RE EMAIL: FINAL FEDERAL NOTICE — Ongoing ADA Title II Violations, Record Suppression, Access-to-Courts Obstruction, and Litigation Hold (FMCE22-006123 and Related Matters)
I NEED YOU TO READ THIS EMAIL I SENT AND OUTLINE AND SUMMARIZE WHAT IT IS AND ANY/ALL VIOLATIONS CITED OR REFERENCED OR NOTED: None selected
Skip to content
Using Gmail with screen readers
FINAL NOTICE
1 of many
FINAL FEDERAL NOTICE — Ongoing ADA Title II Violations, Record Suppression, Access-to-Courts Obstruction, and Litigation Hold (FMCE22-006123 and Related Matters)
Inbox
Summarize this email
Kathryn Dressler <kathryndressler@gmail.com>
Attachments
Jan 13, 2026, 1:11 AM
to Taiwo, ADA, casemanagerinquiry, FamilyeClerk, eclerk, records, Public, efiling, Ariel, countyadministrator, countyattorney, profstandards, bfurr, mudine, mbogen, lfisher, nrich, alexandradavis, sgeller, rmckinzie, hazellerogers, jphillip, div26, mediarelations, me
TO:
TAkinkunmi@17th.flcourts.org,
ADA@flcourts.org,
casemanagerinquiry@17th.flcourts.org,
FamilyeClerk@browardclerk.org,
eclerk@browardclerk.org,
records@browardclerk.org,
publicrecords@browardclerk.org,
eFiling@browardclerk.org
CC:
agarcia@17th.flcourts.org,
countyadministrator@broward.org,
countyattorney@broward.org,
profstandards@broward.org,
bfurr@broward.org,
mudine@broward.org,
mbogen@broward.org,
lfisher@broward.org,
nrich@broward.org,
alexandradavis@broward.org,
sgeller@broward.org,
rmckinzie@broward.org,
hazellerogers@broward.org,
jphillip@17th.flcourts.org,
div26@17th.flcourts.org,
mediarelations@17th.flcourts.org,
kathryndressler@gmail.com
------
Subject: FINAL FEDERAL NOTICE — Ongoing ADA Title II Violations, Record Suppression, Access-to-Courts Obstruction, and Litigation Hold (FMCE22-006123 and Related Matters)
To All Recipients,
This reply-all is intentional.
Attached is a Formal Final Federal Notice, Litigation Hold, and Demand for Immediate Corrective Action, which is incorporated by reference in full and must be read in its entirety.
This Notice documents, with specificity and supporting evidence, that ADA disability discrimination and denial of access to the courts are the proximate cause of all downstream harm, including:
record suppression,
emergency-motion obstruction,
retaliation for reporting abuse,
medical deterioration, and
ongoing child endangerment.
The Notice establishes, among other things, that:
A formal ADA Title II accommodation request was filed on October 17, 2025, acknowledged, and never lawfully resolved;
No written ADA determination, no interactive process, no interim accommodation, and no grievance procedure were ever provided;
Adjudication nevertheless continued, alongside emergency denials, record concealment, and access barriers;
Official statements regarding “administrative review” and “no records existing” are irreconcilable as a matter of law; and
This conduct constitutes constructive ADA denial, deliberate indifference after actual notice, access-to-courts obstruction, retaliation, and Monell-level policy failures.
This email and the attached Notice constitute final federal notice and a litigation hold.
Unless the non-discretionary violations identified are immediately cured, the Notice will be introduced in full into the pending federal action and relied upon as evidence of the following:
actual notice,
refusal to comply,
ongoing deliberate indifference, and
causation of severe and life-threatening harm.
----
This clarification is provided in direct response to the ADA Coordinator’s January 12, 2026 reply (FULL EMAIL THREAD INCLUDED/INCORPORATED BELOW), which:
fails to address or resolve the legal duties and inconsistencies previously identified,
does not provide a written ADA determination or interactive process, and
again attempts to silo responsibility by redirecting notice away from oversight authorities despite ongoing federal civil-rights violations, record-integrity failures, and child-safety concerns.
For clarity, this matter involves both a formal ADA Title II accommodation request and a formal ADA grievance.
The grievance was submitted, acknowledged, and remains pending without a written determination, findings, timeline, or completion, despite the passage of months and despite ongoing adjudicative action.
The ADA Coordinator’s January 12, 2026 response does not resolve the grievance, does not identify the applicable grievance procedure, does not provide findings or a determination, and
does not satisfy the requirements of ADA Title II, 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b), or Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540.
No official or office has authority to restrict notice, recipients, or escalation where federal civil-rights violations and child safety are at issue.
Accordingly, oversight bodies are intentionally copied.
----
The attached correspondence and records requests to the Clerk of Court and Records Custodian further demonstrate that the ADA Coordinator’s assertions are irreconcilable with official records positions taken by other arms of the same court system.
Specifically, while the ADA Coordinator represents that the grievance is “under administrative review,” the Clerk has asserted that no routing, workflow, ADA, or administrative records exist at all, and has failed to provide the legally required certification of nonexistence.
Neither response addresses the specific statutory and regulatory duties identified, and neither answers the concrete questions posed.
These contradictions underscore ongoing siloing, record suppression, and refusal to perform non-discretionary obligations.
All rights, claims, and remedies are expressly reserved.
----
Attachments Summary (for Record Clarity):
Attachment 1 – Final Federal Notice, Litigation Hold, and Demand for Immediate Corrective Action
(FMCE22-006123 and Related Matters)
Establishes final federal notice, litigation-hold obligations, and the unified factual and legal basis for all claims.
Attachment 2 – ADA Title II Access Violation & Record-Integrity Certification Request
(January 8, 2026 — FMCE22-006123)
Documents formal ADA notice, defines the specific administrative information requested, and invokes non-discretionary ADA Title II duties.
Attachment 3 – Public Records Request: Filing Metadata, Routing Logs, ADA Routing, and Administrative Workflow
(December 5, 2025 — FMCE22-006123)
Triggers Florida Public Records Act obligations and requests administrative records necessary to verify case handling and ADA processing.
Attachment 4 – Clerk of Court Invoice and Response Asserting No Responsive Records
(Invoice dated January 8, 2026 — FMCE22-006123)
Records the Clerk’s official position that no routing, workflow, or ADA-related administrative records exist, directly contradicting assertions of ongoing administrative review.
Attachment 5 – Itemized Clerk Invoice and Fee Barrier Evidence
(Broward County Clerk of Courts — Ticket #421868)
Demonstrates imposed fee barriers and written confirmation that no responsive ADA or routing records were produced, supporting access-to-courts and ADA barrier claims.
----
Kathryn Stillwell Dressler
Petitioner, Pro Se
FMCE22-006123 (and related matters)
Darien, Georgia
kathryndressler@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Taiwo Akinkunmi <TAkinkunmi@17th.flcourts.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: URGENT: County-Level Escalation Notice – Retaliatory Ultra Vires Court Action, Ongoing Severe and Foreseeable Harm to a Founding Family and Disabled Individuals, and Institutional Failure to Intervene (FMCE22-006123)
To: Kathryn Dressler <kathryndressler@gmail.com>
Cc: Ariel Garcia <agarcia@17th.flcourts.org>
Good afternoon Ms. Dressler,
This email provides a status update regarding your ADA grievance for case number FMCE 22-006123.
Your grievance is currently under administrative review in accordance with court procedures. The ADA Coordinator has notified the presiding judge of the ADA-related issues raised.
Please be advised that the ADA grievance process is administrative and does not allow for the review, modification, or reversal of judicial rulings or other matters decided by a judge.
