OPEN LETTER TO JUDGE SARAH ZABEL IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND VOTER RIGHTS IN FLORIDA

---

WHY ANTI-VOTER RIGHTS JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SEDITIOUS

July 4th, 2014

Hon. Judge Sarah I. Zabel
Miami-Dade Circuit Court
Miami, Florida

Re: Dismissal of Catherine Pareto, et al., vs. Harvey Ruvin
Case No. 2014-1661-CA-01

Dear Judge Zabel:

On November 4th, 2008, a historic election gave our nation its first African-American president and Florida voters overwhelmingly enhanced our state’s Constitution by reaffirming the timeless institution of Marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Six years later, those who lost the historic 2008 election, now want you to unlawfully give them what they couldn’t lawfully get at the ballot box. Plaintiffs in the above case are asking you to overthrow Florida’s Constitution; to transgress the separation of powers doctrine; to usurp the function and role of the State legislature. In essence, under the ruse of vindicating a behavioral choice they arbitrarily and unilaterally label a “right”, Plaintiffs shamelessly ask you to violate your Oath of Office and undermine the Rule of Law!

FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

Respect for Constitutional Democracy and the Rule of Law requires an incendiary, sham lawsuit as this one be immediately dismissed sua sponte or, in the alternative, be resoundingly rejected. You have the power to involuntarily dismiss this action sua sponte on numerous grounds, including want of jurisdiction or prosecution; failure to comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or to state a proper cause of action.

In light of last year’s U.S. vs Windsor Supreme Court ruling that Marriage is a public policy issue States have the right to decide, Plaintiffs’ claim to a constitutional so-called “right” to the ideological fiction of same-sex so-called “marriage” is untenable and fails as a proper cause of action.

In a nation of laws, no one can be above the law. What law gives Plaintiffs the right to arbitrarily, unilaterally, and capriciously declare a personal behavioral choice, be it sexual or otherwise, a constitutional “right,” and then file a sham lawsuit asking you to force the rest of society to accept it as such? Couldn’t Plaintiffs be more contemptuous of the law and disrespectful of your honor?

Moreover, since the Court in U.S. vs Windsor ruled that same-sex so-called “marriage is not an issue of constitutional law, doesn’t the Tenth Amendment to our Bill of Rights provide that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people? Isn’t this the power the people exercised in the historic 2008 elections?

POLITICAL QUESTION

Because the present lawsuit also presents a non-justiciable political question, shouldn’t it be involuntarily dismissed under the well-recognized Political Question doctrine which holds that courts should not rule on questions the U.S. Constitution makes the sole responsibility of another branch of government or that the U.S. Supreme Court has held courts should not hear? When the Constitution makes clear the intention that the judiciary not resolve a particular question of constitutional interpretation, shouldn’t judges respect that determination?

The Political Question doctrine also applies when, as in the present case, there is a lack of judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits, when judicial intervention might show insufficient respect for other branches of government, in this case the State Legislature, or when a judicial decision would cast a shadow on the integrity of the judicial branch, in this case your impartiality on this public policy issue. Marriage, being clearly a political question, was put to a vote of the people in the historic 2008 elections. Plaintiffs and their groups campaigned aggressively and freely exercised their right to vote in that election, the results of which they never contested. What makes Plaintiffs think that six years later and with unclean hands, a judge should overturn an election they participated in and never contested? How can Plaintiff have the audacity to want to get via a court order what they failed to get democratically at the ballot box?

AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF RIGHTS

Under American Law, courts can also dismiss non-justiciable cases, such as Plaintiffs’, that exceed the limits of a court’s judicial authority; cases where a court cannot offer a final determination or an adequate resolution. Granting the relief sought by Plaintiffs requires unlawfully overturning a constitutionally-sanctioned election on a question the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly declared a public policy issue States have the right to decide. Were you to overturn the historic 2008 elections, you would, in effect, be unconstitutionally denying Florida voters their due process, equal protection rights as well as their fundamental right to amend the State Constitution and have their vote respected.

The integrity of the judicial branch requires you to act impartially; to respect, protect and uphold the Constitution as well as the due process, equal protection and voter rights of the people of Florida. Countless Americans have died in battlefields around the world to secure the very rights this sham lawsuit attacks and defiles. Indeed, this lawsuit commits legal violence against the basic rights and freedoms for which so many Americans have fought for and shed their blood.

Regardless of whether the public policy issue is the ideological fiction of same-sex so-called “marriage” or any other issue, overturning a constitutionally-sanctioned election is an outrageous, egregious and irreversible denial of the constitutional liberties and voter rights of citizens in a free and democratic society.

