HEAR YE.
HEAR YE.
HEAR YE.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE GREAT
STATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN
SESSION.
ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA,
DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION AND
YOU SHALL BE HEARD.
GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES,
THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND
THIS HONORABLE COURT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.
PLEASE BE SEATED.
CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT.
THE FIRST CASE ON THIS
MORNING'S DOCKET IS AN INQUIRY
CONCERNING JUDGE RENKE.
MR. TOZIAN, YOU MAY PROCEED.
GOOD MORNING.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
SCOTT TOZIAN AND MY PARTNER
GWEN HINKLE ARE HERE AND HAVE
THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING
JUDGE RENKE IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS.
AS THE PANEL FOUND, JUDGE RENKE
HAD A VALID EXPECTATION OF THE
PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM HIS
FATHER BUT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE
PREMATURELY AND THEREBY WAS
RENDERED IMPROPER.
MOST RESPECTFULLY, WE BELIEVE
THAT THE PANEL CONFUSED WHEN
THE FIRM COULD ACCESS THESE
DRIFTWOOD FUNDS AS THEY WERE
REFERRED TO AND WHEN THE
EMPLOYER COULD PAY JUDGE RENKE
FUNDS THAT WERE DESIGNATED FROM
THERE.
IF YOU RECALL FROM THE RECORD,
IN THE YEAR 2000, JUDGE RENKE
HAD WORKED FOR HIS PHATER FOR A
PERIOD OF FIVE OR SIX YEARS AND
HIS AVERAGE INCOME WAS $20 A
YEAR, SOMETIMES SIGNIFICANTLY
LOWER THAN THAT, AND HE HAD
DISCUSSION WITH HIS FATHER AT
THAT TIME THAT HE WAS GOING TO
SEEK OTHER EMPLOYMENT.
HE HAD BEEN INTERVIEWING FOR
OTHER EMPLOYMENT, AND HIS
FATHER AT THAT TIME RECOGNIZED
THAT HIS SON HADN'T BEEN PAID
VERY WELL OVER THE FIVE OR SIX
YEARS AND AGREED TO PAY HIM
HALF OF SOME FEES THAT THEY
KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE
TO ACCESS FROM THESE DRIFTWOOD
CASES.
IN FACT THE FUNDS HAD ALREADY
BEEN DESIGNATED IN 1998 AS TO
WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO RECEIVE
AND THEY CONTINUED TO ACCRUE
INTEREST AS IT WENT ALONG, SO
THEY KNEW ALREADY THEY HAD FEES
PROBABLY APPROACHING $200,000.
CAN WE TAKE IT BY YOUR
ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE AT THE
OUTSET THAT, IT IS YOUR
EVALUATION THAT THIS IS THE
MOST SERIOUS CHARGE INVOLVED?
I DON'T THINK YOU CAN
NECESSARILY CONCLUDE.
THAT I CONSIDER ALL OF THEM
SERIOUS.
LET ME SPEAK TO
THAT. MY MAJOR CONCERN IS THE
PURPOSE OF THIS ELECTION TO
ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO FAIRLY
JUDGE THE QUALITY, THE
CAPABILITY, AND THE CHARACTER
OF THE CANDIDATES AVAILABLE TO
THEM, TO DISCERN WHO WILL BE
THE BEST JUDGE OF THE PEOPLE.
AND IT SEEMS HERE OBVIOUS THAT
THERE WERE GROSS
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND
MISCHARACTERIZATIONS, NOT ONLY
OF YOUR CLIENT'S EXPERIENCE AND
ABILITY BUT, ALSO,
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF HIS
OPPONENT'S, AND IN A JUDICIAL
RACE OF ANY, THAT SEEMS TO BE
THE MOST PROBLEMATIC TO ME,
BECAUSE THAT IS ALL YOU CAN
REALLY TALK ABOUT.
SURE.
AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU,
IF THE RECORD SUPPORTED THAT.
JUSTICE: WELL, HE IS TALKING
ABOUT HIMSELF, WHO HAS MANY
YEARS OF BROAD CIVIL TRIAL
EXPERIENCE IN THE COURTROOM, BY
AN ATTORNEY APPOINTED BY OUR
COURTS TO REPRESENT CHILDREN,
BY AN APPOINTMENT TO PROTECT
JUDICIOUS EXPERIENCE AS A
HEARING OFFICER TO PROTECT
VITAL NATURAL RESOURCES.
NONE OF THOSE INCIDENTS WERE
FOUND TO BE IMPROPER, OTHER THAN
THE BROAD CIVIL TRIAL
EXPERIENCE.
REAL JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE WAS --
JUSTICE: IN CONTEXT, WHAT HE
IS SAYING IS IF YOU LOOK AT ME
AND IF YOU LOOK AT MY OPPONENT,
THERE IS NO COMPARISON, AS FAR
AS ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE AS A
TRIAL ATTORNEY.
I THINK THE MESSAGE MOST
RESPECTFULLY WAS THAT HE HAD A
MUCH BROADER CIVIL TRIAL
EXPERIENCE, WHICH IN FACT WAS
BORNE OUT BY THE RECORD.
MR. MANSFIELD'S TESTIMONY IN
THE TRIAL WAS THAT HE HAD TRIED
A BUNCH OF CRIMINAL CASES
BEFORE HE WENT INTO PRIVATE
PRACTICE IN '91, A BUNCH OF
JURY TRIALS AS A PROSECUTOR,
AND THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT
HE EVER HAD A JURY TRIAL AFTER
THAT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THIS
ISSUE --
JUSTICE: WE ARE NOT TRYING
MANSFIELD HERE.
I UNDERSTAND.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I AM VERY
CONCERNED WITH THE ISSUE ABOUT
THE LOAN THROUGH HIS FATHER OR
THE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF HIS
EXPERIENCE.
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
MISREPRESENTATION ABOUT THE,
HIS TRIAL EXPERIENCE.
HE SAYS, AND THIS IS, I GUESS,
IN THE, HIS OWN STATEMENT ABOUT
HIMSELF, I HAVE ALMOST EIGHT
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE HANDLING
COMPLEX CIVIL TRIALS IN MANY
AREAS.
THAT WAS JUST BLATANTLY FALSE.
WE ADMITED IN THE ANSWER --
CHIEF JUSTICE: I COULDN'T
FIND A LAWYER THAT HAD LESS
CIVIL TRIAL EXPERIENCE AT THAT
TIME.
MANSFIELD, HIS OPPONENT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WE ARE NOT
TRYING MR. MANSFIELD.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HIS
STATEMENTS IN THE PRESS, YOU
HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT
IN WHICH THEY OCCURRED.
MR. MANSFIELD, IT WAS IN THE
PAPER AND PART OF THE RECORD,
THE NEWSPAPER SAYS MANSFIELD
FIRES THE FIRST SALVO.
HE SAYS MY OPPONENT HAS NO
EXPERIENCE AND I HAVE ALL OF
THIS GREAT CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
TRIAL EXPERIENCE.
IN FACT HE HAD NO CIVIL TRIAL
EXPERIENCE.
SO IN RESPONSE --
CHIEF JUSTICE: MAYBE YOU CAN
TALK ABOUT WHAT THE OTHER
OPPONENT DIDN'T HAVE BUT WE ARE
TALKING HERE ABOUT WHAT HE
REPRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC THAT
HE HAD, IN TERMS OF EXPERIENCE.
