The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

Inquiry Concerning a Judge: Ana Marie Pando


MARSHAL: ALL RISE. HEAR YE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE.THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDAIS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HA VE CAUSE TO PLEA , DRAW NEAR , G IVE ATTENT ION AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES , THE G REAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS HONORABLE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLE MEN , THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.PLEASE BE SE ATED .

CHIEF JUSTIC E: GOOD MORNING , LADIES AND GENTLEMEN , AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPR EME COURT . AS WE START OUR N EW TERM OF COURT , TO DAY , THE FIRST MATTER ON THE COURT'S DOCKET THIS MORNING , IS THE PUBLIC REPRIMAND OF JUDGE ANA M ARIE PANDO , FOR ETHICAL MISCONDUCT. THE PU BLIC REPRIMAND OF ONEOF OUR JUDGES IS A DUTY TH AT, AS CHIEF JUSTICE , I FIND NOT ONLY TO BE EXTREMELY TROUBLING BUT , ALS O , TO BE VITALLY NECESSARY. IT IS TROUBLING , BECAUSE WE EXPECT OUR JUDGE TO SAY ADHERE TO THE HIGHEST ETHICAL STANDARDS. IT IS VITALLY NECESSARY , BECAUSE THIS COURT H AS CONCLUDED THAT, ON TH OSE OCCASIONS WHEN JUDGE S LAPS I NTO MISCONDUCT JUDGES LAPSE INTO MISCONDUCT , THE ONLY WAY T HAT WE CAN C LEAN THE JUDIC IARY OF THE RESULTING STAIN, IS TH ROUGH P UBLIC PROCEEDINGS SU CH AS THIS , BROADCAST TO THE PEOPLE OF OUR ST ATE, ON TELEVISION AND ON THE INTERNET. JUDGE ANA MA RIE P ANDO, P LEASE CO ME TO THE PODIUM AND RE MAIN STAN DING WH ILE I ADMINISTER YOUR REPRIMAND. YOU ARE BEFORE THE COURT , TODAY , TO BE REPRIMANDED FOR ETHICAL BR EACHES AND CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS , COMMITTED B OTH WH EN YOU WE REA CANDI DATE FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE AND WHEN YOU WERE A JUDGE. THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION FILED THE FOLLOWING CHAR GES AGAINS T YOU. DURING YOUR UNSUCCESSFUL 1998 JUDICIAL CAMPAIGN , YOU KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESSLY , ACCEPTED A $25,000 PERSONAL L OAN FROM YOUR MOTHER, WHICH GREATLY EXCEEDED THE $500 LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW , AND , FURTHER , YOU MISREPRESENTED THE SOURCE OF THIS L OAN , IN AN ATTEMP T TO AVOID THE $500 LEGAL CONTRIBUTION LIMIT. NEXT, DU RING OR A FTER BOTH YOUR 1998 AND 2000 CAMPAIGNS, YOU KNOWINGLY OR RECKLESS LY CERTIFIED THE CORRECTNESS O F THE CAMP AIGN LOAN REPORTS FOR E ACH CAMPAIGN YE AR, WHEN YOU KNEW THE REPORTS WERE INCORRECT , FALSE , OR INCOMPLETE, BEC AUSE THEY FAILED TO DISCLOSE THAT YOUR MOTHER, YOUR STEPFATHER AND/OR THEIR RESPECTIVE BUSINESSES, WERE SOURCES OF NUMEROUS LOANS I N EXCESS OF THE $500 L EGAL CONTRIBUTION LIMIT. N EXT , DURING THE CAMPAI GNS, YOU INACCURATELY REP ORTED THE SO URCE O F CERTAIN OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS IN YOUR CAMPAIGN FIN ANCE REPORTS . AND , LAST , DURING YOUR DEPOSITION ON JULY 2 , 2003, YOU MADE STATEMENTS TENDINGTO MISLEAD THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION AS TO A PURPORTED LOAN YOU RECEIVED FROM EASTERN NATIONAL BANK. YOU HAVE ADMITTED EACH OF THESE VIOLATIONS. AND THESE VIOLATIONS RE LATED TO OUR JUDICIAL ELECTION SYSTEM , ILLUSTRATE THE POTENTIAL PITFALL S OF OURSYSTEM OF CONT ESTED ELECTIONS FOR POSITIONS IN OUR TRIAL COURTS. THE LI FE TENURE GR ANTED TO ALL FED ERAL JUDGES BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS , INSULATES OUR FEDERAL JUDICIARY , FROM THE NECE SSITY OF JUDICIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. NONETHELESS , OUR COURTS AND OUR POLI TICAL S YSTEM , HAVE REPEATEDLY ENDORSED THERIGHT OF STATES TO CH OOSE JUDGES BY ELECTION. HOWEVER, AS JUSTICE O'CONNOR NOTED IN HER CONCURRING OPINION IN THE U NITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE OF REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA V ERSUS WHITE , THE V ERY PR ACTICE OF ELE CTING JUDGES HAS THE POTENTIAL , AND I UNDERLINE POTENTIAL , TO UNDERMINE PUB LIC CONFIDENCE IN AN IMPARTIAL JUD ICIARY. BY THESE PROCEEDINGS THIS MORNING , WE ARE REMINDED,ONCE AGAIN , OF THE NECESSITY THAT CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE AD HERE TO THIS VERY S TRICT REQUIREMENT IM POSED UPON THEM BY CANON 7 OF THECODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT WHICH CONC ERNS JUDICIAL ELE CTIONS. IT IS ONLY BY SCRUPULOUSLY ADHEREING T O OUR ELECTION LAWS, INCLUDING THOSE GOVERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCING, THAT WE CAN AS SURE THE PUBLIC THAT THE PUBLIC WILL A CCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF ELECTED JUDGES . EXCUSE ME. IS THERE SOME THING W RONG W ITH OUR SYSTEM ?

