Excerpt from “PLAINTIFF’S [C. Reynolds'] OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S [Florida's] MOTION TO DISMISS”:
Plaintiff Reynold’s objects to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as follows:
1. The Plaintiff is not a licensed attorney nor a person representing an artificial entity. The Plaintiff, a free Floridian, is entitled to redress to the government and access to the courts as a matter of right. The change of venue to Leon County would be a denial of access to the courts. It would be a deliberate and oppressive burden upon the Plaintiff, who would be forced to travel and to pay additional expenses to pursue a basic right.
“All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.”
Constitution, Article 1, Section 1.
“The people shall have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.”
Florida Constitution, Article 1, Section 5.
2. Plaintiff Reynolds objects to the assertion that she has no standing to challenge a law which allows the state to disregard her basic rights as a sovereign Floridian. A reading of the statute clearly assumes that the state may seize, incarcerate and forcibly medicate anyone it wishes. There is no due process before the denial of inalienable rights. Clearly, such actions could be taken by the state against anyone within Florida. Either the people of Florida are sovereign over their own bodies or not. If they are not sovereign over their own bodies, by what authority does the state claim ownership? By what authority does the state have the right to injure and possibly kill by forced medication and physically force a sovereign Floridian?
NOTE: PDF’s of the legal documents will be posted shortly.