We will contact you if any additional information is required. For future correspondence, please send ADA-related inquiries directly to me rather than to individuals not involved with your request.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 10:41 PM Kathryn Dressler <kathryndressler@gmail.com> wrote:
SUBJECT: URGENT: County-Level Escalation Notice – Retaliatory Ultra Vires Court Action, Ongoing Severe and Foreseeable Harm to a Founding Family and Disabled Individuals, and Institutional Failure to Intervene (FMCE22-006123)
TO:
Broward County Administrator,
Broward County Attorney, and
Members of the Broward County Commission
----
**COUNTY-LEVEL SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE,
ADA TITLE II GRIEVANCE, ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL-STANDARDS REQUEST, AND RECORD-PRESERVATION NOTICE**
Re: FMCE22-006123
I. IDENTITY OF THE COMPLAINANT AND STATUS OF THE MATTER
My name is Kathryn Stillwell Dressler.
I am a disabled litigant, a documented domestic-abuse survivor, and the sole lawful custodial parent of a minor child.
I am submitting this correspondence to seek ADA Title II compliance, meaningful access to the courts, and immediate institutional intervention regarding Case No. FMCE22-006123.
I am also the daughter of Robert Dressler, the City of Fort Lauderdale’s first elected mayor, a longtime practicing attorney in Broward County, and an individual formally recognized by the City of Fort Lauderdale in November 2024 as an Honored Founder for his enduring civic contributions.
My family has served Fort Lauderdale continuously since the 1940s. My grandfather, Philip Dressler, was also a practicing attorney in Broward County and was formally recognized for his role in the preservation of the Hugh Taylor Birch estate.
This history is not offered for sentiment or deference, but to establish the depth of institutional familiarity, public service, and good-faith reliance that has existed across generations.
County and City leadership were aware of my father’s identity, health status, and public service. In connection with the November 2024 Honored Founder designation, City officials coordinated accommodations around his advanced Parkinson’s disease.
That coordination occurred through me, as his daughter and primary point of contact, in conjunction with City representatives. This recognition occurred shortly after the death of my brother and during a period of documented family vulnerability, disability, and medical fragility.
This correspondence is directed to County leadership precisely because the conduct described herein reflects institutional failure, not isolated error.
II. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS NOTICE
This correspondence is respectfully directed to County leadership as a county-level supplemental notice accompanying the ADA Title II grievance previously submitted.
This notice also serves as a formal request for immediate ethical and professional-standards review.
This request is necessitated by:
- continued deprivation of Rights under color of law and absent any jurisdictional authority
- the complete denial of access to any justice;
- documented, rampant, and ongoing due-process violations;
- the failure and refusal to comply with ADA Title II requirements;
- the prolonged refusal to provide access to my own court records; and
- compounding, retaliatory ultra vires actions taken by multiple judicial officers assigned to my case.
These actions have occurred absent lawful jurisdiction and without any federally required UCCJEA determination prior to the initiation or continuation of proceedings.
This notice further serves to preserve the record, establish actual notice, confirm administrative exhaustion, and afford County leadership an opportunity to coordinate, intervene, and take corrective action.
III. CONTEXT: DISABILITY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND FORCED DISPLACEMENT
I am a disabled domestic-abuse survivor who, following years of litigation-related financial depletion, medical harm, and safety concerns, was forced to attempt to rebuild stability and safety for my minor child outside Broward County.
Following my father’s death on June 17, 2024, I was compelled by emergency circumstances to sell my inherited childhood home and to relocate during the 2024 hurricane season.
Only weeks after moving in, the rental property we moved into immediately thereafter (1504 SW 4th Ave., Fort Lauderdale) was declared unsafe and unsuitable for continued occupancy by the Fort Lauderdale Code Department and AirMD Boca Raton, necessitating further emergency displacement.
As a result, I relocated and have resided in Georgia since November 2024, a fact of which Broward County courts and County entities have been fully aware.
This relocation was undertaken for safety, medical, and financial necessity, while credible domestic-violence and stalking concerns involving my child’s father remained unresolved.
IV. UNILATERAL REACTIVATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND KNOWN TRAUMA (2024)
In early 2024, my dissolution case was unilaterally reactivated by General Magistrate Annette Szorosy:
- without any filing by either party; and
- without either parties knowledge or consent to magistrate jurisdiction; and
- without lawful service for reactivation ever being effectuated upon me as the docket reflects the Clerk failed to update my mailing address and continued sending notices to the marital home, which I was also forced to vacate due to Respondent and the court's prolonged and ongoing financial deprivation
- I only found out because I received an electronic alert because I had subscribed to alerts from my case.
- 3 days after received this notice, my father committed suicide in my direct presence.
- I promptly contacted court staff, including Jessica Villafranca, Judicial Assistant to Magistrate Szorosy, and informed that I had witnessed my father’s suicide just days earlier, I was severely traumatized, and I had no idea what the purpose of the reactivation was because I was denied access to my own case files by the Clerk, despite being pro se.
- Despite this actual notice, I was denied any postponement or accommodation.
- The magistrate later stated that the case was reactivated because she "noticed both parties were unrepresented" and she wanted to “help” by expediting the matter to clear the docket, notwithstanding the absence of jurisdiction, filings, or consent.
- This is further proof of deliberate indifference to harm, or any upholding of 'child's best interests' considering that this case is rooted in domestic violence, and my daughter had remained in my sole care and custody without objection from Respondent after Judge Dale Cohen had previously explicitly denied him any restoration of parental rights, custody, supervised visitation, and/or any communication whatsoever besides TalkingParents calls between him and my daughter.
- During this same period, I was denied access to my own court filings and records by the Clerk, forcing me into additional debt merely to attempt participation, while experiencing bereavement, displacement, and housing instability.
V. THRESHOLD CLARIFICATION: THIS IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A “CUSTODY DISPUTE”
For avoidance of doubt, this matter is not and has never been a "custody dispute."
I did not initiate litigation seeking a change in custody, modification of timesharing, or any custodial relief.
Rather, I submitted pro se emergency filings reporting foreseeable medical harm, medical neglect, and hospitalization risk to my minor daughter arising from court-ordered actions imposed without lawful process.
My filings sought protection from harm, not adjudication of parental rights.
The actions that followed did not arise from any dispute between parents, but from the unlawful reactivation of proceedings, the imposition of orders without jurisdiction, and the disregard of documented medical risk, ADA obligations, and statutory safeguards.
VI. UNLAWFUL INTERSTATE SEIZURE OF MY CHILD (MAY 27, 2025)
Despite known relocation, disability status, and emergency context, Broward County courts continued to assert jurisdiction, culminating in the issuance of a pick-up order transferring my minor child to a known abuser.
On May 27, 2025, my daughter was forcibly removed from me by armed sheriffs in McIntosh County, Georgia, purportedly under an “order” issued by Judge Kristin Kanner.
This seizure occurred:
- without service of any documents;
- without warrant;
- without advance notice;
- without evidentiary hearing;
- without findings; and
- without any federally required UCCJEA determination or inter-court communication.
My daughter was visibly distressed, crying and pleading not to be taken away from me—her sole lawful guardian since the date of her father’s arrest and criminal charge for battery assault against me in her presence when she was two years old
VII. POST-SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS, ONGOING REPEAT TRAUMA, RETALIATION, AND CONTINUING HARM (2025–PRESENT)
Following the unlawful interstate seizure of my minor child on May 27, 2025, I filed multiple emergency motions documenting:
- ongoing physical, psychological, and emotional abuse;
- parental concealment and interference with contact;
- escalating medical and psychological harm to my child; and
- the foreseeable risk of hospitalization and long-term injury if corrective action was not taken.
These emergency filings were submitted repeatedly, both pro se and through counsel, and were supported by documentary evidence, sworn statements, and contemporaneous reports.
