OB,lECTION TO SCOPE OF STATUS CONFE R ENCE AND R ENEWED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO RULE 17 AND RULE 1.090(b) FLA. R. CIV. PRO.

Transcription

1 ] El«lrOIIoaolly lemmtically I-ikd Filed UK/19/20l3 08I19nOU 09:02: : 01 : IS 1~ AM lit ET RECE[VED. K/19/200 lì91ïl W. Ilïum»[). 1h11. ClerL Suprcme Court Rf.C IVED. 1I19ilOU 09:Ol:l9. Thomu O. 'bu. C1ct1t. ~ c... BEFORE THEF1 TIlE FLORIDA JUDICIAl JUDICIAL QUAL1F]CATIONSCOMMISSlON QUAUFICA1l0NS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA lnqu INQUIRY I CONCERNING AA JUDGE No SCl SC LAURA M. WATSON OB,lECTION TO SCOPE OF STATUS CONFE R ENCE AND R ENEWED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO RULE 17 AND RULE 1.090(b) FLA. R. CIV. PRO. Notwithstanding the fact that thai the events in question occurred ten len years ago. ago, and that Ihat the allegations in the me "Notice "Nolice offonnal Formal Charges" suggesting violations of the Florida Bar Rules are demonstrably false, and that thai the charges have been brought broughl by the FatherlSon Father/Son legal team of Larry Stewart and Todd Sle",-wt. Stewart, along wim with William Hearon, Esq. (who has either wotted worked in the me same finn as Larry larry Stewart or down the me hall from him for the last forty years). years), and notwithstanding mat that Judgc Judge Watson was personally exonerated in me the underlying civil suit and has a pending motion for allomey's attorney's fees and costs against the complainants for approximately $800, $800,000.00, and a pending Defamation, Malicious ProsecUlion, Prosecution, and Abuse of Process case against them as well, Judge Watson objects to the scope of the status conference scheduled fof for August 20, 2013 at 1:30 p.m, p.m. as premature

2 and pursuant to Rule 17 of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules ("FJQCR") and Rule I.090(b) 1.090(b) Fla. R. Civ. P. states: The Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") has violated and continues to violate Judge Watson's substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Florida and the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution, 42 u.s. US.C.A. CA. sec. 1983, by: a. Initiating an inquiry into allegations for which The Florida Bar never filed and could never legally file a formal complaint because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. b. Initiating an inquiry into allegations outside of the JQC's subject matter jurisdiction. c. Failing to follow its own rules requiring the Investigative Panel to vote on "Formal Charges" which were not included in and are materially different from the factual allegations asserted its "Notice of Investigation." d. Failing to follow its own rules requiring the Investigative Panel to Issue issue a No Probable Cause finding as to the initial allegations contained in its HNotice "Notice of Investigation." e. Failing to provide "the names and addresses of all witnesses whose

3 testimony the Special Counsel expects to offer at the hearing, together with copies of all written statements and transcripts of testimony of such witnesses in the possession of the counselor or the Investigative Panel which are relevant to the subject matter of the hearing and which have not previously been furnished, except those documents confidential under the Constitution of the State." Rule 12(d), FJQCR. f. Failing to preserve and produce the Investigative Panel's records supporting the "Notice of Formal Charges" including the specific motion language and resulting panel vote. g. Failing to follow their own rules, the Rules of Civil Procedure as adopted by Rule 12(a), the Code of Judicial Conduct which has been disavowed by the JQC's Special Counsel, and the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. The JQC seeks an impermissible post-election challenge to Judge Watson's 2012 election. The actions of the JQC and its agents and counsel have damaged Judge Watson, the Voters of Broward County, and the Florida Judiciary. Neither the JQC, nor its Panel members, agents or counsel are protected from liability under Florida Sovereign Immunity or Judicial Immunity for its actions in this matter.

4 BACKGROUND: Notwithstanding the fact that the events in question occurred ten years ago, and that the allegations in the "Notice of Formal Charges" suggesting violations of the Florida Bar Rules are demonstrably false, and that the charges have been brought by the Father/Son legal team of Larry Stewart and Todd Stewart, along with William Hearon, Esq. (who has either worked in the same firm as Larry Stewart or down the hall from him for the last forty years), and notwithstanding that Judge Watson was personally exonerated in the underlying civil suit and has a pending motion for attorney's fees and costs against the complainants for approximately $800,000.00, and a pending Defamation, Malicious Prosecution, and Abuse of Process case against them as well, Judge Watson submits the following background information for the Commission. Judge Watson was elected as a circuit court judge in the general election of In January 2013, the Governor authorized Judge Watson's commission as a circuit court judge and she has been serving the citizens of Broward County in the Family Law division since that time. On April 18,2013, 20l3, upon a complaint filed regarding allegations which occurred between , the Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") Investigative Panel issued its formal Notice of Investigation to Judge Watson. This notice outlined specific allegations. Upon

