CHIEF JUSTICE:ORNIN, WELC TE ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR FOR THIS WEDNESDAY AT THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. WE REGRET BEING A FEW MINUTES LATE GETTING STARTED. YOU WILL NOTE THAT JUSTICE LEWIS IS RECUSED IN THE FIRST CASE ON THE CALENDAR. THE FIRST CASE ON THE CALENDAR IS THE INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, MR. KLEIN.

YOUR HONOR. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS PHILLIP HUBBARD, AND ALONG WITH MR. KLEIN, WE REPRESENT THE RESPONDENT IN THIS CASE, JUDGE ROSA RODRIGUEZ. THE PARTIES ARE BEFORE THE COURT JOINTLY SEEKING THIS COURT'S APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF DISCIPLINE, WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE JUDGE BY THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION. THESE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BASED ON A STIPULATION FILED BEFORE THIS COURT, WHICH JUDGE RODRIGUEZ DOES NOT CONTEST, AND HAS WAIVED IN FACT, A PLENARY HEARING BEFORE THE HEARING PANEL OF THE FLORIDA JQC. WE, ALSO, HAVE BEFORE THE COURT, JUDGE RODRIGUEZ'S MITIGATION STATEMENT. AS THE COURT MAY RECALL, THIS CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE COURT ON AGREED-TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, BASED ON A STIPULATION IN WHICH THE RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE WAS A PUBLIC REPRIMAND. THIS COURT, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED AN ORDER REJECTING THAT RECOMMENDATION AND RETURNING THE MATTER TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. UPON REMAND, THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE JQC FILED AN AMENDED NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION, RECEIVED A WRITTEN RESPONSE FROM JUDGE RODRIGUEZ, WHICH I WILL, WHICH IS BEFORE THE COURT AND WHICH I WILL BE REFERRING TO FROM TIME TO TIME IN THIS ARGUMENT, AND CONDUCTED A HEARING IN WHICH EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED AND ARGUMENT WAS RECEIVED. THEREAFTER, THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO THEPULATION, AND THE FINDINGS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE EE,D E THE RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE IS A PUBLIC REPRIMAND FOUR MONTH'S SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY, AND A $40,000 FINE. AS THIS COURT IS AWARE, RULE 6.J OF THE FLORIDA JQC RULES, AUTHORIZES THIS PROCEDURE AND PROVIDES THAT THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL MAY REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGE, ON DISCIPLINE OR DISABILITY, AND SUCH STIPULATION SHALL BE DIRECTLY TRANSMITTED TO THE SUPREME COURT TO ACCEPT -- MR. CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE QUINCE HAS A QUESTION.

I KNOW WE ARE HERE ON A STIPULATION AND JUDGE RODRIGUEZ HAS STIPULATED, AND THE FIRST COUPLE OF STIPULATIONS, WE USE THE TERM IN THERE, THAT THIS, SHE KNOWINGLY ACCEPTED A CONTRIBUTION, AND SHE KNOWINGLY FAILED TO REPORT THIS CONTRIBUTION OR LOAN, WHICHEVER TERM YOU WANT TO USE. YET, AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE THAT IS RECOMMENDED HERE, WE HAVE THE JQC SAYING THAT THIS WAS NEGLIGENT, VERSUS INTENTIONAL CONDUCT, AND I AM NOT SURE HOW YOU SQUARE THE FACT THAT YOU SAY THAT THIS IS KNOWING, THAT SHE KNOWINGLY DID THIS, WITH IT NOT BEING INTENTIONAL ON HER PART.

SHE KNOWINGLY ACTUALLY SEND THE CONTRIBUTION. SHE KNOWINGLY FILED THE REPORTS AND SO ON, BUT I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IN MIND HERE, IS THAT THERE WAS A NEGLIGENT MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE FLORIDA ELECTION CODE, WHICH LED TO THIS.

AND WHAT WAS -- IF YOU COULD, IN TERMS OF THE FACTS, AND -- SHE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION SHE GOT A $200,000 LOAN.

PERSONAL LOAN. CORRECT.

EITHER IT WAS FROM HER BROTHER, THROUGH MR. BOCK OR MR. BOCK DIRECTLY. AND IN THE FIRST REPORTING, WHEN IT WAS A TIME WHICH SHE QUALIFIED FOR THIS DIFFERENT SEAT. SHE WAS GOING TO RUN AS A COUNTY COURT JUDGE --

CIRCUIT COURT SEAT AT THAT POINT.

THAT WAS THE CIRCUITT SEAT, ACTUALLY, THAT MR. BOCK,S THLOAN HAD CO

WELL, HE HAD DROPPED OUT, I BELIEVE, BY THAT POINT.