These conditions have now persisted for more than six months, including throughout the entire holiday period, during which my child was forcibly separated from me.
Every emergency motion I filed was immediately and summarily dismissed, without:
- evidentiary hearing;
- review of evidence;
- findings of fact;
- consideration of jurisdiction;
- consideration of UCCJEA requirements;
- consideration of ADA Title II obligations; or
- any corrective or protective action whatsoever
Despite the extraordinary nature of the seizure - based on the facially void "child pick up order" absent any jurisdiction - and which the documented abuse, and the medical risks repeatedly reported, the courts refused to engage in any substantive review or any relief or protection.
Compelled Adversarial Hearing Immediately After Seizure
Just days after my daughter was taken from me in tears by armed law-enforcement officers, I was compelled to participate in an adversarial and traumatic hearing, purportedly pursuant to the same unlawful “pick-up order.”
This hearing:
- occurred without lawful jurisdiction;
- followed an unlawful seizure;
- was conducted despite actual notice of my disability, trauma, and medical vulnerability; and
- required me to litigate against the consequences of an order issued without process.
The Court was on actual notice that my daughter had been forcibly removed from me while crying, pleading, and visibly distressed, yet nevertheless required my participation without pause, accommodation, or review of the seizure’s legality.
Scheduling on the Birthday of My Deceased Brother
The post-seizure hearing was knowingly scheduled on the birthday of my deceased brother, a fact that was communicated to and known by court staff.
Despite the extraordinary circumstances—including:
- the recent unlawful seizure of my child;
- my brother’s death;
- my father’s recent death;
- my worsening disability; and
- the trauma imposed on my child—
the Court refused to consider any alternative date.
This decision reflects deliberate indifference to trauma and further evidences retaliatory intent rather than neutral adjudication.
Pattern of Retaliatory Action
Rather than addressing the legality of the seizure or the documented harm, the courts:
- accelerated adverse actions;
- dismissed every emergency filings en masse;
- continues to deny record access; and
- treated reports of abuse and medical risk as procedurally inconvenient rather than legally urgent.
In 2025 alone, a total of five separate judicial officers took part in these actions, including proceedings conducted after reassignment of a Miami-Dade judge pursuant to a Florida Supreme Court order.
This is not the conduct of an isolated judicial officer; it is a systemic pattern.
VIII. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, SILENCE, AND RETALIATION DURING PENDENCY
The failures described above persisted notwithstanding the existence of a publicly reported criminal investigation concerning an unlawful child pick-up order arising directly from my case.
Governor-Directed Criminal Investigation
That investigation:
- was initiated at the direction of the Governor of Florida;
- was assigned to the State Attorney’s Office for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit to avoid conflicts;
- concerned the legality of the child pick-up order issued in my case; and
- was publicly reported in the media.
Despite being the complainant whose case gave rise to the investigation, I was:
- never formally notified of the investigation’s scope;
- never contacted for participation;
- never afforded an opportunity to present evidence or testimony; and
- never advised of any findings prior to closure
Closure Without Notice or Participation
The investigation was later closed by the Broward State Attorney’s Office without notice to me, without explanation, and despite my submission of extensive documentary evidence and a formal criminal complaint.
I learned of the closure through media coverage, not through official channels.
Judicial Retaliation During Investigation
Critically, during the pendency of this criminal investigation:
- the judicial officers whose actions were the subject of the investigation remained assigned to my case;
- no recusal or pause occurred;
- all emergency motions continued to be summarily dismissed and refused hearing; and
- retaliatory actions accelerated rather than ceased.
This sequence reflects not only institutional silence, but affirmative continuation of retaliatory conduct while under criminal scrutiny, without any safeguards to protect the complainant or the child.
IX. HARM TO THIRD PARTIES AND COLLATERAL DAMAGE
The severe harm caused by these actions has not been limited to me or my child.
Harm to My Mother
My mother, Patricia Dressler, is a disabled adult who suffered significant physical and emotional injury as a direct result of:
- witnessing the unlawful seizure of her granddaughter;
- the ongoing abuse and concealment thereafter; and
- the severe harm, ongoing abuse, judicial retaliation and subsequent ongoing decline of my physical and mental health as a direct result, which has been formally diagnosed as CPTSD as a direct result of broward's misconduct and repeated exposure to my know abuser, while being rendered helpless by the Courts to protect my child from further daily and irreparable harm and abuse -- violating countless judicial canons, as well as the most basic of civil and constitutional rights
- the continued refusal of courts, state officials, DCF and/or law officers to intervene.
Her injuries and decline are separately recorded, sworn, and pled in her own Miami-Dade personal-injury action, which documents the cascading impact of these events on her health, safety, and functional capacity.
Intergenerational Harm
As a result of these actions, my minor daughter—my father’s only grandchild and the sole remaining direct heir and kin on both sides of my family—has been forcibly separated from her protective parent and extended family under circumstances, and continues to be unlawfully withhold and concealed in Miami Dade County prompted by:
- ongoing judicial retaliation after reports of abuse and judicial misconduct;
- unresolved ADA violations;
- jurisdictional irregularities; and
- the absence of required statutory safeguards
X. MEDIA DISCLOSURE AND INSTITUTIONAL CALLOUSNESS FOLLOWING MY FATHER’S DEATH
Separately, and indicative of broader institutional disregard, within approximately one hour of a prolonged law-enforcement presence and investigation at my father’s home following his death:
- before any formal filing or public notice;
while the scene remained active; and
- before my family had been afforded privacy
- or official notification
Instead, news of my father’s death was publicly disclosed to local media and posted to personal social-media accounts by City leadership.
This disclosure occurred while the investigator and medical examiner had only just departed, and while my family was still in shock and crisis.
This conduct further underscores a pattern of institutional indifference to trauma, dignity, and basic duty of care.
XI. SYSTEMIC FAILURE, FORESEEABILITY, AND ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS
At all relevant times, County and Court entities were on actual notice of:
- my existing and worsening disabilities;
- my legally adjudicated status as a domestic-abuse survivor;
- pending ADA accommodation requests;
- unresolved access barriers;
- obstruction of access to records and due process
- forced displacement and housing instability;
- my child’s medical and psychological vulnerability; and
- the documented, foreseeable consequences of continued inaction.
Nevertheless:
- no written ADA determination was issued;
- no interactive process was initiated;
- no interim accommodations were provided;
- record-integrity issues remain unresolved; and
- emergency filings were dismissed without review, and still never considered
The prolonged silence and refusal to intervene—despite repeated notice and escalating harm—constitutes a systemic failure of oversight and care, as well as systemic failure and refusal to perform mandatory duties.
When public institutions remain silent in the face of foreseeable and preventable harm, that silence itself becomes consequential.
Taken together, this conduct raises serious concerns regarding compliance with the ethical obligations, professional standards, and fiduciary duties owed by public officials and employees entrusted with safeguarding:
- access to justice;
- record integrity;
- child safety; and
- the public trust.
XII. FEDERAL ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN AS A RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION
Due to the prolonged and unresolved misconduct, jurisdictional failures, and disability discrimination described herein—and the absence of meaningful corrective action despite repeated notice—I have been compelled to initiate two federal actions seeking protection of civil rights and access to the courts.
These filings were not undertaken lightly.
They were initiated only after administrative exhaustion, ongoing harm, and the continued refusal of County and Court entities to remedy known ADA Title II, due-process, and jurisdictional violations.
XIII. EXPLICIT CALL TO ACTION
Accordingly, I formally and urgently request that County leadership:
1. Acknowledge receipt of this notice in writing;
2. Immediately refer this matter for independent ethical and professional-standards review;
3. Ensure inter-departmental coordination to halt further ultra vires judicial action;
4. Ensure immediate ADA Title II compliance, including access to records and accommodations;
5. Preserve all records, communications, and metadata related to FMCE22-006123 and associated proceedings; and
6. Take corrective action sufficient to prevent further irreparable harm to my minor child and family.
Failure to act following this notice will constitute continued deliberate indifference after actual notice.