5 receipt, a detailed response was timely filed answering each and every allegation contained in the notice of investigation. Judge Watson attended the Investigative Panel's hearing in Orlando to further cooperate with the JQC. Without further contact with the undersigned or further requests for information, the JQC then filed a "Notice of Formal Charges" containing new allegations which are materially different from the factual allegations asserted in the first instance. Judge Watson filed a "Demand Pursuant to Rule 6" and a "Motion to Dismiss Notice of Formal Charges for Failure to State a Cause of Action." Further, Judge Watson filed a "Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Rule 25 Affidavits to DisqualifY Disqualify Members of the Hearing Panel and Demand for Disclosure" requesting that each member of the Hearing Panel and the Special Counsel make their record disclosures of any personal relationships, professional associations, professional activities, Florida Bar activities, or business interests, with any party including other members of the Hearing or Investigative Panels and provided a list of potential witnesses and interested parties in this matter to be considered in making their disclosure. None of the requested documents have been provided nor have any of Judge Watson'ss demands been met. The JQC, through its Special Counsel, claims that "[t]he Code of Judicial Conduct does not apply to the actions of the Judicial Qualifications Commission"

6 and therefore they are not required to disclose this infonnation. information. See: "JQC's Response to Judge Watson's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Rule 25 Affidavits to Disqualify Members of the Hearing Panel." As to Judge Watson's August I, 1, 2013 written demand pursuant to Rule 12(d) to provide the names and addresses of all witnesses whose testimony the Special Counsel expects to offer at the hearing, together with copies of all written statements and transcripts of testimony of such witnesses in the possession of the counselor or the Investigative Panel which are relevant to the subject matter of the hearing and which have not previously been furnished, except those documents confidential under the Constitution of the State, no documents have been provided. Special Counsel McGrane stated that he "is in the process of complying and will do so promptly." See: "JQC's Response to Judge Watson's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Rule 25 Affidavits to Disqualify Members of the Hearing Panel." th On August 13*,, 2013, the Honorable Kerry Evander JQC Hearing Panel Chair, issued a "Notice of Status Conference" in the instant matter on Judge Watson's "Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Rule 25 Affidavits to Disqualify Members of Hearing Panel and Demand for Disclosure," "Demand Pursuant to Rule 6," and "Motion to Dismiss Notice of Fonnal Formal Charges for Failure to State a Cause of Action." Included in the status conference was the Honorable

7 Kerry Evander's s order to be prepared to discuss and make commitments of a number of critical pre-trial matters such as a preliminary witness and exhibit list, positions regarding prior pleadings, trial transcripts from the underlying civil lawsuit. Argument: Notwithstanding the fact that the events in question occurred ten years ago, and that the allegations in the "Notice of Formal Charges" suggesting violations of the Florida Bar Rules are demonstrably false, and that the charges have been brought by the Father/Son legal team of Larry Stewart and Todd Stewart, along with William Hearon, Esq. (who has either worked in the same firm as Larry Stewart or down the hall from him for the last forty years), and notwithstanding that Judge Watson was personally exonerated in the underlying civil suit and has a pending motion for attorney's attomey's fees and costs against the complainants for approximately $800,000.00, and a pending Defamation, Malicious Prosecution, and Abuse of Process case against them as well, Judge Watson respects and believes that the JQC serves an important function- but only if it conforms to the very values, standards, and rules it purports to defend. Due to the numerous irregularities in the JQC's investigative procedure, and Special Counsel's written responses to the Judge's motions, the JQC continues

8 to fundamentally violate Judge Watson's substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States u.s. CA. Constitution. 42 US.Cl sec All judges subject to JQC disciplinary proceedings must be afforded both substantive and procedural due process. See: In re lnquiry Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 357 So.2d 172, 181 (Fla. 1978). The JQC's violations of Judge Watson's substantive and procedural due process rights include the following: 042 The JQC through its Special Counsel asserts that Judge Watson is not entitled to any of the protections of the Rules of the JQC, the Rules of Civil Procedure as adopted by Rule 12(a), the protection afforded by the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Rules of Judicial Administration (though the Administrative rules supersede all conflicting rules). 042 The JQC through its Special Counsel denies that Judge Watson has a right to discover the statements and witnesses and other documents presented to the Investigative Panel, though the Rules entitle the Judge to such information. 042 The JQC through its Special Counsel denies that Judge Watson has the right to a finding of No Probable Cause for allegations raised at the investigative hearing that are not ultimately filed upon - though Rule 6 provides for such a finding.