THE STIPULATION SAYS HE WAS STILL IN.

NO. HE DROPPED OUT SHORTLY AFTER. THAT HE DID QUALIFY.

AND THE FIRST REPORTING DOESN'T, SHOWS $200,000 PERSONAL LOAN. THAT IS HER OWN MONIES.

CORRECT.

THERE IS NO, AT THAT POINT, WHETHER SHE THOUGHT IT WAS COMING FROM MR. BOCK, THROUGH MR  MR., HER BROTHER OR FROM HER BROTHER, THAT IS A MISREPRESENTATION.

WELL, WE DON'T, WE ARE NOT FIGHTING THE JVMENT JQ Cs INTERPRETATION OF THIS, BUT SHE GENUINELY BELIEVED, AND SHE HAD A BASIS FOR THIS BELIEF, THAT SHE COULD DO WHAT SHE DID, NAMELY THAT YOU CAN ACCEPT A PERSONAL LOAN. THIS WAS A PERSONAL LOAN FROM A RELATIVE OR A FRIEND OR A LENDING INSTITUTION, TREAT THAT MONEY AS YOUR OWN, AND THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF ELECTIONS AND OPINIONS OKAYS THIS AND HAS GIVEN LEGISLATURES TO THE CIRCUIT JUDGES THAT YOU CAN DO THIS. YOU CAN TAKE A LOAN, PERSONAL LOAN, IN EXCESS OF $500, TREAT THAT MONEY AS YOUR OWN, AND THEN PUT IT IN YOUR PERSONAL CHECKING ACCOUNT, THEN WRITE A CHECK ON THAT ACCOUNT TO YOUR CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT, AS A LOAN TO THE CAMPAIGN. OF COURSE WE KNOW, IF IT IS YOUR OWN MONEY, EVEN IF IT IS LOAN MONEY, THERE IS NO LIMIT.

BUT AT THE POINT THAT SHE ACTUALLY MADE THE REPORT THAT SHE HAD THIS MONEY, SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE MONEY, DID SHE?

SHE HAD THE CHECK. THE PROBLEM WAS, AND THIS MAKES IT A CONVOLUTED SITUATION. THAT IS GOOD -- THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. BECAUSE WHEN HER BROTHER CAME IN WITH THIS CHECK, WHICH HE HAD BEEN PROMISING FOR MANY WEEKS TO GIVE HER, AND AS HE LEAVES HE SAYS BY THE WAY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HOLD THAT CHECK BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN TO ME ON ANOTHER CHECK GIVEN TO ME BY GABE RELY BOCK. THE JUDGE, AT THAT POINT, WAS TERRIBLY UPSET. SHE DIDN'T WANT TO ACCEPT A LOAN FROM HIM, BECAUSE HE WAS RUNNING ALSO, AND SHE WAS HER OWN CAMPAIGN TREASURER AND SHE SEND THE CHECK AND HAD NO PEOPLE AROUND HER IN HER LIFE AND NO PEOPLE AROUND TO ADVISE HER OF THESE THINGS. A COMPETENT CAMPAIGN TREASURER WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE CHECK. IT DIDN'T REPRESENT THE FUNDS OF HER BROTHER. HER BROTHER SAID I AM GOING TO PAY MR. BOCK BACK IN A FEW DAYS AND SO ON, BUT SHE MADE NO EFFORT TO HIDE THIS. SHE THEN PROVIDED THREE PIECES OF PAPER TO SHOW THE TRANSACTION ASSIGNMENT AND A GUARANTEE. I AM NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE CONDUCT. THE CONDUCT IS WRONG, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND UNDER THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES, SHE GENUINELY THOUGHT SHE COULD DO THIS.

WE HAVE BEEN TRYING, IN SEVERAL OF THESE GRIEVANCE MATTERS, TO SITUATIONS, TO WORK THROUGH THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION WOULD BE FINE. WHAT IS THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE $40 HOW IT IS ARRIVED AT, AND HOW DO YOU SEE THAT WORKING IN THIS SYSTEM?

OKAY. THE WAY IT WAS ARRIVED AT WAS THIS. SHE VOLUNTARILY STEPPED DOWN FROM THE COURT, FOR EIGHT MONTHS WHILE THE JQC WAS INVESTIGATING THIS MATTER INITIALLY, AND THEN, WHEN IT WAS SETTLED, WE THOUGHT SETTLED WITH A PUBLIC REPRIMAND, SHE CAME BACK ON THE BENCH IN FEBRUARY, SO SHE WAS GONE FOR EIGHT MONTHS.