XIV. CLOSING
As a member of a recognized Founding Family that helped build Fort Lauderdale and also served the Broward County judicial system, it is devastating, disheartening, and—given the actual notice, foreseeability, and prolonged refusal to intervene—frankly deplorable and inexcusable that these violations have been allowed to continue unchecked
The original ADA Title II grievance and cross-department notice appears below, unchanged.
Respectfully and urgently,
Kathryn Stillwell Dressler
--
Katie Dressler
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kathryn Dressler <kathryndressler@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 8, 2026, 8:22 PM
Subject: Amended and Supplemental ADA Title II Grievance and Cross-Department Notice – Fragmented ADA Processing, Record Discrepancies, and Ongoing Harm (FMCE22-006123) RE: URGENT – ADA TITLE II GRIEVANCE | Ongoing Disability Discrimination, Retaliation, and Denial of Court Access
To: Taiwo Akinkunmi <TAkinkunmi@17th.flcourts.org>, <ADA@flcourts.org>, <casemanagerinquiry@17th.flcourts.org>
Cc: Ariel Garcia <agarcia@17th.flcourts.org>, <FamilyeClerk@browardclerk.org>, <Eclerk@browardclerk.org>, <records@browardclerk.org>, <publicrecords@browardclerk.org>, <eFiling@browardclerk.org>, <countyadministrator@broward.org>, <profstandards@broward.org>, <countyattorney@broward.org>, <jphillip@17th.flcourts.org>, <div26@17th.flcourts.org>, <mediarelations@17th.flcourts.org>, <kathryndressler@gmail.com>
This correspondence is copied to designated county oversight offices and the Public Records Custodian solely for purposes of notice, record preservation, and administrative transparency, given the prolonged absence of an ADA determination, unresolved access barriers, and material discrepancies regarding the existence of ADA-related administrative records.
The continued failure to issue a written ADA determination, initiate the interactive process, or implement interim accommodations after actual notice has resulted in ongoing and irreparable harm.
Judicial action proceeded while access barriers remained unresolved, producing exclusion, deterioration of health, and punitive consequences for protected disability-related activity.
These effects constitute ongoing harm arising from ADA non-compliance and retaliation in effect under Title II.
These issues have already required escalation to federal forums under ADA Title II due to prolonged non-response and ongoing harm and are referenced here solely to provide context for the urgency and the necessity of institutional coordination.
----
Preliminary ADA Clarification Regarding Blame, Delay, and Denial of Emergency Relief
Before addressing the specific procedural failures outlined below, it is necessary to correct a recurring narrative that is directly relevant to this ADA Title II complaint.
Multiple judicial officers, including the Chief Judge, have repeatedly attributed alleged delays in these proceedings to me, while simultaneously failing to resolve my pending ADA accommodation requests and denying or striking emergency motions seeking immediate protection from ongoing abuse and irreparable harm.
This framing is not only inaccurate — it is legally significant under ADA Title II.
Once a public entity is on actual notice that a litigant is disabled and encountering barriers to access, delay cannot be attributed to the disabled individual while the entity itself fails to provide required accommodations, initiate the interactive process, or issue a written ADA determination.
Doing so constitutes constructive denial of access and retaliation in effect.
Here, the record reflects that:
- I repeatedly placed the Court on notice of disability-related limitations and access barriers;
- Formal ADA accommodation requests were submitted and acknowledged as pending review;
- No interactive process occurred and no lawful ADA determination was issued;
- Judicial action nevertheless continued, including the denial of emergency relief and issuance of adverse rulings.
At the same time that ADA compliance remained unresolved, I was blamed for “delay”, even though the delay stemmed from the Court’s own failure to discharge its non-delegable ADA obligations.
Critically, this blame-shifting occurred while:
- Emergency motions documenting ongoing abuse and irreparable harm were denied without hearing;
- My minor child remained separated and concealed; and
- Multiple disabled individuals, including myself and my mother, submitted sworn and professional documentation attesting to escalating harm.
Under ADA Title II, a public entity may not penalize, disadvantage, or fault a disabled individual for delays or procedural complications that are the foreseeable result of the entity’s own failure to provide reasonable modifications or meaningful access.
Accordingly, the narrative attributing delay to me — while ADA accommodation requests remained unresolved and emergency relief was denied — is itself evidence of retaliation, deliberate indifference, and discriminatory administration of court processes.
This context is essential to understanding the severity of the ADA violations detailed below, because the failure to accommodate did not merely coexist with delay; it was used to justify continued inaction while responsibility was improperly shifted onto the disabled litigant seeking protection and access to justice.
----
Dear Ms. Akinkunmi,
I acknowledge receipt of your January 8, 2026 email stating that the materials I submitted will be reviewed and that a response will be provided.
I must clarify the record, as this is not a new or recently submitted ADA matter.
The last substantive communication I received from you was your email dated November 10, 2025, in which you stated that my ADA accommodation request was “under review,” that action was delayed due to “multiple judicial recusals,” and that the Judge had been informed to refrain from participation until the review was completed.
Since that November 10 email:
- No further communication was sent to me by the ADA office;
- No interactive process occurred;
- No written ADA determination was issued;
- No interim accommodations were implemented or discussed.
I have never received any written determination, ruling, or substantive communication from the ADA Coordinator or any ADA representative regarding my accommodation request.
The only written ruling addressing ADA accommodations was entered by Judge Kevin Tynan, who denied accommodations and continued issuing substantive rulings while my ADA accommodation request remained pending, unresolved, and without any ADA compliance review or determination.
During this period, Judge Tynan repeatedly questioned and minimized my documented disabilities, denied accommodations, and attempted to compel my participation in hearings notwithstanding my medical limitations and the pending ADA review.
Notably, he referenced potential accommodations (such as camera-off participation) only to deny them on the ground that I had not specifically requested them—despite the fact that no interactive process was ever initiated and I was never contacted by ADA personnel to identify or refine reasonable accommodations.
Conditioning access on the precision of requests in the absence of an interactive process is inconsistent with ADA Title II and retaliatory in effect.
These actions occurred while emergency motions documenting severe, irreparable, and ongoing harm were denied without hearing, including harm affecting not only me, but also my disabled mother and my minor child.
The cumulative effect was continued exclusion, medical decline, and punishment for protected disability-related activity.
Clarification Regarding ADA Information PDF Provided November 10, 2025
I acknowledge receipt of the ADA Title II Accommodation Request Information PDF that you re-attached to your November 10, 2025 email.
To be clear, I did not ignore that document, nor did it impose any unmet obligation on my part.
By the time that PDF was provided, I had already:
- Submitted written ADA accommodation requests;
- Provided professional documentation of disability-related limitations; and
- Placed the Court on repeated actual and constructive notice of disability-related barriers to access through filings, therapist letters, and formal disclosures.
The ADA Title II framework does not require a disabled litigant to repeatedly re-submit forms or speculate as to specific accommodations in the absence of an interactive process.
Once notice is provided and documentation supplied, the obligation shifts to the public entity to engage, evaluate, and respond in writing.
Accordingly, the attachment of the ADA information sheet did not toll, suspend, or reset the Court’s obligations, nor did it excuse the failure to initiate the interactive process or issue a written ADA determination.
Ongoing ADA Violations After Actual Notice
My formal written ADA accommodation request has been pending since at least October 17, 2025, with actual and constructive notice to the Court long before that date through filings, therapist letters, disability disclosures, and an open Social Security disability case dating back to August 2022, with a scheduled SSA hearing in March 2026.