9 042 The JQC through its Special Counsel denies that Judge Watson has the right to file a motion to dismiss- though the JQC Rules adopt the Rules of Civil Procedure, and previously reported cases not only permit such a filing- but have granted same. (Exhibit's "A", "B", and "e"). "C"). 042 The JQC through its Special Counsel denies that Judge Watson has the right to Hearing Panel member disclosures required by Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct which governs the disqualification of a judge. 042 The Status Conference is contrary to the Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.200, in that, it requests information which is not appropriate until after the action is at issue (which this case is not) and differs materially in both form and substance from other notices of status conferences held in like cases. (Exhibit's "0", "D", "E", and "F"). A. CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECRECY: Judge Watson has made several requests for information which has not been provided. First, pursuant to Rule 12(b), the following disclosures were demanded: The names and addresses of all witnesses whose testimony the Special Counsel expects to offer at the hearing, together with copies of all written statements and transcripts of testimony of such witnesses in the possession of the counselor or the

10 Investigative Panel which are relevant to the subject matter of the hearing and which have not previously been furnished, except those documents confidential under the Constitution of the State. The JQC claims any request for the Investigative Panel records are privileged. For this proposition, Special Counsel McGrane relies upon In re Graziano, 696 So.2d 744 (Fla. 1997), article V, sec. 12(a)(4), and Rule 23(a) FJQCR. Since the Court issued In re Graziano, the rules governing the JQC have been amended and Graziano has been clarified by the Florida Supreme Court in a manner inapposite to McGrane's confidentiality argument. See: Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission Rules ofprocedure, 719 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1998) and In re Eriksson, 36 So.3d 580 (Fla. 2010) supra. As to article V, sec. 12(a), and Rules 23(a) FJQCR, both provide for temporary, rather than inviolate confidentiality. Both require that the matters before the Investigative Panel are confidential until the filing of the formal charges. Further the Rule makes clear that the subject matter of the investigation is confidential only "until the proceeding is no longer confidential under these Rules..." Rule 23(c). Thus, initially the proceedings are confidential to fairly protect a judge who has received a complaint. Once probable cause is found, however, these matters become public. First, because the public has a right to know. Secondly, because

11 the accused judge and the public have a right to detennine determine when the JQC has abused its power. Without this, public confidence in the judiciary and the legal system would erode. Confidentiality rules do not promote fairness; confidentiality rules subvert it. In Florida, there simply is no reason to keep files secret after a probable cause finding. Such secrecy deprives the Judge of the right to due process and deprives the public of the right to examine the rules and methods of the JQC process. The undersigned has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from a completelyopen process and demands same. The Florida Supreme Court has rejected the very argument made by the JQC, i.e. that the record ofthe Investigative Panel proceedings are privileged. In the case of In re Eriksson, 36 So.3d 580, 590 (Fla. 2010), the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that not only are the investigative materials not confidential, they can be he relied upon and introduced into evidence during the Hearing Panel phase. In Eriksson, the Supreme Court noted that it had previously clarified In re Graziano (relied upon by McGrane) and stated "this Court explained that confidentiality allows the JQC to efficiently process complaints from any and all sources while protecting the complainant from recriminations and the judicial officer from unsubstantiated charges...in ln Forbes, we clarified the justification for confidentiality ininjudicial discipline investigations..." Eriksson at 591.

12 Except in the most extreme situations, the requirements of verification and disclosure of identity stifle complaints and thereby frustrate the objective of securing public confidence in the courts' willingness to police themselves. The provision that investigations be confidential has proven to be abundant safeguard for the judge who has been unfairly accused...the confidentiality of the 6(b) hearings [Investigative Panel] is thus aimed at protecting judges from unsubstantiated claims, not meritorious claims that advance to a hearing panel. id.(emphasis added). The Court criticized Judge Eriksson's argument as a "unique interpretation of article V, sectionl2 section12 of the Florida Constitution". id. So too, this Hearing Panel should find fmd the claims of confidentiality related to the materials in possession of the Investigative Panel to be unsupported by Constitution, Rule, or case law and require all materials be produced forthwith. If there is some "extreme situation" which results in a claim of privilege, then the JQC should be required to file a privilege log as required by Rule 1.280(b)(5) Fla. R. Civ. P. and a subsequent hearing be held to determine the validity of any claims ofprivilege. B. JQC LACKS SUBJECT MATIER MATTER JURISDICTION: Notwithstanding the fact that the events in question occurred ten years ago, and that the allegations in the Notice of Formal Charges suggesting conduct violating Florida Bar Rules are demonstrably false, the JQC can only investigate

13 matters occurring within a reasonable time- but not to exceed two years- and only if they are germane to an alleged act of misconduct occurring after the judge takes office. The JQC -through its Special Counsel McGrane- purports to look to a single event from ten years ago, when Watson was not a judge, not a candidate for judicial office, not performing any judicial functions as contemplated by the Code of Judicial Conduct, and somehow investigate that event to determine if there was a violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct which demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office. Simply put, the JQC does not have the jurisdiction to take such action. The JQC is created by Florida's State Constitution as part of the judicial branch. The Constitution of the State of Florida grants the JQC exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and recommend to the Supreme Court of Florida the removal from office: of any justice or judge whose conduct, during the term of office or otherwise occurring on or after November 1, 1966 (without regard to the effective date of this section) demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office, and to investigate and recommend the discipline of a justice orjudge whose conduct, during the term of office or otherwise occurring on or after November I, 1, 1966 (without regard to the effective date of this section) warrants such discipline...the commission shall have jurisdiction over justices and judges