MARSHAL: LET ME GET SOMEONE IN HERE .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHEN A JUDGE VIOLATES THESE LAWS , HER CONDUCT DEGRADES THE JUDICIAL ELECTION PROCESSAND P LACES IN JEOPARDY , BOTH HER OWN AUTHORITY AND THE AUTHORITY OF ALL WHO SE RVE AS ELECTED JUDGES. JUDGE PANDO , YOUR A CTIONS RELATED TO YOUR JUDICIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS , HAVE IMPAIRED THE CONFID ENCE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE STATEAND THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND THE PUB LIC'S CONFIDENCE IN YOUAS A JUDGE. YOU HAVE CONDUCTED YOURSELF IN A MA NNER UNBECOMING A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY, ANDYOU HAVE VIOLATED THREE SEPARATE AND CRITICAL CANO NSIN THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT , AS WELL AS THE CAMPAIGN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 1 06 F LORIDA STATUTES. PERHAPS MORE DISTURBING THAN THE CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS, IS THAT , AFTER THE CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS CHARGES HAD BEEN FILED BY THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION , AND WHILE YOU WERE A JUDGE, YOU MADE STATEMENTS UNDER O ATH IN A DEPOSITION , TENDING TO MISL EAD THE JUDICIAL QUALIF ICATIONSCOMMISSION, AS TO THE SOU RCE OF THE $25,000 CAMPAIGN LOAN. YOU SWORE UNDER O ATH, THAT THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN WAS A B ANK. HOW EVER, A C CORDING TO YOUR OWN BANK REC ORDS AND THE LOAN DOCUMENTS , THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT TRUTHFUL. CANDOR IS A QU ALITY THAT WE EXPECT FROM ALL APPLICANTS TO THE BAR , ALL PRACTICING ATTORNEYS , AND MOST ESPECIALLY, FROM OUR JUDGES . THE J QC HAS GIVEN YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DO UBT, BY CHARACTERIZING YOUR TESTIMONY AS, QUOTE , NOT CANDID OR , AT THE VERY LE AST , NEGLECTFUL. YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT THIS CONDUCT VIOLATED THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT . WE MUST NOW ADDRESS THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE. JUST AS YOU STIPULATED TO THE VIOLATIONS , SO YOU STIPULATED TO THE DISCIPLINE. AS I STATED EARLIER, BECAUSETHERE IS NO WAY TO UNDO WH ATYOU HAVE DONE , WE HAVE COMMAND YOU BE PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED TO THE COURT AND THE PUBLIC . THE PUBLIC REPR IMAND OF A JUDGE WHO KMITSES ETHICAL - - WHO COMM ITS ET HICAL BREACHS IS ONE WAY THAT WE CAN ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT WE TAKE MIS CONDUCT OF OUR JUDGES VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY. IN ADD ITION TO T HIS PUBLIC REPRIMAND, YOU HAVE AGREED TO AND ARE HERE BY OR DERED TO PAY A FINE OF $25,000. THIS FINE EQUALS THE AMOUNT OF THE INAPPROPRIATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION. SUCH DISC IPLINE AREA ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH SUCH DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS CONSISTENT WITH REGARD TO THE GOVERNING PRECEDENT OF THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION WITH REGARD TO THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT. JUDGE PANDO, TO YOUR CREDIT,YOU HAVE AD MITTED THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE JUDICIAL QUALIF ICATIONS COMMISSION. WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER YOURSELF FORTUNATE THAT MORE SERIOUS DISCIPLINE W AS NOT IMP OSED , AND THAT YOU WILL CONDUCT YOURSELF INTHE FUTURE, IN AN EXEMPLARY WAY , SO SASS T O INSPIRE AND NOT D E TRACT SO AS TO INSPIRE AND NOT DETRACT FROM PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN OUR JUDICIARY , BUT I ADVISE YOU TO REM EMBER WHAT WE IN OUR PR IO R CASES HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD , IS A SECOND ETHICAL BREACH BY A JUDGE WILL BE VIEWED FAR MORE HARSHLY. YOUR PUBLIC REPRIMAND IS CONCLUDED AND YOU MAY LEAVE.