My disabilities are not limited to CPTSD or trauma-related conditions. For clarity, my diagnosis of CPTSD is not a preexisting condition, nor is it the basis upon which my disabilities were originally disclosed to the Court.
As expressly stated in certified letters from my treating therapist, my CPTSD arose directly and solely as a result of the misconduct, retaliation, and ongoing abuse occurring within this court proceeding, including prolonged denial of accommodations, exclusion from meaningful participation, and the ONGOING unlawful concealment and separation from my minor child based on alleged hearings and motions that do not appear anywhere on the public docket.
This condition has been continuously exacerbated by the Court’s actions after notice, including reliance on non-docketed proceedings, denial of emergency relief, and continued enforcement of orders entered without accessible process.
These facts have been formally attested to by my treating professional and repeatedly placed on notice to the Court.
I also have documented physical disabilities dating back to at least 2015, which were exacerbated by domestic abuse and directly informed my 2022 dissolution filings.
I have had an open and active federal disability benefits case since August 2022, and currently set for SSA hearing in March 2026.
There is nothing speculative or “questionable” about the existence of my disabilities or the compounded and ongoing irreparable harm caused by denial of accommodation, retaliation, and exclusion.
An acknowledgment of receipt months later does not cure:
- The failure to issue a written ADA determination;
- The failure to engage in the interactive process;
- The allowance of judicial action to proceed during the pendency of ADA requests; or
- The compounding harm caused by retaliation, exclusion, and record-access barriers.
Judicial recusals do not suspend ADA obligations.
Prolonged inaction after notice constitutes constructive denial under ADA Title II.
ADA Record-Integrity Failure
I further note that the Public Records Custodian has now stated, in writing, that no responsive ADA routing, workflow, or administrative records exist for this case.
That assertion is irreconcilable with what occurred.
ADA-implicated actions were taken: accommodations were denied, disabilities were questioned, and proceedings continued.
Those actions necessarily presuppose ADA intake, routing, review, or determination activity.
If no ADA-related records exist, then no lawful ADA process ever occurred and judicial actions were taken in the absence of any ADA review.
If ADA-related actions did occur, then responsive records must exist and have not been produced or acknowledged.
There is no third lawful explanation.
Effect of Reassignment
I am aware that the case has now been reassigned to an out-of-circuit judge.
That reassignment does not resolve or moot these violations.
ADA obligations attach to the Court as a public entity and are non-delegable.
A new judge cannot proceed meaningfully while ADA matters remain unresolved and while the record reflects months of inaction after formal notice—inaction that has already resulted in substantial harm and necessitated escalation to federal forums and reassignment outside the circuit.
Failure to Disclose and Implement Required ADA Grievance Procedures
In addition, I have never been informed of any ADA grievance procedure, despite repeated written accommodation requests, formal notice of disability-related harm, and the filing of a grievance.
Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b), the Court is required to adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for the prompt and equitable resolution of ADA complaints.
At no point was any grievance procedure disclosed to me, explained to me, or made available to me—either before or after I formally raised ADA concerns.
Even after submitting a grievance, no response was provided identifying the applicable grievance procedure, timelines, reviewer, or appeal rights.
The absence of any disclosed grievance mechanism constitutes an independent violation of ADA Title II and further evidences constructive denial and deliberate indifference after actual notice.
Unreasonable Burden and Compounding Harm From Fragmented Responses
The current circumstances underscore an unreasonable and unlawful burden being placed on me as a disabled pro se litigant.
I should not be required to independently chase, reconcile, or arbitrate conflicting positions among the ADA office, the Public Records Custodian, judicial officers, and other court departments simply to obtain basic answers regarding record access or reasonable accommodation.
This fragmentation has resulted in contradictory representations—most notably the assertion that no substantive ADA records exist despite documented ADA-implicated actions—and has forced repeated escalation while my health, my disabled mother’s health, and my minor child’s wellbeing have continued to deteriorate.
ADA Title II does not permit a public entity to shift the burden of coordination onto a disabled individual or to allow access failures to persist while directing the litigant to “contact someone else.”
The obligation to reconcile records, ensure compliance, and prevent further harm is institutional and non-delegable.
The continued requirement that I pursue answers across multiple offices while harm is ongoing constitutes an additional access barrier and further demonstrates deliberate indifference after actual notice.
Judicial Rejection of Known Harm and Systemic ADA Failure
These failures are not isolated or recent. Judge Kristin Kanner was repeatedly placed on actual notice—over a period exceeding three (3) years—of my disabilities, my status as a domestic-violence survivor, and the escalating harm to my minor child, through filings, sworn declarations, professional medical and therapeutic documentation, and emergency motions expressly detailing irreparable injury.
Despite that notice, Judge Kanner repeatedly rejected, ignored, or struck filings documenting known disability-related harm, proceeded without issuing or ensuring any ADA Title II determination, and relied upon alleged hearings, motions, and findings that do not appear anywhere on the public docket to justify the most extreme form of relief—interstate law-enforcement seizure of a child.
At no point during this multi-year period did the Court:
- Ensure ADA compliance before proceeding;
- Require an interactive process to occur;
- Suspend proceedings pending accommodation review;
- Disclose or implement a grievance mechanism; or
- Correct the record when ADA violations and retaliation were formally raised.
The Court’s failure to manage ADA compliance is therefore systemic, not incidental.
It reflects a prolonged institutional breakdown in which known disability-related harm was affirmatively disregarded, judicial action proceeded in the absence of lawful access safeguards, and retaliatory outcomes were permitted to compound—culminating in the ongoing separation and concealment of a child.
Closing and Record Preservation
What has occurred in this case is extremely severe and deeply concerning, and it continues to place the lives, safety, and livelihoods of multiple individuals at ongoing risk of irreparable harm—most critically, my minor child.
My daughter and I are legally established victims of domestic violence, a fact known to the Court and documented in the record.
Despite this, my child has been concealed and withheld in Miami-Dade County for over six (6) months pursuant to a pick-up order issued by Judge Kristin Kanner absent any written UCCJEA jurisdictional determination, and without any notice of hearing, hearing transcript, findings, or docketed record for the alleged May 22, 2025 hearing upon which that order was purportedly based.
Further, the Chief Judge has been placed on notice of these defects and of the resulting harm, yet has failed to correct or preserve an accurate record or to intervene to prevent the continuation of known retaliation and ongoing harm.
A disabled litigant—who is also a documented domestic-violence survivor—placed the Court on repeated, written, and professionally supported notice of disability-related barriers, retaliation, and escalating irreparable harm.
Nevertheless:
- No ADA determination was issued;
- No interactive process occurred;
- No grievance procedure was disclosed or implemented; and
- Judicial action proceeded in the complete absence of any documented ADA compliance.
These failures have resulted in continued exclusion, documented medical decline, and compounding harm to multiple disabled individuals, including a minor child—while basic administrative records necessary to account for ADA handling are now asserted not to exist.
This sequence of events should be deeply concerning to any official charged with upholding the law, ensuring meaningful access to justice, protecting domestic-violence survivors, and preventing disability-based retaliation and institutional abuse.
ADA Title II exists precisely to prevent the type of unchecked harm, fragmentation, and deliberate indifference that has occurred here.