14 regarding allegations that misconduct occurred before or during service as a justice orjudge if a complaint is made no later than one year following service as a justice or judge... (emphasis added) Article V sec. 12(a) Fla. Constitution. Contrary to Special Counsel McGrane's position, the emphasized language does not give the JQC subject matter jurisdiction to investigate alleged wrong doing which occurred ten years ago when Watson was not a judge, not a candidate for judge, and was not performing a judicial function. The Constitution was amended in 1974 to add the language "or otherwise occurring on or after November 1, " because of an unjust result in the case of Judge Turner, who could not be disciplined because at that time, the JQC did not have jurisdiction to investigate judges presiding in the Criminal Court of Record. The addition to the language "or otherwise occurring on or after November 1, " " and all courts were abolished except the Supreme Court, district courts of appeal, circuit courts, and county courts: The revision was in direct response to the case of Turner v. Earle, 295 So.2d 609 (Fla. 1974), in which the supreme court held that a circuit judge could not be disciplined or removed from office as a circuit judge for misconduct committed in a different office. The court noted that the office in question, judge of the criminal court of record, was not an office within the jurisdiction of the JQC and that the judge may not be removed for misconduct that he committed in another public

15 office House Joint Resolution Moreover, in Turner the Supreme Court clarified that "[tlhe "[t]hejudicial Qualifications is in effect an investigatory commission and as such it has the right to investigate matters occurring within a reasonable time but not exceeding two years behind its origin where such investigation and matters are germane to an alleged act of misconduct occurring after January I, 1, 1973 [the date Turner assumed office]." office}." id. at 618. Later, the 1996 Amendment to article V. broadened the jurisdiction "to allow continued jurisdiction for up to one year following the service of a judge." 1996 Committee Substitutefor Senate Joint Resolution 978. The Constitution restricts the investigative jurisdiction of the JQC to actions of a person who is ajustice a or judge during the term of office, or while not during a term of office but is a candidate for judicial office, or performing a judicial function such as a child support hearing officer or special magistrate. See: Code of Judicial Conduct, application section at the end of the Code. The JQC also has mvestigatory investigatory powers to investigate matters occurring within a reasonable time but not to exceed two years but must be germane to an a!!eged alleged act ofmisconduct occurring after they take office. The fundamental object to be sought in construing a constitutional provision isis to interpret itit inin such aa manner "to fulfill the intent ofthe people, never defeat it.

16 Such a provision should never be construed in such a manner as to make it possible for the will of the people to be frustrated or denied." Caribbean Conservation Corp. v Florida Fish & Wildlife Wildhfe Conservation Comm'n, 838 So.2d 492, 501(Fla. 2003). There is something inherently wrong with a small insider group attempting to replace the will of the voting public. public. Pursuant to the JQC's s own rules, the subject matter of the Investigative Panel is limited to determining: [if] [ifj a judge ;s is guilty of willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties, or conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary demonstrating a present unfitness to hold office, or that the judge has a disability seriously interfering with the performance of the judge' s duties, which is, or is likely to become, permanent in nature, may make an investigation to determine whether formal charges should be instituted. (emphasis added). Rule 6(a) FJQCR. The clear language of both the Florida Constitution, as amended, and the FJQCR restricts the jurisdiction of the JQC to actions of a person while a judge, a candidate for judicial office, or someone performing a judicial function such as a child support hearing officer or special magistrate. When Judge Watson ran for office, she satisfied the constitutional requirements for circuit court judge. The undersigned was an elector of the state and resided in Broward County and was a member of the Florida Bar for the

17 preceding five years with the privilege to practice law. In January 2013, the Governor authorized Judge Watson's commission as a circuit court judge and she has been serving the citizens of Broward County since that time. This would not have been permitted if Judge Watson were not eligible to take office. A governor is not authorized to commission a circuit judge-elect unless she satisfies the constitutional eligibility requirements for that office. See: In re Advisory Op. to Gov., 17 So.3d 265 (Fla. 2009), wherein the judge-elect who was elected in August 2008, but was suspended from the practice of law on December 18, 2008 was not permitted to be commissioned by the governor. There is not a single reported case wherein the JQC has exercised jurisdiction under similar facts. The JQC has jurisdiction over a judge during the time while the judge is running for office or was elected to office and was in the process of closing down their law practices. It is only under these limited circumstances wherein the JQC can exercise jurisdiction over aj a judge for violations of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct which occurred while they were practicing attorneys. See: In re Hapner, 718 So.2d 785, 786, 788 (Fla. 1998); In re Ford-Kaus, 730 So.2d 269, , 276 (Fla. 1999); In re Meyerson, 581 So.2d 581, (Fla. 1991); In re Henson, 913 So.2d 579, 582, 594 (Fla. 2005); In re Davey, 645 So.2d 398, , (Fla. 1994) (wherein the events