WHAT WAS HIS EXPERIENCE OVER
EIGHT YEARS AS A LAWYER?
HIS EXPERIENCE WAS IN
ASSISTING HIS FATHER WORKING UP
CIVIL TRIALS IN CIVIL
LITIGATION ARENA.
CHIEF JUSTICE: HE HANDLED
SOME CIVIL TRIALS IN SMALL
CLAIMS.
THAT IS TRUE, BUT TO GET --
JUSTICE: THIS IS BORNE OUT
NOT ONLY BY THE REFERENCE TO
THE TRIAL EXPERIENCE OR
WHATEVER, BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE
INCOME FIGURES HERE, THEY
REALLY SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT
THAT HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE
BEEN DOING SUBSTANTIAL TRIALS
OR OTHER RESPONSIBLE WORK,
BECAUSE THE INCOME THAT HE IS
RECEIVING DURING THIS TIME, IS
INCOME THAT IT LOOKS LIKE
SOMEBODY WORKING, A LAW STUDENT
PART-TIME DURING THAT PERIOD OF
TIME.
WELL, --
JUSTICE: NOW, HOW MUCH OF
THAT IS ACTUALLY THIS FAMILY
RELATIONSHIP AND HOW MUCH OF
THAT, REALLY, DOES REFLECT THE
FACT THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE
SUBSTANTIAL RESPONSIBILITY OR
EXPERIENCE IN THAT FIRM?
I THINK THE RECORD REFLECTS
THAT IT WAS ALL A FUNCTION OF
HOW HIS FATHER RAN THE LAW
FIRM, IN TERMS OF HIS INCOME.
THE INCOME IS WOEFUL.
I MEAN, IT IS MEAGER, BUT THE
TESTIMONY WAS, FROM EVERYBODY
WHO TESTIFIED IN THE CASE,
INCLUDING MR. GUREN, WAS THAT,
JUDGE RENKE WAS PHYSICALLY
THERE, WORKING MANY MORE HOURS
THAN HIS FATHER, WHO WAS THERE
AN AVERAGE OF 6-TO-12 HOURS A
WEEK AND MR. GUREN, WHO WAS
THERE AN AVERAGE OF FIVE HOURS
A DAY.
HE WAS THE PERSON THERE WORK
CONSISTENTLY.
I CAN'T ANSWER WHY HIS FATHER
PAID HIM SO POORLY.
MR. TOZIAN, THE THING THAT
IS BOTHERING ME ABOUT THIS
ARGUMENT IS THAT IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT THERE ARE A SERIES OF
THINGS, THE PICTURE THAT
PORTRAYED HIM AS THE CHAIR OF
THE BOARD.
THE QUESTIONABLE FINANCING OF
THE CAMPAIGN, AND THESE OTHER
MATTERS THAT ARE RELATED HERE,
AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION
AT ONE POINT HERE, THAT JUDGE
RENKE, REALLY, OWNED UP TO THE
FACT THAT THESE THINGS WERE NOT
RIGHT, AND THAT HE WAS REALLY
WANTING TO SAY THAT I RECOGNIZE
THAT, BUT THAT THE ARGUMENT
HERE WAS THAT HE HAS DONE A
GOOD JOB SINCE HE HAS BEEN
THERE AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO
WEIGH THAT, BUT NOW IF THIS IS
A CASE IN WHICH WE ARE GOING TO
JUDGE WHETHER WHAT HE DID WAS
RIGHT OR WRONG, IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
MATTER, AND I HAVE GOT A
CONSIDERABLE QUESTION ABOUT
THAT.
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS
OWNED UP TO IT, SIR?
ABOUT WHETHER THESE THINGS
WERE RIGHT OR WRONG.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMEWHAT OF
A TACIT ADMISSION THAT THEY
WERE WRONG.
WHAT JUDGE RENKE TESTIFIED
TO WAS THAT HE DID NOT
INTEND TO MISLEAD
ANYONE WITH THE SLOGAN "JUDGE
OUR VALUES".
HE DIDN'T INTEND TO MISLEAD
ANYONE, BUT HE ADMITS THAT
SOMEONE READING THAT COULD
THINK HE IS A POSSIBLE
INCUMBENT.
HE DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS FALSE
STATEMENT.
HE THOUGHT THAT WHAT IT SAID
WAS I WOULD BE A JUDGE WITH
THESE VALUES.
JUSTICE: THAT IS A
DISENGENUOUS POSITION, BECAUSE
LOOKING AT THAT OBJECTIVELY,
ONE HAS TO COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT IN A CAMPAIGN,
IT MADE THE PUBLIC TO BELIEVE
THAT HE IS THE INCUMBENT.
IF THAT IS HIS POSITION THAT HE
IS CLINGING TO, THEN IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT MY EVALUATION HAS
GOT TO BE ON A DIFFERENT PLAIN.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND
TO THAT?
JUSTICE: YES.
AGAIN, THE TESTIMONY HERE WAS, THIS WAS DONE AT
A TIME IN THE CAMPAIGN WHEN
THINGS WERE GOING VERY QUICKLY.
HE LOOKED AT IT AND IT NEVER
DAWNED ON HIM THAT THAT
SUGGESTED INCUMBENCY.
I THINK THAT IS THE WORD THAT
THE PANEL USED, IMPLIED
INCUMBENCY.
BUT THAT THAT COULD BE THE
INTERPRETATION.
THAT GOES TO THE LIEBER
STANDARD THAT ACTUAL MALICE IS
REQUIRED.
JUSTICE: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
ONE OF THESE THINGS MAY BE
INADVERTENT, BUT YOU NOT ONLY
HAVE A BROCHURE THAT INDICATES
OR YOU CAN IMPLY THAT HE WAS
THE INCUMBENT.
THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER PIECE OF CAMPAIGN LITERATURE
THAT SAYS HE WAS AT THE
CLEARWATER FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND
THEN ANOTHER PIECE OF CAMPAIGN
LIT YOUR THAT IMPLIES SOMETHING
ELSE.
I CAN SEE ONE INADVERTENT PIECE
OF CAMPAIGN LITERATURE, BUT THIS
WAS A SERIES OF THINGS, SO IT
APPEARS TO ME THAT WE HAVE A
PROBLEM HERE WITH THE HONESTY
WITH THESE CAMPAIGN PIECES OF
LITERATURE.
I THINK THAT, WHEN YOU SAY
THAT THESE THINGS IMPLY CERTAIN
THINGS, THE COROLLARY TO
THAT IS THERE IS A SECOND
INTERPRETATION.
WAS HE THE CHAIR OF THE
SOUTHEAST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
HOW DID HE GETS ASSIGNED
WITH JOHN RENKE THE CHAIR?
BECAUSE HE CHAIRED TWO
SUBCOMMITTEES AND THAT NAME TAG
WAS PUT IN FRONT OF HIS NAME
WHEN HE WAS CHAIRING THE
COASTAL RIVER BASIN BOARD AND
THE GOVERNING BOARD MEETINGS.
IT WAS A TRUE PHOTO OF WHEN HE
SERVED IN THOSE CAPACITIES.
JUSTICE: IT SAYS SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT.
THE BIG BANNER OF THE DISTRICT,
HIM UNDER IT AND THE CHAIR.
THAT IS EXACTLY HOW SWIFT
MUD SETS UP THEIR MEETING ROOM.
THAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN EXACTLY
HOW --
BUT OBJECTIVELY REASONABLY,
ANYBODY LOOKING AT THAT WOULD
ASSUME THAT HE IS THE CHAIR OF
THE DISTRICT.
WELL, AS THE PANEL NOTED THE
TEXT OF THE BROCHURE POINTED
OUT THAT HE WAS APPOINTED BY
THE GOVERNOR TO THE GOVERNING
BOARD, AND SO IT CLARIFIED
THAT.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND IN KINSEY,
THERE IS THIS CONCEPT THAT THEY
SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED
TO READ THE SMALL PRINT, BUT IN
KINSEY IT WAS NEWSPAPERS
ARTICLES LAID ON TOP OF ONE
ANOTHER, ACTUALLY A GRAPHIC AND
NOT PART OF THE BROCHURE,
ITSELF.
I DON'T THINK THE KINSEY
STANDARD OUGHT TO BE APPLIED.
I THINK THE DOCKERY STANDARD
THAT WE CITED FROM THE SECOND
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS IS
THE DOCUMENT HAS TO BE READ IN
ITS ENTIRE CONTENT HAS TO BE
APPLIED TO THAT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: JUSTICE
CANTERO HAS QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE
SOUTHWEST WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT ONE OR THE OR
THE ONE WITH THE FIRE FIGHTERS,
BUT I THOUGHT HE ADMITTED THAT
THAT WAS MISLEADING.
JUSTICE CANTERO, HE CONCEDED
THAT THE POINTS BEING MADE BY
THE JQC WERE VALID
OBSERVATIONS.
YES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, SOMEBODY
COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THAT AND
THOUGHT HE GOT ENDORSEMENT OF
THE FIRE FIGHTERS OR HE WAS THE
CHAIR OF SWIFT MUD BUT THAT
WASN'T HIS INTENTION, WHEN IN A
MAD RUSH TO RUN FOR JUDGE THEY
PUT THIS TOGETHER.
HE CONCEDED THAT HE AGREED THAT
PEOPLE CAN SEE IT THAT WAY AND
THAT GOES BACK TO WEAVER, WHEN
THEY TALK ABOUT --
JUSTICE: TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I
THINK AT THE HEARING IT WAS
SAID THAT IT WAS
NOT HIS INTENT IN CREATING THE
AD, BUT HE ADMITS IT COULD BE
MISLEADING.
IT WAS NOT HIS INTENT BUT HE
UNDERSTANDS, IN IT BEING
POINTED OUT TO HIM THAT THIS
COULD BE A MISINTERPRETATION,
AND IN FACT THAT IS WHEN HE
APOLOGIZED TO EVERYBODY IN
PASCO COUNTY.
HE APOLOGIZED AND SAID IF I RAN
AGAIN, I WOULD PUT MY NAME OUT
AND NOTHING ELSE.
WHICH IF YOU READ THE WEAVER
CASE, THERE IS NO WAY FOR FREE
SPEECH TO EXIST IF YOU HAVE A
STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
EVERYTHING SAID, ERRONEOUS
STATEMENTS AND TRUE STATEMENTS
DEEMED TO BE MISLEADING.
CAN WE GO BACK AND ADDRESS
THAT, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT ON THE
MONEY.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE
RECORD THAT THE MONEY HAD BEEN
PLACED IN A TRUST ACCOUNT, HAD
IT NOT?
IN A SEPARATE
INTEREST-BEARING ACCOUNT.
WAS IT IN A TRUST ACCOUNT?
YES, SIR.
IT COULD NOT BE RELEASED.
AND DID THE MONEY COME FROM
THAT ACCOUNT OR FROM SEPARATE
FUNDS?
SEPARATE FUNDS.
SO THAT MONEY STAYED WHERE
IT WAS?
THE OBLIGATION TO THE OTHER
SIDE WAS NOT IN ANY WAY
INFRINGED UPON.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
JUSTICE: THOSE PROCEEDS, WAS
THERE SOME KIND OF LOAN
TRANSACTION THAT CAME ABOUT OR
WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED TO OBTAIN
THE LUMP SUM TO MAKE THAT
PAYMENT?
HOW DID HIS FATHER OBTAIN
THE APARTMENTS THAT HE PAID TO
HIM?
JUSTICE: YES, SIR.
I DON'T THINK IT CAME OUT IN
THE RECORD.
I THINK HIS FATHER PAID HIM OUT
OF HIS SEPARATE FUNDS.
JUSTICE: SO THAT IS NOT
DISPUTE?
IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.
JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THIS, ONCE
HIS FATHER TOLD HIM I HIM GOING
TO GIVE YOU A PORTION OF THESE
FUNDS TO MAKE UP FOR THESE
MEAGER YEARS OF PAYMENT, HE
COULD HAVE PAID HIM RIGHT THEN
IN 1998.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WE HAVE GOT
TO LOOK AT THE RECORD AND I
GUESS WE ARE REWEIGHING THE
FINDINGS, SO AGAIN WE ARE CLEAR
IN 1995 HE MAKES $10,000,
$16,000 IN 1996, 18,000,
15,000, 11,000, 12,000, 35,000,
AND THEN COINCIDENTALLY IN THE
YEAR HE IS RUNNING FOR JUDGE HE
GETS PAID $141,016.
I DON'T THINK IT IS A
COINCIDENCE.
I THINK HIS FATHER QUITE
HONESTLY THE WAY THE TESTIMONY
CAME OUT AND THE PANEL
RECOGNIZED THIS, HIS FATHER
DIDN'T WANT TO PAY HIM WHAT HE
OWED HIM UNTIL HE ABSOLUTELY
HAD TO.
CHIEF JUSTICE: MAYBE HIS
FATHER DECIDED, SINCE HE WASN'T
A VERY GOOD LAWYER, MIGHT AS
WELL PAY THE MONEY SO HE COULD
BECOME A JUDGE.
I DON'T THINK THE RECORD
SUPPORTED THAT MOST
RESPECTFULLY.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT DID THE
JQC FIND?
WHAT WERE THE FINDINGS?
THAT IT WAS LOAN?
HE DIDN'T HAVE A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION OF PAYMENT OF THE
MONIES.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THEY CALLED
THIS A LOAN OF THE MONEY?
I DON'T THINK THE TIMING
COINCIDED THAT IT
WAS A LOAN.
AND THAT IS WHY THE FLORIDA BAR
SAID AN EMPLOYER HAS THE
DISCRETION TO PAY HIS EMPLOYEE
WHEN HE WANTS TO PAY HIM AND IN
THIS CASE THE CASE HAD
PROCEEDED TO THE POINT WHERE
ABSOLUTE SETTLEMENT AND AND
IMPROVEMENT OF THE SETTLEMENT
WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION TO
MR. RENKE AND SO HE PAID HIM
THE FUNDS.
WASN'T THERE AN INDICATION
IN THE RECORD THAT HIS PORTION
OF THAT SETTLEMENT WAS SUPPOSED
TO BE 20 PERCENT AS OPPOSED TO
WHAT WE HAVE HERE, WHICH LOOKS
TO BE A MUCH GREATER
PERCENTAGE.
THIS IS A MUCH GREATER
PERCENTAGE, AND NO, MA'AM.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, EARLY ON HE
WAS PAYING HIM $9.
EVENTUALLY WENT TO $11 AND HE
AGREED TO PAY HIM 20 PERCENT OF
CERTAIN SETTLEMENTS OVER 10,000
DOLLARS.
