| Return to Terence Valentine's Homepage |
THE WRITTEN LAW
Terence G. Valentine
HUSBflND & WIFE PRIVILEGE
Florida Statute 90.504
(1993)
[1]. "A Spouse has a privilege DURING AND AFTER relationship to refuse to disclose and to PREVENT another" from disclosing communications which were intended to be made in confidence between spouses WHILE THEY WERE (or are) HUSBAND AND WIFE.
EXCEPTIONS
Fla. Stat. 90.504 [3] (1993)
[A]. In a
proceeding brought by or in behalf of one spouse against the other spouse.
[B]. In a criminal proceeding in which one spouse with a crime committed at ANY TIME against THE PERSON or PROPERTY of the other spouse, or the person or property of A CHILD OF EITHER.
[C]. In a criminal proceeding in which THE COMMUNICATION is offered in evidence by a DEFENDANT SPOUSE who is one of the spouses between who the communication was made. NOT ANOTHER SINGLE WORD is what the written law says. And we should suppose that EVERY LEGAL DECISION will follow dutifully the written law so that ALL PERSONS (like the U.S. Constitution reads) can benefit from the eqaulity that a justice system under freedom and liberty can permeate all of us, without regards as race, religion, national origin.
In 90.504 (1) FLA. stat. (1993) The eighth (8th) word is AFTER, which is, or at least supposed to be, self explanatory. Yet, to make it clearer. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY defines it as : later succeeding, subsequent to WEBSTER'S from the time something ends, till eternity.
These two (2) definitions, is what AFTER means, that is EXACTLY what is written in the above mentioned statute.
IT DOES NOT SAY after (2) two weeks or (5) five years or 50 fifty years. If the legislature wanted it to have a time limit, then it would have SPECIFICALLY included it. When constructing this law, but up until today it stands solely as AFTER. By law of the State of Florida.
Fla. Stat. (1993) 90.504 (1) DOES NOT SAY it is not for black people, nor asians, nor indians or combinations of such, nor only for people of the white race, nor mixed marriages, nor tall people, nor midgets.
Furthermore IT DOES NOT SAY, it is only for harmonious marriages, nor happy marriages, nor for those who live under one roof, nor for others who must travel to secure monetary gains.
NOTHING of that sort is written within the law as far as 90.504 (1) Fla. Stat. (1993) concerns, to take liberties by attaching other meanings to it by legal scholars, that being a County Judge, Apellate Judge, or the ones from the Supreme Court of Florida or the United States. Is to disregard the principle of the WRITTEN LAW abuse his or her discretion because a Judge wherever he or she practices law is bound by the LETTER OF THE LAW. Economics and erudition should have no bearing here.
To be able to claim this privilege between a husband and wife, there should be one basic event that must have taken place : To wit : A VALID LEGAL MARRIAGE MUST EXIST. In Re: witnesses before Grand Jury 791 F.2d 234 (2) at 234.
This event in the State of Florida is recognized legally as such, COMMON LAW MARRIAGES are NOT LEGAL by statute 741.211 since 1968 in the State of Florida.
By legal precendents the aduced privilege SURVIVES THE TERMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE, as we find in US vs Lustig 555 F.2d 737 (1977) on condition the MARRIAGE MUST BE VALID, again US v Lustig 555 F.2d 737 (1977)
This privilege IS NOT CONDITIONED on a judicial determination that the marriage is a HAPPY OR SUCCESSFUL ONE as we find in US vs Lilley 581 F.2d et 182 (1978).
In People vs. Mohhamed 470 NYS 2d 977 (supp. 1984) it states : PRIVILEGE REQUIRES A RELATIONSHIP.
In Florida statute 90.504 (1) a relationship or affinity IS NOT mentioned, that is the connection existing in consequence of marriage between each of the legally married persons, neither by precedent it ask that the relationship be a good one just that A RELATIONSHIP exist.
The law surrenders on to us various kinds of privileges and mostly, if not all can't be revoked due to a bad relationship. For example : the Attorney - Client understandable is not in their best interest in reaching a common goal, yet the privilege exists, in spite of a bad relationship in the confidences are privileged. The Doctor - Patient because either IS NOT happy in the way they treat each other, or the patient don't take the proper dosage of medications. And then the Clergymen - Laymen privilege can't be cancelled because the layman continues to sin, don't heed advice. Don't attend mass or decide to change religious denonination.
Remeber that all privileges
are statutory limited as in Fla.Stat. 90.501. In State v. Castellano
460 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1984)
we find that: PRIVILEGES IN FLORIDA ARE NO LONGER CREATURES
OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS.