18 investigated by the JQC occurred after Davey's election as a judge but before he assumed office). The Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") has violated and continues to violate Judge Watson's substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Florida and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 US.C.A. U.S.C.A. sec by initiating this inquiry into allegations outside of the JQC's subject matter jurisdiction. C. THE STATUTE OF COMPLAINT EXPIRED IN 2010: LIMITATIONS FOR A FLORIDA BAR Since her May 1985 admission to the Florida Bar, Judge Watson has always had the privilege to practice law and therefore met the constitutional requirements to run for circuit court judge. If a bar rule had been violated, The Florida Bar was required to file a Complaint within six years from the time the matter was discovered. Rule (a) I6(a) adopted in See: Florida Bar re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, 658 So.2d 930 (Fla. 1995). Watson is mindful of the language allowing for deferral by the Bar of certain matters, but that language was not added until many years after the events in question and is not applicable to Judge Watson's case. See: In re:

19 Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 916 So.2d 655 (Fla. 2005). The Florida Bar never filed formal charges against Watson and the statute of limitations for them to do so has long since expired. The "Notice of Formal Charges" in the instant case only contains allegations for which the Florida Bar never filed and could never legally file a formal complaint because, even if true, the statute of limitations has expired. There was no delay attributable to Judge Watson. It is unjust and unfair to allow the JQC to proceed on matters that the Bar may have diligently pursued but chose not to. Moreover, the JQC can only investigate matters occurring within a reasonable time- but not to exceed two years- and only if they are germane to an alleged act of misconduct occurring after the judge takes office. ofsce. The Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") has violated and continues to violate Judge Watson's substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Florida and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C.A. US.CA. sec by initiating this inquiry into allegations for which The Florida Bar never filed and could never legally file a formal complaint because of the expiration of the statute of limitations.

20 D. JUDGE WATSON HAS A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTYINTEREST: Notwithstanding the fact that the events in question occurred ten years ago, and that the allegations in the "Notice of Formal Charges" suggesting violations of the Florida Bar Rules are demonstrably false, and that the charges have been brought by the Father/Son legal tearn team of Larry Stewart and Todd Stewart, along with William Hearon, Esq. (who has either worked in the same firm as Larry Stewart or down the hall from him for the last forty years), and notwithstanding that Judge Watson was personally exonerated in the underlying civil suit and has a pending motion for attorney's fees and costs against the complainants for approximately $800,000.00, and a pending Defamation, Malicious Prosecution, and Abuse of Process case against them as well, the JQC's allegations in the "Notice of Formal Charges" were public. The matter was vetted in public, and over 400,000 voters (primary + general) elected a judge. The JQC now, in an unlawful manner fully outside of its subject matter jurisdiction seeks to replace the voter's decision with its own as an impermissible post-election challenge to office. Judge Watson's s judicial race was highly contested. The allegations which form the basis of "The Notice of Formal Charges" were a matter of public record

21 and were written about during the judicial campaign by the press and political blogs. "There are two truisms about Florida's election law concerning judicial races. One, eligibility to run for office is controlled by Article V. section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Any statute that restricts eligibility beyond the requirements of the Florida Constitution is invalid... And two, extreme care must be given to post-election challenges to avoid disenfranchising Florida's voters... barring fraud, unfairness, disenfranchisement of voters, etc. it is too late to attack the validity of an election after the people have voted." Levey v. Dijolis, 990 So.2d 688, 692 (Fla. 2008). Judge Watson satisfied the constitutional requirements for circuit court judge when qualifyi qualifying for election. Judge Watson was and is an elector of the state and resided in Broward County and was a member of the Florida Bar for the preceding five years with the privilege to practice law and still is a member. Voters have a right to cast their votes effectively and candidate qualification rules are in place to make certain that only qualified candidates appear on the ballot. Voters rights are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. See: Anderson v. Celebreeze, 460 U.S. 780, , 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983). If Watson was not a qualified candidate, an objection was required to be raised either before the election, or before the governor commissioned Watson as a

22 office. See: InIn re Advisory Op. to Gov., 17 So.3d 265 (Fla. 2009). The JQC's attempt to impose jurisdiction over Judge Watson amounts to an impermissible attack on the validity of the election by the addition of a qualification for circuit court judge which does not appear in the statutes. The Judicial Qualifications Commission ("JQC") has violated and continues to violate Judge Watson's substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Florida and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 US.C.A. u.s. CA. sec by initiating this inquiry in an unlawful manner, fully outside of its subject matter jurisdiction circuit court judge. AA governor isis not authorized toto commission a circuit judge- judge elect unless the judge satisfies the constitutional eligibility requirements for that seeking to replace the voter's decision with its own. This is an impermissible post post- election challenge to office violating Judge Watson's substantive and procedural due process rights and an attempt to deprive her ofher property rights as well. requests: WHEREFORE, based upon the forgoing, the undersigned respectfully I. 1. That the Honorable Kerry Evander cancel the Status Conference noticed for August 20, 2013 until such time as both the jurisdictional and procedural matters are resolved.

