – again, supposed – “arrears”, for a total of $272.31/month
(see Record). However, Theresa’s income has always been consistently garnished by her work
since implementation on November 15, 2005, with garnishment for the next four (4) bi-monthly
pay cycles finishing that calendar year 2005 at the amount of $423.84 bi-monthly, and $421.21
bi-monthly beginning in January of 2006, and continuing through January 31, 2007. Then,
Theresa was garnished a slightly lowered $383.21 bi-monthly for both February pay cycles and
the first March pay cycle. Then, due to the latest order of January 25, 2007 above, the
garnishment dropped to $135.89 bi-monthly, beginning with the recent March 30th paycheck.

As a result, the current amount(s) of Theresa’s own child support “debt”, as of today, if any, is:
-- Theresa was ordered to pay a total of $15,787.38 as of today, accruing from:
$766.42/month from 07/01/05 through 02/01/07, for a subtotal of $14,561.98
$272.31/month from 02/01/07 through today, for that subtotal of $1225.40
-- Theresa has been garnished for a total of $14,475.90 from her steady income, resulting from:
2 months * 2 pay cycles/month * $423.84 garnishment = $1695.36
13 months * 2 pay cycles/month * $421.21 garnishment = $10951.46
1.5 months * 2 pay cycles/month * $383.21 garnishment = $1149.63
2.5 months * 2 pay cycles/month * $135.89 garnishment = $679.45

SUMMARY:
Stephen owes Theresa $9960.21 in support for CSE case # 1196182477
Theresa owes Stephen $1311.48, plus any ongoing amount, for CSE case # 1222601991

THEREFORE:

13.I, Theresa Martin, DO NOT OWE $4586.00 in past-due support as erroneously claimed by

Ms. Strand and this Court. The basic mathematics of what was ordered to be paid by both parties,

versus what has actually been paid by both parties, is physically indisputable as shown.

14.I further request and demand all immediate and fully aggressive collection efforts for the

total amount of support that is owed to me by Stephen Martin in the above case(s). In lieu of full

and immediate payment of the entire $9960.21 support owed to me by Stephen Martin, plus any

interest I am entitled to receive by operation of law, plus the availability of criminal prosecutions

under both state and federal law (and not just against Stephen Martin…), I will accept the net as

applied to both of us presently, for a total payoff of $9960.21 - $1311.48 = $8648.73, if the

proper arrangements to promptly satisfy that debt in full are immediately set into writing.

4
 Statutory Authority

15.Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.540, provides the following, in relevant part:

RULE 1.540. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, DECREES, OR ORDERS

(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record
and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any
time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as
the court orders.
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On
motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal
representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or
decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have
prospective application. The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time, and for
reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or
proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the
finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the
power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment,
decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.

16.Accordingly, this motion to correct the flagrant clerical errors described is entirely proper.

Summary and Conclusion

17.It is physically impossible for the undersigned, Theresa Martin, to owe the ridiculous

amount of $4586.00 as listed by Ms. Strand, this Court, and now the Florida Department of

Revenue’s Child Support Enforcement arm, the latter of which has further begun to threaten the

undersigned with losses of driver’s licenses, tax returns, passports, and etc. – WHICH ARE ALL

ACTIONABLE NOW FOR DISTRESS OF THREATENED CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

FALSELY CAUSED BY THE CONTINUAL GROSS INCOMPETENCE OF THIS COURT.

18.Petitioner Father, Stephen Martin, has had an ongoing affirmative duty to tender his entire

child support debt in full, and in a timely manner, to the undersigned, and has failed to do so.

5
 19.This Court’s order stopping any future obligations to the undersigned does not, in any

manner, relieve his duty to pay his accrued obligation, and this Court’s attempt to bypass federal

prohibitions (again, the Bradley Amendment) of the same attempts are null and void for lack of

authority to do so, in the first place. The Bradley Amendment already precluded such nonsense.

20.This Court should now ORDER the Petitioner to make immediate payment, and in full, to

Theresa Martin as described above, and direct the Clerk of this Court and the Florida Department

of Revenue to correct their various records accordingly, and to further direct the Florida

Department of Revenue to now CEASE and DESIST all presently threatened collection actions.

WHEREFORE, the undersigned, Theresa M. Martin, now moves this Court to CORRECT

the gravely erroneous child support figures presently being used in this case, to DIRECT the

Clerk of this Court and the Florida Department of Revenue to CORRECT their own records

accordingly, to ORDER the Petitioner, Stephen Martin, to make immediate payment of his

remaining child support obligation in full, and for all other relief just and proper in the premises.

Respectfully demanded,

______________________________
Theresa M. Martin

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify: that on this ______ day of June, 2007, a true and complete copy of the
foregoing Rule 1.540 Motion to Correct Clerical Errors in Child Support, and to Direct the
Clerk and the Department of Revenue to Update Records, by depositing the same in the United
States postal mail, first class postage preaffixed to her normal place of business, has been duly
served upon the following:

Arnelle M. Strand, FBN 9806

Law Office of Arnelle M Strand, P.A.
8138 Massachusetts Avenue
New Port Richey, FL 34653
______________________________
Theresa M. Martin
Theresa M. Martin, 10918 Norwood Avenue, Port Richey, FL 34668, 727-457-2436