WHEN THEY GOT FURTHER ALONG AND
THE JUDGE COULDN'T LIVE OFF
THAT AMOUNT, HE WENT TO HIS
FATHER IN 2000 AND SAID I CAN'T
CUT IT ON THIS, AND THAT IS WHEN
HIS FATHER SAID I AM GOING TO
GIVE YOU 50 PERCENT OF
DRIFTWOOD, SO HIS FATHER
RECOGNIZED AND SAID SUCH.
JUSTICE: IS THERE ANYTHING
OTHER THAN HIS TESTIMONY WHICH
SAYS THAT?
WAS THERE ANY KIND OF WRITTEN
AGREEMENT?
THERE WAS NO WRITTEN
AGREEMENT.
THERE WAS THE TESTIMONY.
THERE WAS THE TESTIMONY OF THE
WIFE OF JOHN RENKE II AND THE
TESTIMONY OF HIS WIFE ON THAT
ISSUE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BEFORE YOU
SIT DOWN, THE COURT TWICE
REJECTED, BOTH FIRST A
STIPULATION AND THEN A
NONCONTESTED, THAT YOU WOULD
NOT CONTEST THE REPORT BECAUSE
OF CONCERNS THAT THE DISCIPLINE
WAS NOT SERIOUS ENOUGH, SO
BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, YOU MAY
WANT TO JUST TOUCH ON IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO.
THANK YOU.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THEN YOU CAN
TOUCH ON IT IN REBUTTAL.
JUSTICE: WOULD YOU EXPLORE
THE LEGAL STANDARD THAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO
THE MALICIOUS INTENT AND
WHETHER WE APPLIES THAT
STANDARD IN KINSEY AND HOW YOU
SEE THE LAW THAT IS APPLICABLE
HERE, WITH REGARD TO OUR CODE
AND THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT, AS
OPPOSED TO A SPONTANEOUS
UTTERANCE TYPE SITUATION.
WELL, THE STANDARD AS
ENUNCIATED IN WEAVER, WAS THAT
THERE HAD TO BE ACTUAL MALICE.
YOU HAD TO EITHER MAKE A
KNOWING FALSE STATEMENT OR A
RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE
FALSITY OF THE STATEMENT.
DID WE APPLY THAT IN KINSEY?
IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME
THAT THE COURT DID, THOUGH
THERE IS INDICATION THAT WEAVER
WAS REFERENCED IN THE
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF.
AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF
ACTUAL MALICE IN KINSEY.
RIGHT, SO COULD YOU DISCUSS
WITH US WHAT YOUR VIEW IS WITH
REGARD TO WHETHER THAT IS THE
APPROACH THAT THIS COURT HAS
ADOPTED.
IS IT NOT APPROACH THIS COURT
HAS ADOPTED AND ARE THERE
DIFFERENCES?
I THINK THERE ARE
DIFFERENCES, BECAUSE CANON 7
TALKS ABOUT KNOWING
MISREPRESENTATION, AND I THINK
THAT IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD
THAN THE ACTUAL MALICE
STANDARD, AND WE ARE NOT TAKING
THE POSITION THAT CANON 7 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
WE THINK THAT IT IS SUSENT ABLE
TO BEING APPLIED IN OVERBROAD
FASHION AND IT IS BEING APPLIED
IN THAT FASHION IN THIS CASE,
SO THAT IS WHAT OUR POSITION
IS, THAT WHEN YOU TAKE A
PICTURE THAT THE TRUE DEPICTION
OF THIS MAN SITTING ON A
SUBBOARD AND YOU SAY WE THINK
THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED AS HIM
REPRESENTING HIMSELF AS THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE ENTIRE SWIFT
MUD, YOU ARE SAYING WE THINK
THIS TRUE PICTURE COULD BE
INTERPRETED FALSELY.
THERE IS ALMOST, AND I SAY THIS
RESPECTFULLY, THERE IS ALMOST A
PRESUMPTION THAT A
CANDIDATE WHO SAYS SOMETHING
WHO COULD BE INTERPRETED IN AN
UNFAIR BENEFIT TO HIM, IS
MISLEADING THE PUBLIC.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BEFORE YOU
SIT DOWN, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO
ADDRESS THE ORIGINAL
STIPULATION WHICH WAS REJECTED,
WITH THE PUBLIC REPRIMAND AND A
FINE AND SUSPENSION.
YES, MA'AM.
CHIEF JUSTICE: SUSPENSION
OF, WHAT, 30 DAYS?
YES AND A $20,000 FINE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: HE REJECTED
THAT.
YES, HE DID.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE SECOND
TIME UP THERE WAS A PUBLIC
REPRIMAND AND A FINE AND WE
REJECTED THAT.
HAS THAT BEEN REJECTED?
I UNDERSTAND IT IS IN DOUBT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I THINK YOU
OUGHT TO ADDRESS WHETHER THAT
IS WHY, A SANCTION GREATER THAN
A PUBLIC REPRIMAND IS NOT
APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THE
JQC MUST BE GIVEN
GREAT DEFERENCE IN THESE MATTERS.
THEY HAD A TRIAL AND WERE ABLE TO
ASSESS THE CREDIBILITY OF ALL
OF THE WITNESSNESSES.
THAT IS POINT NUMBER ONE, AND
POINT TWO IS THE JUDGE REMOVED
FOR SIMILAR TYPE OF CONDUCT IN
THE McMILLAN CASE, HE HAD AN
ALL-OUT ASSAULT ON HIS
OPPONENT, SAID HE WAS A
PART-TIME JUDGE, SAID HE DIDN'T
WORK 84 DAYS, SAID HE WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS NOT BEING COLLECTED FOR
VICTIMS AND FOR COURT COSTS.
IT WENT ON AND ON AND THEN WHAT
THE COURT SAID WAS THE MOST
DISTURBING THING WAS JUDGE
McMILLAN'S PARTICIPATION IN
FOLLOWING A DRUNK DRIVER,
CALLING THE POLICE AND THEN THE
NEXT DAY MAKING HIS WAY INTO
FIRST APPEARANCE, GETTING ONE
OF HIS FRIENDS TO ALLOW HIM TO
BE IN FIRST APPEARANCE SO THAT
HE COULD SET A $100 BOND.
THAT IS THE ONLY CASE WHERE
THERE HAS BEEN REMOVAL FOR
CAMPAIGN ISSUES.
KINSEY WAS MUCH MORE SERIOUS IN
TERMS OF THE ABSOLUTE PATTERN
OF ALIGNING YOURSELF WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
JUSTICE: BUT JUDGE KINSEY
CERTAINLY DIDN'T REPRESENT
HERSELF AS BEING A WELL-VERSED
OR IMPROPERLY REPRESENT HERSELF
AS BEING A WELL-VERSED COMPLEX
LITIGANT OR WHEN IN FACT SHE
HAD NONE.
THAT IS TRUE, JUSTICE LEWIS,
BUT WHAT SHE DID WAS --
SHE PANDERED.
AND THAT BROUGHT DISCREDIT
ON THE ENTIRE JUDICIARY.
BUT AS FAR AS THAT CASE, DID
SHE REALLY ENGAGE IN
MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO HER
QUALIFICATIONS?
SHE WAS VERY QUALIFIED, WAS SHE
NOT?
AND SHE WAS A GOOD JUDGE AS
IS JUDGE RENKE.
JUSTICE: I DON'T THINK THAT
IS A CRITERIA, THAT IS I GOT MY
JOB IMPROPERLY SO NOW I CAN DO
WHATEVER.
THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS AND
I AM NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE EVER
SAID THAT.
IN MY VIEW WHAT JUDGE KINSEY
DID WAS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO
SKEW THE ELECTION, BECAUSE WHO
CAN ARGUE WITH LAW AND ORDERER?
SO IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT SHE DID
AND WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
PEOPLE GETTING THEIR POSITIONS
BY AN ILL GOTTEN METHOD, I
THINK JUDGE KINSEY'S METHODS
WERE MUCH WORSE, QUITE FRANKLY,
AND AGAIN BROUGHT CREDIBILITY
QUESTIONS ON THE ENTIRE
JUDICIARY.
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE
OUT OF YOUR TIME.
I WANT TO ASK ONE QUESTION.
AFTER KINSEY THERE WAS A VERY
CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE
JUDICIARY AND THE FOLKS
INVOLVED IN KINSEY TO EDUCATE
AND PROVIDE EDUCATION TO
JUDICIAL CANDIDATES, TO
EXPLICITLY NOT DO THIS.
YES, SIR.
JUSTICE: AND THERE WAS A
FIRM WARNING, AND THERE WERE
SEMINARS THAT YOU GO TO AND
LEARN WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT
DO, IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO
KINSEY.
THIS EVENT HAPPENED AFTER ALL
THOSE EFFORTS WERE IN PLACE,
DID IT OR DID IT IS NOT KNOT?
THIS IS A 2002 CAMPAIGN.
KINSEY WAS DECIDED MARCH 2003.
THIS WAS DECIDED BEFORE KINSEY.
JUSTICE: SO YOU CLARIFIED TO
ME THAT THOSE EFFORTS WERE NOT
AVAILABLE TO MR. RENKE THEN.
YES, SIR.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
I AM OUT OF ALL OF MY TIME,
AREN'T I?
THANK YOU.
CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE
OUT OF YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MARVIN BARKIN AND MICHAEL
GREEN, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE
JQC.
THIS CASE TOOK THREE TRIAL DAYS
IN CLEARWATER.
SOMETHING OVER 20 WITNESSES
TESTIFIED IN PERSON.
THERE WERE A MULTIPLICITY OF
EXHIBITS.
THE COMMISSION EVALUATED VERY
CAREFULLY WHAT WAS BEFORE IT
AND CAME BACK WITH TWO KINDS OF
RECOMMENDATIONS, ONE ON THE
FINDINGS.
THEY FOUND GUILTY AS CHARGED
FOR A VARIETY OF
MISREPRESENTATIONS.
FIVE SPECIFIC
MISREPRESENTATIONS.
WITH REGARD TO CAMPAIGN
FINANCE, THEY FOUND THAT
$95,800, SOMEWHAT MORE IN EXCESS
OF THE $500 LIMIT ON CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS WAS DIRECT
CONTRIBUTION BY THE FATHER TO
THE SON FOR THE PURPOSE OF USE
IN THE 2002 ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS IS MY
QUESTION.
I THINK YOU HEAR FROM THE
QUESTIONS OF THE COURT, WE ARE
QUITE DISTRESSED BY THE
COMBINATION OF THE CLEAR
MISREPRESENTATIONS, AND, AGAIN,
AS I POINTED OUT, I THINK THAT
THE MISREPRESENTATION OF HIS
EXPERIENCES IS KNOWING AND
EGREGIOUS INTENTIONAL
VIOLATION, AS WELL AS CAMPAIGN
FINANCE.
YOU KNOW, IN KINSEY, JUSTICE
LEWIS FELT
THAT DISBARMENT, REMOVAL WAS
CALLED FOR, AND I JOINED IN
BECAUSE THE JQC HAD SAID NOT
REMOVAL HERE.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS TREND
THAT WE HAVE THAT WE HAVE
JUDGES WHO GET INTO OFFICE
WITH CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS THAT
ARE EXTREMELY SERIOUS
MISREPRESENTATIONS, AND THEN
BECAUSE THEY SERVE FOR A FEW
YEARS AS A GOOD JUDGE, WE SAY
THEY ARE A GOOD JUDGE.
NOW, HELP US IN TERMS OF WHERE
IS THE BAR GOING TO BE?
WHAT IS THE LESSON HERE THAT,
IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING MORE
SERIOUS THAN A PUBLIC REPRIMAND
AND A FINE FOR THE NEXT
JUDICIAL CANDIDATE COMING
ALONG, IS THIS THE SITUATION
THAT ENDS DO JUSTIFY THE MEANS,
BECAUSE IN THE END YOU STAY ON.
PAY A FINE AND GET CALLED ON TO
COME BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT
BUT OTHERWISE, IF YOU DO A GOOD
JOB, IT IS OKAY.
YOUR HONORS HAVE A GREAT
RESPONSIBILITY, AND IT IS BY A
CASE ADJUDICATION OR SETTING
FORTH DISCIPLINARY STANDARDS AS
IN BAR DISCIPLINARY MATTERS,
SETTING OUT WHAT THE PENALTY
WILL BE FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF
OFFENSES.
AT THIS PLACE WHAT WE DO NOW OF
COURSE, IS WE HAVE AN
INVESTIGATIVE PANEL IN JQC
WHICH BRINGS CHARGES.
REQUIRES DISCIPLINE, COMES OUT
WITH A CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE,
THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL
RECOMMENDED DISCIPLINE FOR THE
MISREPRESENTATIONS IN ACCORD
WITH YOUR PRIOR PRECEDENT,
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE AND
REPRIMAND.
IN ADDITION ASKED FOR REMOVAL
WITH REGARD TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE
RECOMMENDATION.
THE HEARING PANEL CHOSE TO DO
SOMETHING DIFFERENT, AND AS FAR
AS I AM CONCERNED TODAY, I
SPEAK FOR THE JQC AS IT SPEAKS
WITH ONE VOICE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT THE JQC
DID ASK FOR REMOVAL.
THE HEARING INVESTIGATIVE
PANEL DID.
THE HEARING PANEL CHOSE NOT TO
RECOMMEND THAT.
THE HEARING PANEL CONCLUDED
THAT SERVICE AS A JUDGE,
REMORSE, CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS
RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS FATHER.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT DOES THE
LAW SAY ABOUT WHETHER, IF THE
HEARING PANEL WOULD BE LIKE A
REFEREE, SO CLEARLY WE HAVE A
GREATER RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK
AT DISCIPLINE, OUR FINDINGS AS
FAR AS DISCIPLINE WOULD BE
DIFFERENT FROM THE FINDINGS OF
FACT.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
I AGREE, YOUR HONOR, THAT
HISTORICALLY YOU GIVE GREAT
DEFERENCE TO THE JQC'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS.
I THINK HISTORICALLY THERE HAS
BEEN LESS DEFERENCE TO THE
RECOMMENDATIONS ON DISCIPLINE THAN
TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON GUILT
ITSELF, BUT THAT, OF COURSE, IS
A QUESTION ON A CASE-BY-CASE
BASIS.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE,
THE FINDINGS OF THE JQC ARE
STRONG.
PERHAPS IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO
THE COURT TO POINT OUT WITH
REGARD TO THE ARGUMENT YOU JUST
HEARD, SOME OF THE SPECIFIC
FINDINGS.