23 2. That the Honorable Kerry Evander cancel the Status Conference noticed for August 20, 2013 until such time as Judge Watson has been given a reasonable opportunity to file a reply to the JQC's Special Counsel's response(s). 3. That no ruling be made by the Honorable Hearing Panel until such time as it complies with the record disclosures required by its rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3E, and Judge Watson has been given a reasonable opportunity to file appropriate motions of recusal. Respectfully submitted, The Honorable Laura M. Watson Circuit Judge, 17th Judicial JudiCial Circuit CirCuit Room 1005B 201 I SE 6* th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tel.: (954) jwatson@l jwatson@17th.f1courts.org 7th.flcourts.org /s/ Laura M. Watson LAURAM. WATSON Florida Bar No.: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTfFY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by to: MilesA. McGrane, III, Esq. miles@mcgranelaw.com mileski:meuranelaw.com The

24 McGrane Law Firm, Special Counsel, One Datran Center, Ste. 1500, 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Miami, Florida ; Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq. Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC, Ste. 1612, 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Miami, Florida ; Michael L. Schneider, Esq. General Counsel, 1110 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32303, this 19th day of August Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by to: The Honorable Kerry I. Evander, evanderk@flcourts.org, evanderk@flcourts.ora, Chair of the JQC, 300 S. Beach Street, Daytona Beach, FL lsi /s/ Laura M. Watson LAURA M. WATSON

25 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO:, INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE TERRI-ANN MILLER; SUPREME CT. 1 CASE NO: NO, SC ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard before the undersigned upon the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and the undersigned having heard argument of counsel, reviewed the file and being otherwise fully advised, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. As to subject matter jurisdiction, the motion is DENIED as jurisdiction is vested in the Judicial Qualifications Commission by the Constitution and Law of the State of Florida The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED,, as the charging document fails to fully inform the Respondent of the specific conduct, acts or failure to act which violate standards of conduct or cannons of ethics to which the Respondent is sworn. The charging document also fails to site specifically which cannon, rule or standard has been violated.. Exhibit"A"

26 INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE TERRI-ANN MILLER SUPREME CT. CASE NO: SC The MOTION TO DISMISS is therefore GRANTED providedp r that t the h e Commission shall have twenty (20) days from the d.ate date hereof to amend or otherwise respond. DONE AND ORDERED this 26* day of February, th Cc: see attached service list lsi /s/ J. Preston Silvernail J. PRESTON SILVERNAIL SILVERNAlL CHAIRMAN, HEARING PANEL 2

27 Michael A. Catalano Counsel to the Judge 1531 N.W. 13th Court Miami, FL (305) (305) (fax) Michael J. Schneider Special Counsel 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL (850) (850) Marvin C. Barkin General Counsel P.O. Box 1102 Tampa, FL (813) (813) (fax) John Beranek Counsel to the Hearing Panel Ausley & McMullen P.O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida (850) (850) (fax) Brooke Kennerly Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL (850) (850) (fax) 3

28 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALlFlCATlONS QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE CHERYL ALEMAN; J SUPREME CT. CASE NO. SC ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or Motion for More Definite Statement, after argument, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED AS FOLLOWS: I. 1. The Motion is DENTED DENIED as to Paragraphs I, 1. 2 and 5 and the Respondent is Directed 10 to Answer Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 within twenty (20) days. 2. The Motion is GRANTED as to Paragraphs 3 and 4 and the Commission is ordered to amend Paragraphs 3 and 4 within twenty (20 ) days DONE AND ORDERED IN Chambers at Clearwater, Florida this 23rd day of May, lsi /s/ Thomas B. Freeman THOMAS B. FREEMAN, FOR THE COMMISSION COPIES FURNISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED MAILING LIST. Exhibit "B" Exhibit "8

29 Jerome Hoffman Nathan A. Adams, IV Counsel to the Judge P.O. Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL Honorable Thomas B. Freeman Chairman of the Hearing Panel th Street, North Clearwater, FL Brooke Kennerly Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL J. David Bogenschutz Counsel to the Judge 600 S. Andrews Avenue, Ste. 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lansing C. Scriven Special Counsel 442 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 280 Tampa, FL Michael Schneider Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL 32303