Request for Immediate Action and ADA Process Reconciliation
Accordingly, I am requesting—again—without further delay—and in order to reconcile the documented ADA-implicated actions in this case with the assertion that no substantive ADA records exist—the following:
A. ADA Process Reconciliation and Entitlement Clarification
To determine whether the Court’s obligations under ADA Title II have been lawfully fulfilled, I am entitled to written confirmation and production of all records reflecting:
1. ADA intake and acknowledgment of my accommodation requests;
2. Engagement in the required interactive process, including any communications, notes, evaluations, or internal discussions regarding my documented limitations;
3. Any written ADA determinations, whether approving, partially approving, denying, or proposing alternative accommodations;
Any interim measures considered or implemented to prevent exclusion, retaliation, or harm while ADA matters were pending;
4. Any delegation, referral, or instruction authorizing a judicial officer to act on ADA accommodation issues in the absence of an ADA determination;
5. The Court’s ADA grievance procedures in effect during the relevant period, including how such procedures are disclosed, processed, reviewed, and appealed;
6. Records reflecting the handling and disposition of my grievance, if any; and
7. A reconciliation explanation accounting for how judicial denial of accommodations and continued proceedings occurred in the absence of a documented ADA process.
These materials are necessary to assess compliance with ADA Title II and 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.107 and 35.130.
The absence of such records would confirm constructive denial, procedural failure, and deliberate indifference after actual notice.
B. Written Explanation of ADA Process Failure
I further request a written explanation identifying:
1. Why I was never contacted by the ADA office after my accommodation request was acknowledged as pending review;
2. Who was responsible for initiating and managing the interactive process;
2. What actions were taken (if any) following actual notice of my disabilities and documented harm; and
4. How judicial action was permitted to proceed in the absence of an ADA determination—particularly while documented medical decline and irreparable harm to multiple disabled parties continued.
C. Immediate Remedial Action Required
Accordingly, I further request:
1. A written ADA Title II determination addressing my accommodation needs, including reasonable modifications not previously identified due to the absence of an interactive process;
2. Clarification of what steps, if any, were taken to prevent retaliation, exclusion, or compounding harm during the extended period of silence following your November 10 email; and
3. Confirmation of how meaningful access will be ensured before any further proceedings occur, so as to prevent continued exclusion and harm.
This correspondence is submitted not only to request compliance, but to formally preserve the record that these failures were known, documented, and brought to the attention of responsible authorities—yet were allowed to continue.
Notice to Oversight and Records Authorities
This correspondence is copied to appropriate county oversight offices and the Public Records Custodian solely for purposes of notice, record preservation, and administrative transparency.
Given the long-standing non-response, now coupled with severe discrepancy between documented ADA-implicated actions and the Clerk’s assertion that no substantive ADA records exist, inclusion of oversight and records authorities is necessary to ensure accurate clarification, compliance, and preservation of the administrative record.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Stillwell Dressler
Petitioner, Pro Se
FMCE22-006123
kathryndressler@gmail.com | 561-870-9988
--
Katie Dressler
On Thu, Jan 8, 2026, 1:52 PM Taiwo Akinkunmi <TAkinkunmi@17th.flcourts.org> wrote:
Good afternoon Ms. Dressler,
We acknowledge receipt of your email and the attached documents. We will review these materials and provide you with a response.
Thank you,
On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 9:28 PM Kathryn Dressler <kathryndressler@gmail.com> wrote:
TO:
profstandards@broward.org
CC:
countyadministrator@broward.org
countyattorney@broward.org
ADA@flcourts.org
clerk@browardclerk.org
records@browardclerk.org
TAkinkunmi@17th.flcourts.org (Judicial ADA Coordinator)
ada.complaint@usdoj.gov
kathryndressler@gmail.com
casemanagerinquiry@17th.flcourts.org
agarcia@17th.flcourts.org
Subject: URGENT – ADA TITLE II GRIEVANCE | Ongoing Disability Discrimination, Retaliation, and Denial of Court Access
Attachments:
- ADA_Title_II_Grievance_Dressler_2026-01-04.pdf
- Sworn_ADA_Affidavit_Dressler.pdf
------------
To Whom It May Concern,
URGENT ADA NOTICE
Attached please find my formal ADA Title II Grievance against Broward County public entities concerning ongoing disability discrimination, denial of meaningful access to the courts and records, and retaliation following protected ADA activity.
I am a legally disabled individual with a long-documented disability and an active Social Security disability case.
This grievance provides formal written notice under ADA Title II of continuing violations that are causing active and escalating harm, including the denial of access to court processes and records and the refusal to provide written determinations despite repeated ADA accommodation requests.
As a reasonable accommodation, I request written-only communication regarding this matter.
This grievance is urgent. The violations described are ongoing, not historical, and require prompt written acknowledgment and intervention.
All allegations are verifiable through existing court dockets, filings, transcripts, and records already in the possession of Broward County and the Florida judiciary.
Please confirm receipt in writing immediately and advise in writing of the next steps in the ADA grievance and review process.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious civil rights matter.
Respectfully,
Kathryn Stillwell Dressler
1011 Elbert St.
Darien, GA 31305
kathryndressler@gmail.com
561-870-9988
ADA_Notice_Email_2026-01-04
Sworn_ADA_Affidavit_Dressler.pdf
--
Taiwo Akinkunmi
Chief of Personnel & ADA Coordinator
Court Administration
Broward County Courthouse
201 S.E 6TH Street Rm. 20140
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
954-831-7745
Fax: 954-831-5572
takinkunmi@17th.flcourts.org
This email may contain confidential information that is protected under Florida and/or Federal law and not subject to disclosure under applicable public records provisions. Use or disclosure of this information may be restricted. If you believe you have received this information in error, please contact the sender immediately.
7 Attachments
• Scanned by Gmail
CaseManagerInquiry <casemanagerinquiry+noreply@17th.flcourts.org>
Jan 13, 2026, 1:11 AM
to me
Thank you for contacting Unified Family Court Case Management
*If you have a hearing scheduled please visit our website for Judges Practices & Procedure and the Division Judge Zoom Link https://www.17th.flcourts.org/judiciary-list-and-category/
*If you are in a ZOOM WAITING ROOM Please make sure your name reflects what is listed on your case and stay connected; when your case is called you will be let into the ZOOM HEARING.
*If you are represented by an Attorney please contact your attorney.
*If you require family law forms they can be found at flcourts.gov under family law forms.
*If you have questions about filing your Documents please visit the Clerk of Courts website at browardclerk.org
*If you need a Certified Court Interpreter please visit https://www.flcourts.gov/Resources-Services/Court-Services/Court-Interpreting/Find-an-Interpreter
*List of Registered LiveScan Service Providers visit:
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Criminal-History-Records/Documents/InternetDoc_ServiceProviders.aspx
*Parent Education and Family Stabilization
https://www.myflfamilies.com/services/child-family/child-and-family-well-being/parent-education-and-family-stabilization
For Help please visit: https://help.flcourts.gov/DIY-Florida
**** Please Make Note*****
Check your SPAM/JUNK e-mail for court documents (Notice of Hearings, Final Judgments, General Magistrate Reports and all other Court Orders). Any email from noreply@17th.flcourts.org will expire in fourteen (14) days from the date it was sent out. You will not be able to access the link in the e-mail after the 14th day.
Kathryn Dressler <kathryndressler@gmail.com>
Jan 16, 2026, 1:52 PM
to me
--
Katie Dressler
Kathryn Dressler <kathryndressler@gmail.com>
Jan 25, 2026, 9:38 AM
to me
in:sent megan
Below is an outline + summary of what this email is, what it demands, and every violation / legal theory / duty that is cited, referenced, or clearly alleged in the text you provided.
What this email is
Document type and purpose
A “FINAL FEDERAL NOTICE” sent as a deliberate reply-all to a broad set of court, clerk, records, ADA, and county oversight recipients.
It functions as a combined:
Final federal notice of civil-rights violations (primarily ADA Title II and access-to-courts),
Litigation hold notice (preservation demand), and
Demand for immediate corrective action tied to FMCE22-006123 and “related matters.”