WITH REGARD TO
MISREPRESENTATIONS, THE, ON
SWIFT MUD, THE CONCLUSION WAS
THAT HE HAD DELIBERATELY
ATTEMPTED TO CONVEY TO VOTERS
THAT HE WAS THE CHAIR.
ON THE FIRE FIGHTERS, THAT HE
ATTEMPTED TO CREATE IMPRESSION
THAT HE HAD BEEN ENDORSED BY
THE CLEARWATER FIRE FIGHTERS.
ON TRIAL, THE PANEL CHOSE
SPECIFICALLY NOT TO ACCEPT THE
EXPLANATION THAT JUDGE RENKE
DID NOT GRASP THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN HANDLING A COMPLEX
TRIAL AND MERE LITIGATION
EXPERIENCE.
IT SAID THAT HE MADE A
MISREPRESENTATION, WHICH WAS IN
FACT MISLEADING BECAUSE HE HAD
ALMOST NO TRIAL EXPERIENCE.
JUSTICE: BUT WOULD A REMOVAL
IN THIS INSTANCE,
BE A, MORE THAN WE HAVE DONE IN
OTHER CASES?
McMILLAN IS PROBABLY THE
CLOSEST, BUT McMILLAN HAD
ANOTHER INGREDIENT TO IT.
IT HAD AN EX PARTE
COMMUNICATION INVOLVED IN IT.
IT WOULD BE, YOUR HONOR.
AS I REMEMBER THE HISTORY OF
JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN CASES, YOU
HAD SEVERAL IN THE '80s.
ONE WAS A MAN NAMED KAYE.
THOSE CASES WENT OFF JUST ON
REPRIMAND.
AFTER, IN 1997, YOU HAD ALLEY,
WHICH BEFORE THIS COURT HAD THE
EFFECT TO REJECT OR MODIFY.
JUSTICE: THAT WAS A
REPRIMAND.
MORE RECENTLY WE HAVE HAD
KINSEY.
WE HAVE HAD McMILLAN.
KINSEY WAS REPRIMAND PLUS A
$50,000 FINE.
CAN I ASK ABOUT THAT?
THESE NUMBERS THAT WE SEE
COMING INTO, THE AMOUNTS OF
FINES, WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR
THAT?
IS THERE A FEE SCHEDULE?
YOU LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND
SAY HOW ABOUT $75,000 OR WHERE
DOES, HOW ABOUT $100,000?
I MUST CONFESS TO YOUR
HONOR, I BELIEVE
IT IS THE DISCRETION OF THE HEARING PANEL,
AND IN THIS CASE THEY SAID
$95,800 IS THE APPROPRIATE FINE
BUT THEY DID NOT DO THAT THE.
IS THAT BASED ON THE SALARY?
THAT IS BASED ON THE
EXACT AMOUNT MADE BY THE FATHER
TO THE SON FOR THE PURPOSE OF
THE CAMPAIGN.
DID YOU AGREE WITH YOUR
OPPONENT THAT THE EFFORTS BY
JUDGE CONN AND HIS COMMITTEE TO
EDUCATE JUDICIAL CANDIDATES,
THAT IT DID NOT TAKE EFFECT OR
WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS
TIME?
YOU ARE CERTAINLY RIGHT.
IT WAS A JANUARY 2003 DECISION
IN KINSEY.
I THINK THERE HAS BEEN AN
ONGOING EFFORT TO TRY TO
EDUCATE THE JUDICIARY AND
JUDICIAL CANDIDATES.
JUSTICE: THOSE EFFORTS WELL
PRECEDED KINSEY, DID THEY NOT?
THEY DID, INDEED.
JUSTICE: THEY HAD BEEN IN
EFFECT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS?
THEY DID HAD, INDEED.
THERE ARE INSTANCES, A FEW OF
THEM STILL OUT THERE.
I AM SORRY TO SAY THERE ARE
INSTANCES IN WHICH THE PROSPECT
OF SERVING AS A JUDGE OVERCOMES
WHAT I AM SURE IS INTELLIGENCE
AND DISCRETION.
JUSTICE: WHAT ABOUT YOUR
OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT HERE THAT
McMILLAN WAS A DIFFERENT AND
MORE SERIOUS CASE, IN TERMS OF
OUR CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL,
BECAUSE IN McMILLAN WE NOT ONLY
HAD VERY, VERY SERIOUS
MISCONDUCT DURING THE CAMPAIGN,
BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAD
VERY SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, ONCE THAT PERSON WENT ON THE
BENCH.
I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH
THE POSITION THAT THERE WAS
SOMETHING VERY SERIOUS IN
McMILLAN, THE FACTOR WHERE HE
TRIED TO SIT ON AN ARRAIGNMENT
ON A MAN HE HAD TURNED IN AS A
DRUNK DRIVER.
THE QUESTION
I HAVE HERE FOR THE COURT AND
ONE THAT I DO NOT ADVOCATE,
BECAUSE I ADVOCATE THE POSITION
OF THE PANEL, WHICH WAS A FINE
PLUS A REPRIMAND, BUT THE
QUESTION I HAVE HERE IS WHETHER
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION,
EXCEEDING THE $500 LIMIT,
PUTTING YOURSELF IN AN AREA
WHERE YOU SQUARELY COME HEAD ON
WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS,
WHETHER THAT IS A FACTOR THAT
IS SUFFICIENTLY SEVERE SO IT
SUBSTITUTES FOR THE CURE CASE
IN McMILLAN.
I DO NOT ADVOCATE THAT IT DOES
BUT I SIMPLY POINT IT OUT TO
YOUR HONOR BECAUSE YOUR HONOR'S
QUESTION WAS IS THERE SOMETHING
HERE THAT IS EQUALLY SERIOUS?
AND I WOULDN'T BE HONEST IF I
DIDN'T SUGGEST TO THE HEARING
PANEL THAT THAT WAS TRUE BUT
THE HEARING PANEL CAME OUT TO A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
JUSTICE: LET ME ASK YOU
ABOUT THE MITIGATING FACTORS.
YOU MENTIONED REMORSE.
IT SEEMS LIKE JUDGE RENKE AT
THE HEARING AT LEAST, CONTESTED
EACH CHARGE AS TO WHETHER IT
HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY PROVEN BY
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE,
SO WHERE IS THE REMORSE IF HE
CONTESTED THE CHARGES?
IN FAIRNESS IN A NEWSPAPER
OF INSTANCES BY HIS PLEADINGS,
HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD SAID
MORE THAN HE SHOULD HAVE SAID.
FOR EXAMPLE WITH REGARD TO
TRIAL EXPERIENCE, HIS ANSWER
SAID ADMITTED THAT HIS CLAIM OF
TRIAL EXPERIENCE, HIS ATTEMPT
TO SUBSTITUTE LITIGATION
EXPOSURE AND TRIAL EXPERIENCE,
WAS OVERBLOWN, OVERSTATED.
CERTAINLY THE PANEL WHICH HEARD
HIM AT LENGTH, HE WAS EXAMINED
TWICE AT SOME LENGTH, THE PANEL
CONCLUDED HE HAD SHOWN REMORSE
AND THAT IS A FACTUAL FINDING
OF THE PANEL.
JUSTICE: LET ME ASK YOU
THIS, BECAUSE WHAT CONCERNS ME
HERE IS THAT WE HAVE HAD A
NUMBER OF CASES WHERE WE HAVE
IMPOSED FINES ON JUDGES FOR
THIS KIND OF CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY.