NO CITIZEN IS ABOVE THE LAW

As a law-abiding judge, don’t you have the duty to reaffirm the principle that no citizen or group of citizens is above the law? That Plaintiffs do not have a greater claim to rights than everyone else? That Plaintiffs’ claim to due process and equal protection does not trump everyone else’s due process and equal protection rights?

Regardless of their alleged sexual behavioral choices, must not Plaintiffs equally submit, as everyone else, to the same equal laws and regulations? If Plaintiffs disagree with a public policy sanctioned by Florida’s Constitution and laws and want to change this policy, shouldn’t they be subject to the same equal laws as everyone else? Shouldn’t they have to change public policy by persuading our legislators to adopt new legislation or place the issue on the ballot, or by gathering the required number of signatures and letting Florida voters decide in a democratic election?

Do Plaintiffs have the right to change public policy by filing sham lawsuits or engaging in judicial sleights of hand? Wouldn’t granting Plaintiffs demands unjustly place them above the law? In a country of laws, can a judge discriminatorily carve out, for Plaintiffs’ selfish benefit and interests, the unjust and illegal exemption that Plaintiffs demand?

SHAM DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATION

Plaintiffs allege that Florida’s Constitution and laws violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because these laws do not recognize non one man/one woman unions, be they same-sex; underaged or with minors; consanguineous or with blood relatives; zoophilous or with animals; or polygamous or with multiple partners.

Nevertheless, everyone in Florida enjoys the same, equal right to get married under the same, equal terms and conditions. It is completely false to allege that Florida law violates the Fourteenth Amendment as the same, equal criterion applies equally the same to everyone. Unlike anti-interracial marriage laws that barred different races from marrying each other, modern Florida law does not discriminate against anyone. All citizens are granted the same, equal right to marry, regardless of their race, color, creed, ethnicity, or alleged sexual behavioral choices or preferences. Indeed, no one is ever asked their alleged sexual behavioral choices or preferences when applying for a Florida Marriage license.

FORUM NON CONVENIENS

You should also involuntarily dismiss the present lawsuit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens as a Leon County, Florida Federal court is already hearing a similar lawsuit with identical aims. If, as Plaintiffs claim, theirs is a so-called “right” under the U.S. Constitution, are not the Federal courts the most convenient forum to litigate this issue?

The above legal doctrines, reasons and grounds, and others that space prevents including here, amply show that a failure to dismiss this lawsuit sua sponte, or, in the alternative, reject Plaintiffs’ demands, would inflict grave violence to the core principles of Constitutional Democracy; undermine the Rule of Law, and constitute an incredibly horrific travesty of justice. It may also violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.

As a law-abiding judge, shouldn’t you be deeply offended at being so brazenly asked, as this lawsuit does, to discriminate and deny all your fellow citizens their constitutional liberties and civil rights?

As a judge and public servant, you took an Oath of Office to uphold and protect the U.S. and Florida Constitutions. The Code of Judicial Conduct also requires you do so. Would you not want to be remembered for upholding that oath, honoring the Judicial Conduct Code, as well as being on the right side history and the law? We certainly hope you will due to a very simple-to-understand universal law: Ruling unconstitutional the Constitution and laws that are the source of your authority automatically deprives you of your own authority to rule.

Respectfully yours,

LEADERS AND COALITION ORGANIZATIONS

Florida State Representative Daphne Campbell
Honorable Florida State Representative Eduardo “Eddy” Gonzalez, Chairman, Miami-Dade Delegation
African American Council of Christian Clergy (AACC)
American-Israeli Friendship Council (AIFC)
Asociacion De Ministeros Y Obreros Evangelicos (AMOE)
Catholic Council of South Florida (CCSF)
Catholic Cultural Fund (CCF)
Christian Family Coalition Florida (CFCF)
Churches of Miami Baptist Association (CMBA)
Communities Strengthening Families for the Good Life (CSFGL)
Cuban-American Patriots and Friends (CAPF)
Cuban American Publishers Association (CAPA)
Florida Democratic League (FDL)
Florida Family Association (FFA)
Mission Miami (MM)
People United Leading The Struggle For Equality (PULSE)
Republican National Forum (RNF)
Una Voce Miami (UVM)
U.S. Hispanic Publishers Federation (USHPF)

---

FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE
LIGA DEMÓCRATA DE LA FLORIDA 
POB 350751, Miami, FL 33135
DemocraticLeague@aol.com

 

COPYRIGHT © 2019 FLORIDA DEMOCRATIC LEAGUE, INC.