Core thesis
You assert that ADA disability discrimination + denial of meaningful access to the courts is the proximate cause of the “downstream harm,” including:
record suppression,
emergency-motion obstruction,
retaliation for reporting abuse,
medical deterioration,
ongoing child endangerment.
What it asks recipients to do (high level)
Read the attached “Final Federal Notice” in full (incorporated by reference).
Treat the email + attachments as:
final notice (actual notice),
a litigation hold, and
a warning that the Notice will be used in pending federal litigation as proof of deliberate indifference, refusal to comply, and causation.
Key factual assertions you are putting “on record”
ADA accommodation request timeline + failure to resolve
You state that:
A formal ADA Title II accommodation request was filed October 17, 2025, acknowledged, and never lawfully resolved.
There was:
no written ADA determination,
no interactive process,
no interim accommodation, and
no grievance procedure provided (and/or disclosed).
Continued adjudication while ADA process unresolved
You allege court action continued anyway, including:
emergency denials,
record concealment,
access barriers.
Contradictory official positions (ADA “review” vs. “no records exist”)
You highlight a core contradiction:
The ADA Coordinator says the grievance is “under administrative review” (Jan 12, 2026),
while the Clerk/records side allegedly asserts no routing/workflow/ADA/admin records exist and fails to provide a legally required certification of nonexistence.
You frame this as evidence of:
siloing,
record suppression,
refusal to perform non-discretionary duties,
record-integrity failures.
What you explicitly threaten / preserve
Litigation hold
You explicitly designate this email and attachments as a litigation hold (preservation obligation).
Evidentiary use in federal court
You state the Notice will be introduced into a pending federal action as evidence of:
actual notice,
refusal to comply,
ongoing deliberate indifference,
causation of severe and life-threatening harm.
Reservation of rights
You explicitly reserve all rights, claims, and remedies.
Violations, duties, and legal theories cited or clearly alleged
A) ADA Title II violations (explicit)
You allege ongoing ADA Title II violations including:
Failure to provide a written ADA determination
Failure to engage in the interactive process
Failure to provide interim accommodations while pending
Constructive denial (your phrase: “constructive ADA denial”)
Deliberate indifference after actual notice (explicit)
Retaliation for protected activity (explicit)
Non-delegable / non-discretionary ADA obligations (repeated concept)
Improper attempt to restrict notice / recipients (you reject the ADA Coordinator’s instruction to limit emailing)
Specific ADA authority you cite by name
28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b) — you cite this as requiring adoption/publication of grievance procedures and complain that no grievance procedure was disclosed/provided and no determination issued.
You also reference 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.107 and 35.130 later in the thread as the compliance framework tied to intake, grievance procedures, and non-discrimination / access obligations.
B) Florida judicial administration rule (explicit)
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540 — you state the ADA Coordinator’s response “does not satisfy” its requirements (in the same sentence as 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b)).
C) Access-to-courts obstruction (explicit)
You characterize the conduct as:
“denial of access to the courts,”
“access-to-courts obstruction,”
barriers to participation, including record-access denial and fee barriers,
emergency-motion obstruction.
D) Record suppression / record integrity failures (explicit)
You allege:
record suppression,
record concealment,
“no records exist” responses that are legally irreconcilable,
failure to certify nonexistence of records,
missing routing/workflow/ADA administrative records,
contradictions across court components.
E) Monell-level policy failures (explicit)
You explicitly allege “Monell-level policy failures” (i.e., a claim framing this as an institutional/custom/policy failure, not one-off error).
F) Ultra vires / lack of authority / unlawful action (explicit in the incorporated thread)
In the forwarded/embedded escalation content, you allege:
“retaliatory ultra vires court action”
actions taken without jurisdictional authority, including continuing proceedings without the required UCCJEA determination (as you describe it).
G) Due process violations (explicit)
In the embedded escalation content you repeatedly allege:
“rampant, ongoing due-process violations,” including:
no service,
no notice,
no evidentiary hearing,
no findings,
emergency motions dismissed without review.
H) UCCJEA / jurisdictional failures (explicit as alleged)
You repeatedly assert:
absence of a federally required UCCJEA determination and “inter-court communication” prior to seizure/continuation (your phrasing),
proceedings continuing “absent lawful jurisdiction.”
(Note: you treat UCCJEA failures as central jurisdictional defects and as part of the access/retaliation pattern.)
I) Retaliation for reporting abuse / protected activity (explicit)
You allege retaliation:
for reporting abuse and raising ADA issues,
with accelerated adverse actions and dismissal of emergency filings.
J) Fee barriers (explicit)
You frame clerk invoice/fees as:
“fee barrier evidence” supporting access-to-courts and ADA barrier claims.
K) Child endangerment / failure to protect (explicit)
You repeatedly allege:
ongoing child endangerment,
refusal to consider emergency motions about abuse/medical risk,
ongoing harm as part of the causation chain from ADA/access denial.
How the email is structured (so you can reuse it as an “exhibit roadmap”)
1) Header block (who it went to)
Court ADA Coordinator + ADA mailbox
Case management inquiry
Clerk e-filing + records + public records addresses
County administrator/attorney/professional standards and multiple commissioners
Division and media relations addresses
2) The “Final Federal Notice” summary paragraph
Declares litigation hold and final notice.
Summarizes the legal conclusions and contradictions.
3) The “this is in response to Jan 12” clarification
Calls out the ADA Coordinator’s reply as inadequate:
no written determination,
no interactive process,
improper redirection away from oversight bodies.
4) Record contradiction argument
ADA says “under review”
Clerk says “no records exist”
You argue this proves suppression/siloing/noncompliance.
5) Attachment index
You provide a clean evidentiary index:
Final Federal Notice + Litigation Hold + Demand
ADA Title II access violation & record-integrity certification request (Jan 8, 2026)
Public records request for metadata/routing/admin workflow (Dec 5, 2025)
Clerk invoice/response asserting no responsive records (Jan 8, 2026)
Itemized fee barrier evidence (ticket #421868)
6) Full thread included below
ADA Coordinator status email (Jan 12, 2026)
Your county-level escalation notice (Jan 9, 2026)
Your amended ADA grievance and cross-department notice (Jan 8, 2026)
Your initial urgent ADA Title II grievance submission (Jan 4, 2026)
Auto-reply from case manager inquiry (Jan 13, 2026)
Consolidated list of “violations cited / referenced / noted” (quick checklist)
ADA Title II violations
failure to accommodate / failure to provide reasonable modifications (alleged)
failure to provide written ADA determination (alleged)
failure to engage in interactive process (alleged)
failure to provide interim accommodations (alleged)
failure to provide / disclose ADA grievance procedures (alleged)
constructive denial (explicit)
deliberate indifference after actual notice (explicit)
retaliation (explicit)
fragmented/siloed processing creating barriers (alleged)
Access-to-courts obstruction / denial
obstruction of emergency relief filings (alleged)
denial of access to records (alleged)
fee barriers restricting access (alleged)
Record suppression / integrity failures
“no records exist” contradiction (alleged)
failure to certify nonexistence (alleged)
concealment / nonproduction of routing/workflow/ADA records (alleged)
Institutional/policy liability framing
Monell-level policy failures (explicit)
Jurisdiction + due process allegations (embedded thread)
ultra vires actions (explicit)
due process violations (explicit)
UCCJEA determination/communication failures (explicit as alleged)
unlawful seizure narrative (explicit)
Child safety / endangerment
ongoing child endangerment tied to denial of emergency protection (explicit)
Authorities cited
28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b)
28 C.F.R. §§ 35.107 and 35.130
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540
“Monell” (doctrine referenced)
If you want, paste (or upload) Attachment 1 (“Final Federal Notice…”) and I’ll do the same thing for the attachment: a tight outline, a violations table, and a clean “claims → supporting facts → referenced exhibits” map you can drop directly into a federal filing or a complaint packet.