WITH OR WITHOUT PAY?

WITH PAY. AND SO THE $40,000 REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SHE RECEIVED DURING THAT EIGHT MONTHS.

YEAH, BUT, THAT DOESN'T GO BACK INTO THE SAME POT, DOES IT? IT DOES NOT, A FINE WOULD NOT GO INTO A SALARYT, WIT?

THAT'S CORRECT. IT IS A FINE TO THE STATE. THAT'S TRUE.

AND FOR A PERIOD OF SUSPENSION, THE STATE WOULD HAVE TO PAYE SENIOR JUDGE OR SOMEONE TO TAKE HER --

TRUE.

-- SPOT.

THAT'S TRUE.

AND SO THERE IS A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

THAT'S TRUE.

THAN IS REPRESENTED BY THE STIPULATION.

THAT'S TRUE. I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE WORKED IT OUT SO THE MONEY COULD GO TO THE ACCOUNT FOR JUDICIAL SALARIES. WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE DONE IT.

BUT HERE, THE FORMULA FOR THE $40,000 WAS TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF --

-- THAT SHE RECEIVED DURING THE EIGHT MONTHS SHE WAS OFF.

-- THAT SHE RECEIVED DURING THE EIGHT MONTHS PERIOD.

THE PERIOD IN WHICH SHE VOLUNTARILY STEPPED DOWN. SHE WAS ALLOWED TO COME BACK IN FEBRUARY AND SHE HAS BEEN SITTING EVER SINCE 2001. THAT IS HOW THEY ARRIVED AT IT. BUT TO GET BACK TO THE POINT, WHICH I THINK THERE IS AT LEAST FIVE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES HERE. WE NORTH TRYING TO EXCUSE WHAT HAPPENED, BUT THERE -- WE ARE NOT TRYING TO EXCUSE WHAT HAPPENED, BUT THERE ARE SOME EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, AND THE FIRST ONE IS THAT SHE IS GENUINELY REMORSEFUL FOR WHAT SHE HAS DONE. THE COMMISSION HAS, AND I REALIZE THIS IS NOT, IN ITSELF, SUFFICIENT, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY A PRECONDITION TO THE DISCIPLINE WHICH HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED HERE, AND THE COMMISSION FOUND THAT SHE IS SINCERE IN HER APOLOGIES THAT SHE HAS MADE CONCERNING THIS MATTER AND THAT SHE CONTINUES TO MAKE. THE SECOND SITUATION IS THAT, UNLIKE THE ALI CASE AND THE Mc-- McMILLAN CASE, THAT SHE DIDN'T SENT ANYTHING ABOUT HER RECORD OR THE RECORD OF HER OPPONENT. SHE DID NOT ENGAGEN ANY SCURIOUS CAMPAIGN PRACTICES, AND THE SECOND THING IS THERE WAS A VIOLATION FILED UNDER THE CODE, AND THAT WAS DISMISSED, AFTER AGREEMENT WITH THE PARTIES, BUT THE FOURTH SITUATION IS THE ONE I WAS DISCUSSING EARLIER, AND THAT IS THAT THESE VIOLATIONS WERE DONE IN GOOD FAITH, UNDER EXTREME EMPOSSESSION AL -- EMOTIONAL PRESSURE, WITHOUT ANY CORRUPT INTENT, PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION CODE. SHE KNOWINGLY DID THE THINGS SHE DID, BUT SHE GENUINELY BELIEVED THAT SHE COULD DO WHAT SHE DID!

EXPLAIN TO US, AFTER THE ELECTION WAS OVER, WHEN DID SHE MAKE THESE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORMS? WHEN DID SHE FILL THOSE OUT?

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE?

YEAH. THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FORMS THAT YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT, INDICATING YOUR NET WORTH AND THOSE KINDS --

THAT WAS NOT BASED ON ANY NEGLIGENCE. THAT IS JUST PURE NEGLIGENCE. SHE NEGLECTED TO PUT DOWN, ON HER FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AFERX SHE WAS ELECTED, THAT, UNDER THE COMMERCIAL PAPER WHICH SHE HAD SIGNED, THAT SHE, NOW, OWED MR. BOCK $120,000, AND ABOUT TWO MONTHS LATER, SHE VOLUNTARILY COLLECTED THAT. SO THAT IS ANOTHER VIOLATION. THAT'S TRUE, BUT THAT IS NOT -- THE BULK OF THE CHARGES ARE BASED ON ELECTION CODE VIOLATIONS, AND SHE AND THEY ARE BASED ON A NEGLIGENT MISUNDERSTANDING.

YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE ELECTION LAWS DO NOT REQUIRE, WHETHER SHE HAD THE MONEY ON JUNE 30, ASSUMING SHE HAD IT THROUGH EITHER MR. BOCK OR MR. RODRIGUEZ, THAT SHE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE, AT THE TIME, THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY?

SHE THE SOURCE. THAT IS WHAT SHE DISCLOSED. I AM THE SOURCE.

KNOWING, NOW, WHAT SHE KNOWS ABOUT THE ELECTION LAWS, SHE WOULD HAVE FIRST, THIS JUNE 30 REPORTING, NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED ON THATE WA-

SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE SEND THE CHECK, PERIOD.

THEN, AFTER THAT, SHE WOULD NEVER HAVE TO SHOW, ON ANY CAMPAIGN REPORTING DOCUMENT, THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN BEING OTHER THAN HERSELF?

NOW, UNDER HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAWS?

NO. ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.

THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. WELL, THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT IS YOU CAN'T ACCEPT THE LOAN. AS I UNDERSTAND THE JQC'S POSITION, AND MR. BARKIN CAN ELABORATE ON THIS, YOU CAN TAKE A LIEN LOAN FROM A LENDING -- A LOAN FROM A LENDING INSTITUTION AND TREAT THAT MONEY AS YOUR OWN IN EXCESS OF $500 AND PET PUTT IT IN YOUR PERSONAL ACCOUNT. THAT IS YOUR MONEY. AND YOU DISCLOSE THAT YOU ARE THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS.

WHY WAS THE CAMPAIGN REPORT FILED IN SEPTEMBER 1998, HAS THE FULL ADDRESS OF THE LENDER, BEING HUGO RODRIGUEZ, BEING BEING-$200,000.

AFTER YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL IN WINNING THE ELECTION, THEN YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL LOANS THAT YOU RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF $50 THAT WAS USED FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES. THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT ALLEN SUNDBERG --

AT THAT POINT, THOUGH, WE KNOW THAT MR. HUGO RODRIGUEZ WAS NOT REALLY THE PERSON WHO WAS MAKING THE LOAN, CORRECT?

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, HE WAS STILL A SOURCE OF THE LOAN. UNDER THE COMMERCIAL PAPER THAT WAS PREPARED, SHE ASSUMED THE LOAN THE NEXT DAY.

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I AM STILL TROUBLED ABOUT, AND MAYBE THE JQC CAN REFER TO T I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAVE, AT WHAT POINT YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE WHO IS THE SOURCE, BUT IN THIS SITUATION, YOU ARE SAYING, WELL, YOU DIDN'T, YOU WEREN'T SURE THAT GABE RELY BOCK WAS -- THAT GABE. GABRIEL BOCK WAS STILL IN THE RACE. THE POINT THAT THIS CASE POINTS OUT IS YOU HAVE GOT BIG WAR CHESSS THAT WARD OFF OTHER PEOPLE, AND YOU HAVE GOT MONEY HERE. MR. BOCK WAS IN THIS RACE. SHE WAS IN THE COUNTY RACE, AND NOW YOU HAVE GOT AN OPPONENT. SHE CAN SHOW, JUNE 30, THAT SHE HAS GOT $200,000, KNOWING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN MIAMI, AS FAR AS JUDGES UNFORTUNATELY HAVING TO GET MONEY. WHY, THAT THAT CONCERNS ME. THAT IS THAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AGAIN? WOULD YOU TELL A JUDGE TO GO AHEAD AND --

I DON'T BLAME YOU.

-- GO TRY TO FIND A LAWYER IN THE COMMUNITY AND GET MONEY FROM THEM AND PUT IT IN THEIR ACCOUNT AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO REPORT IT? I MEAN, THERE JUST SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING --

THERE IS CONFUSION ALL ALONG ON THIS SUBJECT THERE. IS A WHOLE LINE OF DIVISION OF ELECTIONS OPINIONS, WHICH I REFERRED TO IN THE RESPONSE, WHICH I INVITE THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO, AT PAGES 10-TO-12 OF THE RESPONSE, BY THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, FLORIDA DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE, WHICH ADMINISTERS THE ELECTION LAWS, AND THEY SAY THAT YOU CAN TAKE A PERSONAL LOAN FROM A THIRD PARTY THAT CAN BE A PRIVATE PARTY OR CAN BE A BANK. TREAT THAT MONEY AS YOUR OWN, IN EXCESS OF $A 00. THAT IS YOUR MONEY. -- IN EXCESS OF $500. THAT IS YOUR MONEY. THEN YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE THAT TO THE CAMPAIGN ACCOUNT AND DISCLOSE THAT YOU, THE CANDIDATE ARE THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE DID.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THE ATTORNEYS IN THIS STATE WOULD THINK ABOUT A JUDGE GOING AND GETTING AN ATTORNEY HAD, WHO IS IN THEIR COMMUNITY, TO CONTRIBUTE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, AS -- NOT CONTRIBUTE. I AM SORRY. GIVE A LOAN TO THEM OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, AND THEN TELL THE PUBLIC THAT THAT IS REALLY THEIR MONEY?