30 .. BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS I COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE SUPREME CT.. CASE NO.. SC RICHARD RD H. ALBRITTON,, JR.; ~ / ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR CLARIFICATION This matter was considered on the motion by Judge Albritton to dismiss the charges or for clarification of those charges.. The motion t too dismiss is denied and the motion for clarification is granted.. The charges shall be amended to designate which charges violate which Canons.. The charges shouldh be arranged in chronological order or divided into categories under the appropriate Canons.. SO ORDERED this 15th day of August,, FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION 8y By:/s/ : James R. Wolf JUDGE JAMES R. WOLF,, Chairman,, Hearing Panel,, Florida JUdicial Judicial Qualifications Commission 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida / / (fax) Copies furnished in accordance with the attached list.. Exhibit "e" "C"

31 Harry L. Harper Counsel to the Judge 1138 Jenks Avenue Panama City, FL ((850) ) (850)) (fax)) Honorable Richard H. Albritton. Albritton, Jr. Fourteenth Judicial Circuit P P.O.. Box 2237 Panama City, FL (850) ((850) ) (fax) David T T.. Knight Special Counsel Post Office Box 2231 Tampa, FL (813) ((813) ) (fax) Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr. General Counsel 1904 Holly Lane Tampa, Floridao (813) ) (813) ) (fax) John Beranek Counsel to the Hearing Panel Ausley & McMullen P.O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Tallahassee. Florida (850) ) (850) (fax) Brooke Kennerly Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission i on 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee,, Florida (850) (850) (fax)

32 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICAnONS QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA,* INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE, JUDITH W. HAWKINS, NO I l SC I l '1 \ ~'" / \ \ \ V' ORDER ON STATUS CONFERENCE The Hearing Panel Chair conducted a status conference telephonically on January 16, In attendance were the parties and their counsel, counsel to the hearing panel, the JQC General counsel and Executive Director, and a court stenographer. After hearing from counsel, the Chair determines the following: I. 1. The parties currently estimate that they need approximately 45 days for depositions and discovery. They should strive towards completion of discovery by March 7, A telephonic status conference/pretrial hearing conference will take place on March 7, 2013 at 1:30 I:30 p.m. The call in number is (888) , Access Conference Code: A court reporter will be provided by the JQC. 3. Respondent's motion to dismiss will be heard at the March 7'h status conference. Any pending discovery motions will be heard at the same time. 4. The final hearing of this matter shall take place in Leon County, on Exhibit "D"

33 April 15, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing is anticipated to last four days. 5. The hearing panel members currently scheduled to hear this case are Honorable Paul L. Backman (Chair), Alan B. Bookman, Esq., Michele K. Cumings, Esq., Harry R. Duncanson (lay member), Jerome S. Osteryoung, P.H.D. (lay member) and Honorable James A. Ruth. 6. Motions and legal memoranda shall be served on both Chairman Backman and Hearing panel counsel Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq. So ordered this 22"" 22"d day of January, FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICAnONS QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION By: HO RABLÈM¼ÚL L L. BACKMA'N JQC Hearing Panel Chair 17'h 17* Judicial Circuit, Chambers 5790 Broward County Courthouse 201 S.E. Sixth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301I 2

34 Copies Furnished inin accordance with the attached list: attached li st: Lauri Waldman Ross, Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel ofthe FLORIDA FLORtDA JUDICIAL JUDtCIAL QUALIFICATIONS Q ICATIONS COMMISSION ROSS Ross & GIRTEN 9130 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1612 Miami, Florida Telephone: (305) ) Facsimile: (305) Service : RossGirten(d RossGirten@Laurilaw.com Laurilaw.com Gerald Kogan, Esq South Lejeune Road SUITE805 CORAL GABLES, FL Telephone: (305) Facsimile: (305) GeraldKogan@aol.com wkh@tralinslaw.com Michael Schneider, General Counsel Brooke Kennerly, Executive Director FLORIDA JUDICIAL J QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL Telephone: (850) i Facsimile: (850) mschneider(alfloridainc.com mschneider@floridajgc.com bkennerl bkenneriv&floridaioc.com y@floridajgc.com Gregory R. Miller, Esquire, Special Counsel FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION ION B BEGGS && LANE LLP 5011 Commendencia Street Pensacola, FL Telephone: (850) I Facsimile: (850) grm@beggslane.com grm&beggslane.com jid&beggslane.com jid@beggslane.com 3