AND YET WE CONTINUE TO HAVE
CASES WHERE THAT IS DONE, AND
SO WHAT IS THE MIDDLE GROUND
HERE BETWEEN REMOVAL OF A JUDGE
FOR THESE KINDS OF CAMPAIGN
VIOLATIONS AND SIMPLY ALLOWING
HIM TO PAY A FINE AND THAT IS
THE END OF IT.
YOUR HONOR, THE MESSAGE THAT
IS BEING HEARD, AND WHAT IS
SAID UP TO NOW THAT YOU
COULDN'T SAY LOUD ENOUGH, IS
REMOVE WILL --
JUSTICE: ONCE YOU GET INTO
REMOVAL, THAT ENTAILS SOMEONE
TAKING OVER THE DOCKET AND THE
STATE INCURING EXPENSES FOR
SENIOR JUDGE TO SAY TAKE OVER
THESE DOCKETS, SO THERE HAS TO
BE SOME OTHER WAY WE CAN HANDLE
THOSE KINDS OF SITUATIONS.
YOUR HONOR, IN RODRIGUEZ,
YOU APPROVED A 4-MONTH
SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY, WHICH
TOGETHER WITH A FINE WAS A
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF WHAT
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ HAD BEEN PAID
WHILE SHE WAS NOT SERVING ON
THE BENCH AND AWAITING THE
OUTCOME OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING.
THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER INSTANCES
IN WHICH A RECOMMENDATION HAS
BEEN MADE TO YOU FOR A SHORT
SUSPENSION.
IN THIS CASE, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WAS, THE PROPOSED
DISCIPLINE THAT WAS REJECTED
WHEN YOU SENT THIS MATTER BACK
FOR TRIAL WAS A ONE-MONTH
SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THIS IS THE
TROUBLE.
WHEN WE ARE DOING OUR
DISCIPLINE CASES, WE ARE
GOING TO A ONE-YEAR
SUSPENSION.
IT DOESN'T
AFFECT THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE.
I THINK THE DILEMMA THE COURT
HAS BEEN IN, IS THAT THIS IDEA
THAT SOMEONE GETS SUSPENDED
WITHOUT PAY FOR A MONTH OR TWO,
AGAIN, THE PROBLEM, WHETHER YOU
GET, THEY ARE SUSPENDED WITHOUT
PAY IS, NEVERTHELESS, IT
AFFECTS AND INTERFERES WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, AND
I GUESS THERE IS, MAYBE THE
ANSWER IS THERE IS, EITHER IT
IS A PUBLIC REPRIMAND PLUS A
FINE, WHICH MAKES IT SOUND LIKE
IF YOU PAY YOU CAN AVOID
REMOVAL.
I GUESS WE GO BACK TO THIS CASE
WHETHER WE ARE STILL BOUND BY
KINSEY, THAT THAT IS THE BAR
AND IT LETS YOU DO WORSE THAN
KINCE.
NOW, KINSEY HAD
MISREPRESENTATIONS.
DID KINSEY HAVE CAMPAIGN
FINANCE VIOLATIONS?
SHE DID NOT.
KINSEY WAS A PANDERING CASE.
WHICH SHE SAID, BASICALLY, THAT
SHE AND THE S.W.A.T. TEAM WOULD
TAKE CARE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
IN PENSACOLA.
CHIEF JUSTICE: IT IS HARD TO
DECIDE, AGAIN WHEN YOU ARE
SAYING, IS IT DIVORCE PANDER OR
IS IT DIVORCE MISREPRESENT,
SORT IT, IT IS SORT OF LIKE,
AND, AGAIN, I HAVE ONLY HEARD
THINGS ABOUT JUDGE RENKE ON THE
BENCH, SO I HAVE GOT TO
SEPARATE, AGAIN, THAT HE
PERFORMS WELL AS A JURIST FROM
WHAT OCCURRED UP TO THAT POINT,
BUT THE PICTURE THAT IS PAINTED
IS SOMEBODY THAT, IF YOU HAD TO
TAKE ALL OF THE LAWYERS IN
FLORIDA THAT THIS WAS LAWYER
THAT WAS BASICALLY JUST GETTING
BY, WHETHER HIS FATHER
SUPPRESSED HIM OR NOT, HE WAS
UNDER THE THEM OF HIS FATHER
AND ESSENTIALLY FOR EIGHT
YEARS, PERFORMED AS, MAYBE AS A
LAW CLERK, AND THEN BECAUSE
EITHER HE OR HIS FATHER DECIDE
LET'S GET HIM ON THE BENCH,
THEN MONEY IS LOANED FROM HIS
FATHER TO GET HIM ON THE BENCH.
BUYING ELECTION.
I GUESS THOSE COMBINATION OF
THOSE TWO THINGS, WHAT COULD BE
WORSE THAN THOSE TWO THINGS IS
FOR A CAMPAIGN, DURING A
CAMPAIGN?
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE
PANEL FELT SOMEWHAT THE SAME
DILEMMA THAT YOUR HONOR IS
EXPRESSING NOW.
AT ONE POINT IN THE PANEL'S
FINDINGS, THEY SAID AND I
QUOTE, BASED ON CLEAR AND
CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THE PANEL
CONCLUDES THAT THESE WERE
ACTUALLY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM HIS FATHER.
WITHOUT THESE PAYMENTS, IT IS
DOUBTFUL THAT JUDGE RENKE III
COULD HAVE RUN FOR OR BEEN
ELECTED TO HIS POSITION AND YET
AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION THEY
CONCLUDED THAT HE HAD SHOWN
SUFFICIENT REMORSE AND
DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT ABILITY
AS A JUDGE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: NOW, THERE IS
THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE,
BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF
CHARGES WERE IN OCTOBER 2003,
SOUGHT ELECTION WAS OCTOBER
2002, I MEAN NOVEMBER 2002?
2002.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WE, AND THEN
THE DISCIPLINE WAS, THE
FINDINGS WERE 2004, WHICH WE
REJECTED, SO THE REASON THIS
CASE HAS GONE FOR TWO MORE
YEARS IS BECAUSE WE REJECTED
THE ORIGINAL DISCIPLINE, AND
THE ORIGINAL DISCIPLINE WAS AND
THAT IS THE IRONY, WAS GREATER
THAN WHAT THE PANEL HAS NOW
RECOMMENDED.
FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT, I
BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE OTHER ONE
HAD A SUSPENSION.
A SUSPENSION BUT A SMALLER
FINE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: SO THE IDEA
THAT I HAVE, AND I GUESS THIS
IS SOMETHING THAT THE JQC IS
DOING, THE PROBLEM WITH SOME OF
THESE CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS IS
THAT, BY THE TIME THEY GET TO
US, TWO OR THREE YEARS HAVE
TRANSPIRED, AND THEN THE
ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE, WELL,
THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING
WRONG YET AS A JUDGE, SO WE
OUGHT TO LET THEM STAY ON THE
BENCH, AND THAT LEADS TO THIS
IDEA THAT, AGAIN, JUSTICE LEWIS
ELOQUENTLY EXPRESSED IN KINSEY,
THAT THIS GIVES THE IMPRESSION
THAT WE ARTICLE ALLOWING PEOPLE
TO GET TO THEIR POSITION BY
IMPROPER MEANS AND THEN
REWARDING THEM.
YOUR HONOR, I AM SURE THE
JQC COULD USE THE GUIDANCE OF
THIS COURT, HOPEFULLY SO AS TO
PUT A COLD CLOTH ON THIS KIND
OF THING HAPPENING AGAIN, BUT
HUMAN NATURE BEING HUMAN
NATURE, ONE WONDERS.