IT MAY NOT BE A GOOD POLICY. I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK IT MAY NOT BE GOOD POLICY, BUT THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS SAYS YOU CAN DO IT. IN A CAMPAIGN PACKET WHICH THEY DISTRIBUTE TO AL THEJUDIL CANDIDATES, THEY HAVE A Q&A QUIZ AND HERE IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS. THEY GIVE IT TO ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. RICH RELATIVE MARY D WELL OFFERS TO PERSONALLYD $5,000 TO YOU AND SAYS PAY ME BACK, WHENEVER YOU CAN. YOU GLEEFULLY TAKE THE MONEY AND PUT IT IN YOUR PERSONAL CHECKING ACCOUNT. LATER, YOU WRITE A $2500 CHECK OUT OF YOUR PERSONAL ACCOUNT, TO THE CAMPAIGN, AND SHOW IT AS A LOAN FROM THE CANDIDATE. DOES THIS VIOLATE THE FLORIDA STATUTES ANSWER, NO. SURPRISINGLY ENOUGH, THIS PRACTICE IS PERMITTED. SECTION 106.075 FLORIDA STATUTES REQUIRES THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS TO REPORT ALL LOANS IN EXCESS OF $500 MADE TWELVE MONTHS PRECEDING THE ELECTION TO OFFICE. IF YOU ARE NOT ELECTED, YOU NEVER HAVE TO REPORT THE LOAN. AND JUDGE ALLEN SUNDBERG HAS WRITTEN A LEGAL OPINION WHICH YOU WILL FIND AT M OF OUR RESPONSE, AND I AGREE. IT IS NOT A GOOD POLICY. IT IS A LOOPHOLE THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE CLOSED, BUT THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS REPORTS, AND YOU WILL FIND THIS ON PAGE 12 OF OUR RESPONSE, THAT IN 1996 22 ELECTED JUDGES IN 13 CIRCUITS FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, IT COULD BE A LOAN FROM A FRIEND, A RELATIVE, THAT IS YOUR MONEY. THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR OWN CAMPAIGN. YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAMPAIGN AND REPORT IT AS YOUR MONEY. THAT IS WHAT SHE DID.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE INTO YOUR REBUTTAL TIME, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAVE A LITTLE TIME.

SINCE I DON'T HAVE ANY OPPONENT IN THIS CASE, I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY REBUTTAL.

LET ME ASK YOU BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, BECAUSE IT REALLY IS A FOLLOW-UP.

YES.

TO THE LAST HERE.O MUCH THE LEGALITY BUT ORICE USED TO MANIPULATE THE SYSTEM OR TO GIVE AN APPEARANCE THAT MIGHT --

ABSOLUTELY.

-- AFFECT OTHER POTENTIAL CANDIDATES, WHATEVER, AND THAT IS, REALLY --

I AGREE WITH YOU.

THAT THAT IS, REALLY, THE CONCERN. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY BEYOND THE LEGALITIES OF THE SITUATION HERE.

ABSOLUTELY. IT CREATES AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.

SO IT ENDS UP APPEARING TO BE AN IMPROPER CAMPAIGN TACTIC.

YES.

YOU KNOW, WE --

WE SAID THAT FROM DAY ONE, YOUR HONOR. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

PEOPLE WAITING TO SEE WHAT THIS AND REPORTING FUNDS AND --

IT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONCESSION THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE?

WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE THAT WAY BUT IT IS NOT ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED. BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. BUT THE REALITY OF IT WAS, NO, I THINK IT WAS PERFECTLY INNOCENT. THAT IS WHAT THE REALITY WAS. IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT.