35 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: & I62 INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE ANA I. GARDINER ~/ S. Ct.Case No.: ORDERONSTATUSCONFERENCEON This matter came to be heard at a telephone status conference on March 30, 2010, I0, before Hearing Panel Chair, Judge Thomas B. Freeman. In attendance were F. Wallace Pope, Jr., Special Counsel to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (FJQC), Michael Schneider, Esq., General Counsel and Brooke Kennerly, Executive Director (FJQC), J. David Bogenschutz, Esq., counsel for Judge Gardiner, and Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq., counsel to the Hearing Panel.1I Kim Himes was the Court Reporter. This matter shall be governed by the following deadlines, which will not be changed except on a showing of good cause and extraordinary circumstances. I. 1. Depositions and discovery shall be completed by July 3I, 31, IO. 2. Pretrial motions, if any, are due by July 31, 1, Amendments to formal charges, if any, are due by July 31, IThe hearing was also attended by Tanya Alonez (Sun-Sentinel), Jordana Mishory (Daily Business Review) and Bill Gellin (Jaablog). Exhibit "E"

36 4. Responses to pretrial motions and amendments to fonnal formal charges, if any, are due by August 20, IO 5. The final hearing shall be set in September 2010, on a specific date and time in Broward County, Florida to be announced. It is anticipated to last two and one half to three days. Motions and legal memoranda shall be served on both Chainnan Chairman Freeman and Ms. Ross (by and post). So ordered this day of, IO. FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALlFiCAnONS QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION By: Hon. Thomas B. Freeman Chainnan, Chairman, JQC Hearing Panel CRfMINAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER '" 49* Street. N., ClealWater, Clearwater, FL I (727)

37 Copies furnished in accordance with the attached list: Michael Schneider, General Counsel Brooke Kennerly, ExeclUtive Exectutive Director FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUAUFICAnONS LIFICATIONS COMMISSION 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL Telephone: (850) Facsimile: (850) Wallace Pope, Jr., Esquire Special Counsel, Florida Judicial Qualification Commission JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, L.L.P 911 I Chestnut Street Clearwater, FL Telephone: (727) I 8 Facsimile: (727) J. David Bogenschutz, Esquire BOGENSCHUTZ, DUTKO & KROLL, P P.A. Attorney for Defendant 600 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL I Telephone: (954) Facsimile: (954) Lauri Waldman Ross, Esquire Counsel to the Hearing Panel ROss Ross & GIRTEN 9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1612 Miami, FL Telephone: (305) I0 Facsimile: (305)

38 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS QUALIFICAnONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: INQUlRY INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE N. JAMES TURNER ~I I S. Ct. Case No.: A II ' 08 ORDERONSTATUSCONFERENCE ON This matter came to be heard at a telephonic status conference on September 2,2009, 2009, before Hearing Panel Chair John P. Cardillo. In attendance were Marvin C. Barkin, Esq., and Michael K. Green, Special Counsel to the Florida Judicial Qualification Commission (FJQC), Michael Schneider, Esq., General Counsel and Brooke Kennerly, Executive Director, FJQC, Barry Rigby, Esq., Counsel for Judge Turner, and Lauri Waldman Ross, Esq., Counsel to the Hearing Panel. Susan Simonette was the court reporter. By agreement of the parties, this matter shall be governed by the following deadlines. These deadlines will not be changed except on a showing of good cause and extraordinary circumstances. 1. I. Witness and Exhibit lists are due on November 1, , 2. Any amendments to the formal charges are due by December 1, A response to amended formal charges, ifany, is due by December 15, Judge Turner's Memorandum of Law on First Amendment Defenses is due on December 1, Special Counsel's responsive legal memorandum is due on Exhibit "F"

39 December 15, This matter is scheduled for another status conference on December 16, 2009 at 2:30 before Hearing Panel Chair, John P. Cardillo. The call-in number is (888) , Access Conference Code: Discovery shall be completed by January 15, Pretrial motions are due by January 31, Motions and Legal Memoranda shall be served on both Chairman Cardillo and Ms. Ross (by and post). A separate order shall be issued setting the final hearing, which is estimated to last three days, and shall take place in Orange County, Florida. So ordered this A day of of ~ FLORIDA JLDICIAL JUDICIAL QUALIFICAnONS QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION By: JOHN P ARDILLO, ARDlLLO, ESQ. Chai n, Hearing Panel,,---"Jerllda FJerida Judicial Qualifications Commission 3550 Tarniarni Tamiami Trail E. Naples, FL

40 Copies Furnished in accordance with the attached list: Marvin C. Barkin, Esq. Michael K. Green, Esq. Special Counsel, Florida Judicial Qualification Commission Trenam, Trenarn, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, P.O. Box 1102 Tampa, FL Telephone: (813) Facsimile: (813) Michael Schneider, General Counsel Brooke Kennerly, Exectutive Director Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission 1110 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL Telephone:(850) Facsimile: (850) Barry Rigby, Esq. Counsel for Respondent Judge Law Offices of Barry Rigby, P.A. 934 North Magnolia Ave., Ste. 319 Orlando, FL Telephone: (407) Facsimile: (407)