AND AS FAR AS THE MATTER IS
CONCERNED, WE THINK THE
FINDINGS OF THE JQC WERE
CAREFULLY ARRIVED AT AND SHOULD
BE THE CONCLUSION OF THE COURT.
JUSTICE: DO WE HAVE A
RESISTANCE, HOWEVER, AS FAR AS
WE WOULD WANT TO GO IN
CONDEMNING THIS KIND OF
CONDUCT, DO WE THEN HAVE
RESISTANCE ON THE OTHER SIDE
FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S
DECISION IN MINNESOTA VERSUS
WHITE AND THE APPLICATION OF
THAT DECISION IN WEAVER VERSUS
BONNER.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT IS SAYING, IF YOU ARE
GOING TO HAVE JUDICIAL
ELECTIONS, YOU ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THEM, AND
MISLEADING CAMPAIGNS ARE ONE OF
THE CONSEQUENCES OF ELECTIONS.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DID
NOT GO THAT FAR.
JUSTICE SCALIA SAID THAT
JUDICIAL CAMPAIGNS DO NOT HAVE
TO LOOK LIKE LEGISLATIVE
CAMPAIGNS.
THE POINT IN KINSEY WAS TAKEN
UP AND THE POINT ON APPEAL ON
CERTIORARI WAS THE WEAVER CASE.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIED
CERT IN 2003.
THEY HAVEN'T TAKEN CASE LIKE
THIS SINCE.
I THINK CERTAINLY IT IS
POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THERE
SHOULDN'T BE ANY CONTROLS
BEYOND LEGISLATIVE CONTROLS ON
JUDICIAL ELECTIONS BUT THEY
HAVEN'T SAID THAT YET.
WEAVER WAS JUST NOT THIS
ANIMAL.
WEAVER WAS AN IDIOSYNCRATIC GEORGIA CANON.
THEY WERE CERTAINLY NOT THE ABA
MODEL AS THIS ONE IS, AND AS
COUNSEL CONCEDES THERE, IS NO
ATTACK ON VALIDITY ON CANON 7.
THE SITUATION ON THE FACTS
BEFORE YOU IS EQUALLY CLEAR.
MISREPRESENTATIONS WERE FALSE.
IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF WALKING
A CAREFUL LINE OF ACTUAL
MALICE.
THESE WERE KNOWINGLY FALSE
MISREPRESENTATIONS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: IN OTHER
WORDS IN KINSEY, AGAIN, WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT WHETHER ATTACKING
YOUR OPPONENT AND SAYING THAT,
I AM GOING TO BE, I AM ON THE
SIDE OF THE VICTIMS, THAT IS
KIND OF MORE OF THAT CAMPAIGN
RHETORIC.
THIS IS YOUR CLASSIC
MISREPRESENTATION CASE IN ABOUT
THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS.
THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE IN
WHICH AN INEXPERIENCED YOUNG
LAWYER IS RUNNING AGAINST AN
EXPERIENCED TRIAL LAWYER AND
CHOOSES TO PRETTY UP HIS RESUME
FOR THAT PURPOSE, LEAVING THE
PUBLIC UNINFORMED.
CHIEF JUSTICE: PRETTYING UP A RESUME IS
DIFFERENT THAN
MISREPRESENTATION.
I AM SURE THERE ARE YOUNG
LAWYERS THAT HAVE HYPERBOLE,
BUT --
I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THE
PUBLIC WAS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE
QUALIFICATIONS OF BOTH
CANDIDATES AND THEY CERTAINLY
DID NOT GET A FAIR STATEMENT OF
THAT FROM THE RESPONDENT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: MR. TOKIAN,
I AM GOING ALLOW YOU A MINUTE
IN REBUTTAL.
HOW MUCH?
A MINUTE?
CHIEF JUSTICE: OR TWO.
I APPRECIATE IT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: BECAUSE,
AGAIN, I THINK YOU CAN FOCUS ON
THE DISCIPLINE ISSUE.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY
SERIOUS MATTER THAT THE COURT
IS STRUGGLING WITH, AND --
I CAN SEE THAT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WE ASK YOU AS A
LAWYER AND AS MEMBER OF THE BAR
AS WELL AS MR. RENKE'S
ATTORNEY, TO HELP US WITH THIS
CASE.
THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE
THE EXTRA TIME.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION ISSUE IN THIS
CASE, YOU CAN'T REACH THE
CONCLUSION THAT IT IS NEARLY AS
BAD AS IT WAS IN PANDO, WHERE
SHE FALSIFIED THE SOURCE OF A
$25,000 LOAN FROM HER MOTHER
AND OTHER LOANS FROM HER MOTHER
AND STEPFATHER AND FALSIFIED
HER REPORTS AND THEN ON
DEPOSITION LIED ABOUT THE
SOURCE OF THOSE FUNDS, AND SHE
GOT A PUBLIC REPRIMAND, AND YOU
COME HERE WITH SOMEBODY WHO
WORKED FOR HIS FATHER FOR SEVEN
YEARS.
OBVIOUSLY UNDERPAID BY ALL
ACCOUNTS, THE PANEL SO FOUND,
AND THE PANEL FOUND HE HAD A
REASONABLE EXPECTATION TO THAT
MONEY.
HOW DO YOU SQUARE THAT WITH
PANDO GETTING A PUBLIC
REPRIMAND, THE SAME THING WITH
ROSA RODRIGUEZ.
JUSTICE: THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THIS CASE AND PANDO, WE
HAVE IN ADDITION TO THE
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, ALL OF
THE OTHER THING THAT IS THE JQC
HAS FOUND WERE INTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATIONS IN CAMPAIGN
LITERATURE, SO EVEN PUTTING
THAT ASIDE AS IN PANDO, IT WAS
ONLY PUTTING ASIDE --
I AGREE WITH THAT, AS IN
JUDGE PANDO'S CASE SAYING SHE
GOT A $200,000 LOAN FROM HER
BROTHER AND FALSIFIED THOSE
REPORTS, BUT --
CHIEF JUSTICE: IN EACH OF
THOSE CASES WE HAD INITIALLY
REJECTED THE JQC FINDING AND IN
PANDO, HER EXCUSE WAS HER
MOTHER AND FATHER, SHE WASN'T
MAKING MUCH MONEY AND THEY
ALWAYS USED TO GIVE HER GIFTS,
SO THERE WAS THAT SAME KIND OF
ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE MAKING,
AND THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE OF
PEOPLE THAT ARE BARELY GETTING
BY, AS LAWYERS, ALL OF A SUDDEN
A GENEROUS PARENT DECIDES TO
FUND IT AND OBVIOUSLY IT IS A
MISREPRESENTATION OF THE SOURCE
OF THE LOAN, A CLEAR CAMPAIGN
FINANCE VIOLATION.
I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
THE TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE WAS
THAT IN '98 HIS DAD TOLD HIM HE
WAS GOING TO GET A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF THESE FUNDS, AND THE
MOTHER AGREED, THE FATHER
AGREED, THE JUDGE AGREED THAT
THIS HAD BEEN PLANNED FOR QUITE
SOME TIME, AND I RESPECTFULLY
IT IS QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THE
RODRIGUEZ AND PANDO
CIRCUMSTANCE ON THAT ISSUE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE COURT