THERE HAS BEEN NO DEMONSTRATION HERE THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE THE IMPROPER --

THERE WAS NO INTENT TO ENGAGE IN IMPROPER TACTICS OF ANY KIND OR TO MANIPULATE THE SYSTEM AT ALL. IT LOOSE THAT WAY, SO THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE HAVE AGREED TO THE, AND THE ONLY THING I WANT TO ADD IS THE JUDGE'S STELLAR PROFESSIONAL RECORD, WHICH IS IN THE RECORD. SHE HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BAR SINCE 1985. SHE IS A GRADUATE OF YALE LAW SCHOOL. SHE WORKED FOR FOUR PRESTIGIOUS COMMERCIAL LAW FIRMS, AFTER SHE LEFT LAW SCHOOL. SHE IS A GRADUATE, AS WELL, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA. SHE WORKED FOR CARLTON FEEDS. SHE WORKED FOR SMITH -- FOR CARLTON FIELDS. SHE WORKED FOR SMITH HEMS IN TAMPA. SHE WORKED IN MIAMI. SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST STELLAR JUDGE INS THE CIRCUIT COURT -- THE MOST STELLARE CIRCUIT COURT IN THAT DIVISION, AND SHE HOLDS HALF A CASELOAD AND IS VERY WELL RECORDED BY THE JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS WHO ARE IN FRONT OF HER. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT ALLEGED MISCONDUCT HAS EVER BEEN ALLEGED AGAINST HER. SHE HAS GONE THROUGH HELL IN THE LAST THREE YEARS IN THIS CASE, AND WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO TAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION AND APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE. THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU, MR. HUBBARD. MR. BARKIN. -- THANK YOU, MR. HUBBART. MR. BARKIN.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. THIS IS A TROUBLESOME CASE. IT IS NOT A CASE, THOUGH, THAT HAS BEEN DEALT WITH LIGHTLY OR HAS NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED. THE MATTER STARTED WITH A CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR CHARGE IN THE STATES ATTORNEY.

COULD YOU FILL US IN. IS IT THE JQC'S POSITION THAT THERE IS OR IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE ELECTION LAW IN THIS CASE?

WE DO BELIEVE THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE ELECTION LAWS, YOUR HONOR.

WHICH PART OF THE ELECTION LAW WAS THERE A VIOLATION?

WE BELIEVE THAT SEVERAL, FIRST OF ALL, ACCEPTING A CONTRIBUTION OF $200,000 AND SECONDLY, FAILING TO ACCURATELY REPORT THE SOURCE OR AMOUNT OF THAT CONTRIBUTION.

BUT WE ARE HEARING FROM MR. HAD YOU BEEN ART THIS MORNING, THAT THE -- FROM MR. HUBBART THIS MORNING, THAT THE ELECTION LAWS DON'T REQUIRE. THAT.

THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY IN THE ELECTION LAWS, AND I WILL DEAL WITH THOSE, IF YOUR HONOR PLEASE, BY GOING THROUGH THEM FOR JUST A MOMENT.

I THINK THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF THIS. ONE, AS JUSTICE ANSTEAD WAS DISCUSSING, THE APPEARANCE OF THIS IS VERY TROUBLESOME, BUT I AM NOT CONVINCED ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THIS, AND I THINK THAT WE, IN TERMS OF HOW WE LOOK AT IT, BEING ABLE TO APPROVE THE STIPULATION, IT MATTERS TO ME WHETHER THIS IS A CLEAR, YOU KNOW, WHICH LAWS ARE, HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS IT WOULD HELP THE COURT, IF I WENT TO THE ELECTION LAWS THAT ARE IN QUESTION, WITH REGARD TOE LIT OF THE DONATION. YOU START OFF WITH 106.08.1-A, WHICH POINTS OUT THAT NO PERSON IN ANY ELECTION MAY ACCEPT IN EXCESS OF $500 PER CANDIDATE. A SUBSECTION OF THAT SAME STATUTE SAYS THAT THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS DO NOT APPLY TO AMOUNTS CONTRIBUTED BY A CANDIDATE TO HIS OR HER OWN CAMPAIGN. THEN YOU GO TO THE DEFINITIONAL SECTIONS, 106.011-SUB3, ANDTHIS DEFINES A CONTRIBUTION AS A LOAN MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE RESULTS OF AN ELECTION. NOW, THE POSITION THAT WE BELIEVE IS ACCURATE, THAT WE THINK THE POSITION WAS TAKEN BY THE STATES ATTORNEY HERE INITIALLY, WAS THAT WHILE A CANDIDATE CAN MAKE A LOAN TO THEIR OWN CAMPAIGN, IF THE CANDIDATE RECEIVES A LOAN THAT IS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE ELECTION, AND IT IS NOT THE CANDIDATE'S OWN FUNDS THAT WE ARE PUTTING IN ON THE TABLE TO START WITH, THAT IS DIFFERENT.