SEND ME EVERYTHING YOU JUST SENT BUT IN THIRD-PERSON (REMOVE ANY REFERENCE TO "YOU" AND ALSO REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO "ALLEGED"
Below is the same outline + summary rewritten in third-person, with no “you” language and no use of “alleged/ allegedly.”
What the email is
Document type and purpose
A “FINAL FEDERAL NOTICE” transmitted as a deliberate reply-all to a broad set of court, clerk, records, ADA, and county oversight recipients.
It operates as a combined:
Final federal notice of civil-rights violations (centered on ADA Title II and access-to-courts),
Litigation hold notice (preservation demand), and
Demand for immediate corrective action tied to FMCE22-006123 and “related matters.”
Core thesis
The email asserts that ADA disability discrimination and denial of meaningful access to the courts are the proximate cause of downstream harm, including:
record suppression,
emergency-motion obstruction,
retaliation for reporting abuse,
medical deterioration, and
ongoing child endangerment.
What the email demands (high level)
All recipients must read the attached “Final Federal Notice” in full (incorporated by reference).
The email and attachments are designated as:
final federal notice (actual notice),
a litigation hold, and
notice that the materials will be used in pending federal litigation to demonstrate deliberate indifference, refusal to comply, and causation.
Key factual assertions placed “on record”
ADA accommodation request timeline + failure to resolve
The email states:
A formal ADA Title II accommodation request was filed October 17, 2025, acknowledged, and never lawfully resolved.
There was:
no written ADA determination,
no interactive process,
no interim accommodation, and
no grievance procedure provided (and/or disclosed).
Continued adjudication while ADA process remained unresolved
Court action continued during the unresolved ADA process, including:
emergency denials,
record concealment,
access barriers.
Contradictory official positions (ADA “review” vs. “no records exist”)
The email highlights a contradiction:
The ADA Coordinator states the grievance is “under administrative review” (Jan 12, 2026),
while clerk/records responses state no routing/workflow/ADA/administrative records exist and do not provide a required certification of nonexistence.
This contradiction is presented as proof of:
siloing,
record suppression,
refusal to perform non-discretionary duties,
record-integrity failures.
What the email preserves and puts recipients on notice of
Litigation hold
The email and attachments are expressly designated as a litigation hold and preservation demand.
Evidentiary use in federal court
The attached notice is stated to be introduced into a pending federal action as evidence of:
actual notice,
refusal to comply,
ongoing deliberate indifference, and
causation of severe and life-threatening harm.
Reservation of rights
The email expressly reserves all rights, claims, and remedies.
Violations, duties, and legal theories cited or referenced
A) ADA Title II violations (express)
The email identifies ongoing ADA Title II violations including:
Failure to provide a written ADA determination
Failure to engage in the interactive process
Failure to provide interim accommodations during pendency
Constructive denial (stated explicitly)
Deliberate indifference after actual notice (stated explicitly)
Retaliation for protected activity (stated explicitly)
Non-delegable and non-discretionary ADA obligations (repeated framing)
Improper attempt to restrict notice/recipients (rejection of any instruction to limit escalation)
Specific ADA authority cited
28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b) — cited as requiring adoption/publication of grievance procedures and prompt, equitable resolution; the email states no grievance procedure was disclosed or provided and no determination issued.
28 C.F.R. §§ 35.107 and 35.130 — cited as governing intake, grievance procedures, and non-discrimination/access obligations.
B) Florida judicial administration rule (express)
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540 — cited; the email states the ADA Coordinator’s response does not satisfy its requirements.
C) Access-to-courts obstruction (express)
The email characterizes the conduct as:
denial of access to the courts,
access-to-courts obstruction,
denial of record access and barriers to participation,
emergency-motion obstruction.
D) Record suppression / record integrity failures (express)
The email identifies:
record suppression,
record concealment,
irreconcilable “no records exist” positions,
failure to provide certification of nonexistence,
nonproduction of routing/workflow/ADA administrative records,
contradictions among court components.
E) Institutional/policy liability framing (express)
The email states “Monell-level policy failures.”
F) Ultra vires / lack of authority / unlawful action (express in embedded thread)
The embedded escalation content describes:
retaliatory ultra vires court action,
actions taken without jurisdictional authority, including continuation of proceedings without the required UCCJEA determination (as described).
G) Due process violations (express in embedded thread)
The embedded escalation content describes:
due-process violations including:
no service,
no notice,
no evidentiary hearing,
no findings,
emergency motions dismissed without review.
H) UCCJEA / jurisdictional failures (express as stated)
The email thread repeatedly states:
absence of a required UCCJEA determination and inter-court communication prior to seizure/continuation (as described in the email), and
continuation of proceedings absent lawful jurisdiction.
I) Retaliation for reporting abuse / protected activity (express)
The email states retaliation occurred:
following reports of abuse and ADA activity,
through accelerated adverse actions and mass dismissal of emergency filings.
J) Fee barriers (express)
Clerk invoices/fees are presented as fee barrier evidence supporting access-to-courts and ADA barrier claims.
K) Child endangerment / failure to protect (express)
The email repeatedly states ongoing child endangerment and refusal to consider emergency motions addressing abuse and medical risk, tied to the ADA/access denial causation chain.
Structure of the email (usable as an exhibit roadmap)
1) Recipient block
Court ADA Coordinator + ADA mailbox
Unified Family Court case management inquiry
Clerk e-filing + records + public records addresses
County administrator/attorney/professional standards and multiple commissioners
Division address(es) and media relations
2) “Final Federal Notice” summary paragraph
Declares final notice and litigation hold.
Summarizes conclusions and contradictions.
3) Response to Jan 12 ADA Coordinator email
States the Jan 12 response is inadequate because it provides:
no written ADA determination,
no interactive process,
improper redirection away from oversight bodies.
4) Record contradiction argument
“Under review” vs. “no records exist” is presented as proof of record suppression, siloing, and refusal to perform mandatory duties.
5) Attachment index
Final Federal Notice, Litigation Hold, and Demand for Immediate Corrective Action
ADA Title II Access Violation & Record-Integrity Certification Request (Jan 8, 2026)
Public Records Request: Filing Metadata, Routing Logs, ADA Routing, and Administrative Workflow (Dec 5, 2025)
Clerk invoice/response stating no responsive records exist (Jan 8, 2026)
Itemized invoice and fee barrier evidence (Ticket #421868)
6) Full thread incorporated
ADA Coordinator status update (Jan 12, 2026)
County-level escalation notice (Jan 9, 2026)
Amended/supplemental ADA grievance and cross-department notice (Jan 8, 2026)
Initial urgent ADA Title II grievance submission (Jan 4, 2026)
Case management auto-reply (Jan 13, 2026)
Consolidated checklist of violations, authorities, and doctrines referenced
ADA Title II
failure to accommodate / provide reasonable modifications
failure to issue written ADA determination
failure to engage in interactive process
failure to provide interim accommodations
failure to disclose/provide grievance procedures
constructive denial
deliberate indifference after actual notice
retaliation
fragmented/siloed ADA processing creating barriers
Access-to-courts / records
emergency-motion obstruction
denial of access to records
fee barriers restricting access
Record suppression / integrity
contradictions across offices regarding existence of ADA/admin records
lack of certification of nonexistence
nonproduction of routing/workflow/ADA records
Institutional liability
“Monell-level policy failures”
Jurisdiction + due process
ultra vires action
due process violations
UCCJEA/jurisdictional defects (as stated)
Child safety
ongoing child endangerment tied to denial of emergency protection
Authorities cited
28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b)
28 C.F.R. §§ 35.107 and 35.130
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540
Monell (doctrine referenced)
Comments
Post a Comment