Same admonistion towards those who try to curtail, or overextend written law. In Re. Atlas Travel Service Vs. Morelly 98 So 2d 816. Where it prays: The Court SHOULD NOT by judicial fiat MAKE CHANGES IN ESTABLISH LAW.
Again Fla.Stat.
(1993) 90.504 (1) ask that the communication which were intended
to be in confidence between spouses while they were (or are) husband and
wife, is part of the privilge
that is latent if
A VALID MARRIGE EXISTS. In Re. S.E.C. vs Lavin 111 F.3d
921 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
(3) ASSERTS THAT A COMMUNICATION
MUST EXIST ALONG WITH THE VALID MARRIGE.
I am mentioning "a communication" because that is the point of contention, (the what) was said is not important, just the fight between spouses to communicate privately, freely, under the privilege that the State of Florida concedes.
AT NO TIME 90.504 (1) Fla.Stat. (1993) excluded hand signals, a different language nor jungle drums, nor telephones, (public or otherwise) nor ham radios; the confidence may be alleged when it is pressumed that a ONE ON ONE CONVERSATION is taking place, because no other voice is on the line, no warnings have been given and in the everyday usage of telephone. (not a party line.) We assume privacy on line regardless of what it is said during the conversation, and no OTHER PERSON IS VISIBLY PRESENT.
With all these safeguards in place, the only other item that can prevent either spouse from claiming privileges under 90.504 (1) Fla. Stat. (1993), is that the spouse or spouses WAIVE THEIR RIGHT LEGALLY and properly, or fall under the excaeptions of the statute.
I do mentin the exception found in 90.504(3) (b) Fla.Stat. (1993) because that is the one used by the Florida Supreme Court to justify a ruling in my case # 84-472. Sure they don't cite any state authority as precedent, only NON RESPONSIVE federal law that pertains to orther related issues not contained in the laws of the State of Florida, of which we are bound mto follow by law.
In case #84-472 where a spouse is permitted to testify AGAINST ANOTHER SPOUSE that meets all the above standards, and the crimes that the Supreme Court affirmed the defendant committed. WERE NOT done against only the spouse (wife) but against a third party also who was NOT married to the alleged other victim. NOT her child. NOT her property. As it reads in 9.504 (3) (b) exception yet, the Court allowed her (over objection) to testify against her husband, on matters that are extraneous to her person, her property, and her child by extending the plain language contained in 90.504 (3) (b) Fla. Stat. (1993).
In Re: Pardo Vs State 596 So.2d 667 (3) As this court has stated many times, it is a FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPAL OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION that were the language of a statute is PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOS THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION. Fla Stat. 90 504 (1) and the exceptions are plain, clear for every layman or law practicioner to understand.
Yet to further create chaos in their concurring opinion, it is acknowledged that the spouse victim (wife) should have ONLY testified as to actions that DIRECTLY pertains to her, that the jury SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED by the court judge. They fail to read in the trial transcripts that the defense team PETITIONED the trial judge to do just that; it was denied, previously another attempt was made in the form of a severence motion, this same trial judge also DENIED THE MOTION REPEATEDLY to sever the counts of the indictment.
This was improper. So what good is the written law ? Where it is disregarded, when used for law and order in a house that is not in order or lawful, makes new law improperly, condemn persons to die RECOGNIZING THAT ERRORS WERE COMMITTED, YET NOT ATONING THE FAULT.
For sure, we know that ignorance of the law is no excuse as it is stated in MONCRIEF VS STATE 415 So2d 785 (1982) : but the learned members of the bar, the county judge, and in the extreme the seated ones on the Florida and United States Supreme Court; should be WELL VERSED IN THE WRITTEN LAW by reason and experience and apply the laws of the state as it reads in the statute.
I am not an attorney. I am a death row inmate who like Mark Twain can't remember much but knows how to read and comprehend the written law. The Fourteenth (14th) United States Constitutional Amendment that gives us all EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS gaurantees this, to say that the written law is faulty because a judge THINKS a defendant is going to benefit from it, is totally absurd. I contrary to precendent well established in Alexander vs. Alexander 14 F. Supp 925 (1956) (3)
This constitutional provision is NOT EXCLUSIONARY its inclusive. The word DURING is the sixth word in Fla. State. 90.504 (1) we documented also the existence at the trial time, of a marriage, with me - the defender.
The mockery that is alleged we are trying to perpetrate befpre the courts is totally unfounded. However what the courts are doing to me and to the WRITTEN LAW is shameful.
This case should be revisited in the interest of justice and order of a new trial shall forecome. Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.140 (FL) .
Thank you for your attention.
Terence Gerald Valentine
| Return to Terence Valentine's Homepage |