IN OTHER WORDS IF YOUR AUNT MILLIE HAD GIVEN YOU A LOAN SIX MONTHS BEFORE, AND YOU HAD IT IN YOUR, YOU COULD USE THAT AND THAT WOULD BE ONE THING, BUT IF YOU ARE LOOKING TO RUN A CAMPAIGN AND YOU ARE LOOKING TO SEE WHO CAN HELP FUND YOU, AT THAT POINT THE ELECTION LAW SAYS THAT IS REALLY, HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.

YES, YOUR HONOR. YOU CAN GO TO THE BANK AND BORROW $200,000, THAT IS ONE THING. IF YOU BORROW IT FROM A FRIEND FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE ELECTION, THAT IS ANOTHER.

YOU SAY INFLUENCING, MEANING --

IF YOU WENT TO THE BANK AND BORROWED $200,000 TO MAKE YOUR CAMPAIGN CHEST, TO INFLATE IT AND MAKE IT APPEAR THAT YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS CAMPAIGN CHEST, WOULD THAT BE DIFFERENT FROM GETTING IT FROM A FRIEND?

MY VIEW ON IT, YOUR HONOR --.

BECAUSE THAT IS TO INFLUENCE ELECTION. THAT IS TO DRIVE OFF OTHER CANDIDATES.

IF THE LOAN IS INTENDED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND IT IS A LOAN THAT IS PROHIBITED, IF IT IS A LOAN THAT IS MADE ON GENERAL TERMS, IF YOU WILL, BUT ARM'S LENGTH LENDING INSTITUTION, NOT FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPTS . HERE THE RECORD IS RATHER CLEAR THAT IT WAS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH THE ELECTION.

JUSTICE PARIENTE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION.

WHAT, WHEN THE LOAN OF THE $200,000 WAS, WHEN YOU SAY MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING THE ELECTION, YOU MEAN THAT IT WAS MADE WITH THE IDEA THAT THIS WAS, MONEY WAS NEEDED, IN ORDER TO HAVE A WAR CHESS TO THE WARD OFF OTHER CANDIDATES.

ABSOLUTELY. THE RECORD INCLUDES SOME HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF TESTIMONY, TAKEN BY THE GRAND JURY, AS WELL AS 2.6-B PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ELECTION PANEL, AND I THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS LOAN WAS MADE FOR THE USE AND PURPOSE IN THE CAMPAIGN.

HAS THE JQC VERIFIED, THOUGH, THAT OTHER JUDGES IN OTHER CAMPAIGNS HAVE, IN FACT, USED THIS PRACTICE, WHERE THEY HAVE GOTTEN ATTORNEYS TO GIVE THEM MONEY AND THEN NOT REPORT IT AS A PERSONAL LOAN? IS THIS HAPPENING IN THIS STATE?

YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE NOT INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATED THAT. THERE IS MATERIAL PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT, AT LEAST IN SOME INSTANCES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAS BEEN DONE. NOW, WHAT THE RESPONDENT HAS ARGUED IS 106.075, IN WHICH THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT A PERSON WHO IS ELECTED TO OFFICE REPORT ALL LOANS EXCEEDING $500 IN VALUE MADE TO HIM OR HER AND USED FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES, AND THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN, AND PERHAPS THIS WAS SIGNIFICANT TO THE ELECTION BUREAU, ITSELF, THAT THAT MEANS THAT YOU COULD RECEIVE A LOAN OF MORE THAN $50, WE SAY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT LANGUAGE AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEFINITION, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE LOAN WAS NECESSARILY RECEIVED FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES.

THERE ARE TWO ISSUES. WHETHER IT COULD BE IN EXCESS OF $500, BUT THE MORE DISCONCERTING THING IS WHETHER THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW UP FRONT, WHETHER, WHERE IT IS COMING FROM. DID THE JQC INVESTIGATE THIS ASPECT THAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT, WHICH IS THAT JUDGE WAS IN A COUNTY COURT RACE. MR. BOCK HAD QUALIFIED FOR SEAT 30, AND YOU HAVE, THEN, HE IS STILL IN, BUT THEN THE MONEY GOES TO HER, AND THEN AS SOON AS SHE QUALIFIES, HE GETS OUT, AND WHETHER THAT, WHAT --

YOUR HONOR, WE HAD THAT VERY MUCH IN MIND. AND WE ASKED THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. WE RECEIVED DENIALS ACROSS THE BOARD, AS DID THE GRAND JURY, THAT THERE HAD BEEN ANYTHING IN THE NATURE AFTER PERVASIVE SCHEME TO HE VA THE ELECTION -- TO EVADE THE ELECTION LAWS. ULTIMATELY THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL CAME TO THE DETERMINATION THAT, GIVEN THE BURDEN OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, TO ESTABLISH A PERVASIVE SCHEME TO EVADE THE ELECTION LAWS, THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST WOULD BE BEST SERVED BY A STIPULATION. DRACONIAN IN PART, ROUGH JUSTICE IF YOU WILL, BUT A STIPULATION TO AT LEAST MAKE THE LOSS AS TO HOW THE $40,000 CAME UP. WAS THAT SOMETHING SHE OFFERED AND YOU ACCEPTED, OR YOU CALM WITH? OR --

YOUR HONOR, THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL CAME UP WITH THAT CONCLUSION. MR. MacDONALD MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASSIST ME. ALREADY MacDONALD SUGGESTS THAT TIME OFF WITHOUT PAY, PLUS THE $40,000, EQUALS EIGHT MONTHS.

YOU ARE TAKING THE ADDITIONAL FOUR MONTHS, WHICH IS MEANT TO TAKE ANOTHER $40,000.

YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU HAVE GOT, AGAIN, IFT AMOUNT WITHOUT PAY, THE ADDITIONAL FOUR MONTHS THAT SHE IS GOING TO TAKE OFF, IF THAT MONEY REVERTED, TO BE AOEAR JUDGE, THEN YOU HAVE GOT ONE THING, BUT --

YOUR HONOR, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, AND YET I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS ANY SYSTEM IN PLACE AT THIS POINT THAT WOULD PERMIT THE JQC TO ROUTE THAT KIND OF MONEY, WHETHER YOU CALL IT FINE OR --

THAT SOUNDS, TO ME, LIKE THAT IS DONE ON A COMPENSATORY BASIS, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING A PUNITIVE FEATURE IN IT, AND I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME TO GRIPS WITH WHETHER WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE, WITH THIS FINE, IS SOLELY COMPENSATORY OR WHETHER IT IS PARTLY PUNITIVE, AND I AM NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE, REALLY, OR WHETHER WE NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF SCHEDULE, RATHER THAN PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF SOME KIND OF HAT, ON AN AD HOC BASIS.

YOUR HONOR, GUIDELINES FROM THE COURT WOULD CERTAINLY BE OF GREAT ASSISTANCE, BECAUSE IT IS A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE SWIMMING. WE ARE NOT SURE IN WHAT DIRECTION. WE ARE TRYING TO BRING THE COURT RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE HOPES THAT THE COURT WILL SEE FIT TO GIVE US GUIDE ABS AS TO WHERE -- GUIDANCE AS TO WHERE WE GO IN THE FUTURE.

BECAUSE REALLY, I GUESS, THE EIGHT MONTHS THAT SHE WAS OUT WITHOUT, WITH PAY, NOT ONLY DID SHE GETS PAID, BUT THEN PRESUMABLY A SENIOR JUDGE HAD TO BE PAID FOR THAT EIGHT MONTHS, TO SIT IN HER PLACE, AND NOW WE HAVE, NOW, ANOTHER FOUR MONTHS, AND ANOTHER SENIOR JUDGE. IT IS FAR IN EXCESS, IT WILL COST THE SYSTEM FAR IN EXCESS OF $40,000.

YOUR HONOR, THAT IS PERFECTLY ACCURATE. THERE IS NO WAY THAT I CAN CONTEST THAT, AND YET YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVES. YOU KNOW, WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE. WHAT ELSE CAN THE PANEL RECOMMEND TO YOU? IF WE THINK THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM OF CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF FRAUGHT LENT INTENT, THEN WE ARE CERTAINLY NOTN A SITUATION TO RECOMMEND REMOVAL. WE RECOMMENDED PUBLIC REPRIMAND EARLIER. THAT CAME BACK TO US FOR REVIEW. WE ARE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

IS IT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, HOW THIS CAME TO THE JQC'S ATTENTION? WAS IT BECAUSE OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION?

I BEG YOUR HONOR'S PARDON, BUT I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T COME INTO THE CASE AT THAT POINT, BUT I WOULD GUESS THAT, ONCE A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION DEVELOPED, THEN IT CERTAINLY CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF JQC, AND IT WAS APRIL OF 2000 THAT I THINK A CRIMINAL INFORMATION WAS FILED. MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE COURT, AS I SAY, IS ROUGH JUSTICE. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE COURT'S GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION. WE THINK, THOUGH, THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, FOR WHAT WE THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW IF THIS CASE WERE TRIED. THANK THE COURT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. WE, THE COURT IS VERY APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR WORK AND INPUT ON IN THIS MATTER, AND OBVIOUSLY IT IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER FOR THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AS WELL AS FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL JUDGE. THANK YOU. JUSTICE LEWIS.