Judge Who Did Not Conform (To Corruption)

Report: Web of scandal at Hillsborough courthouse
http://www.scribd.com/doc/171038398/Judge-Who-Did-Not-Conform
Florida Circuit Judge Gregory Holder paid a heavy price for speaking out against wrongdoing in
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, almost $2 million and years of legal abuse. As set forth in my
Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 58) in case 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS: (page 5)
The Thirteenth Circuit is notorious for wrongdoing. The price is high for confronting judicial
misconduct. In one example, Circuit Judge Gregory Holder spoke to the media about judicial
misconduct, and was a cooperating witness (2001-2002) in a federal criminal investigation of
corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse. In retaliation the Florida Judicial
Qualifications Commission (JQC) pursued two failed inquiries against him, JQC Inquiry Nos.
01-303 and 02-487. Judge Holder spent many years and $1.92 million successfully defending
himself. On June 23, 2005, the Hearing Panel of the JQC voted unanimously to dismiss the
charges against Judge Holder. This was the first trial defense verdict against the JQC in almost
twenty years. On September 15, 2009 the Supreme Court of Florida, case no. SC03-1171,
ordered entry of judgment for Judge Holder for recovery of costs from the JQC in the amount of
$70,000 for successfully defending JQC Inquiry No. 02-487. Judge Holders actual expenses
were $1,779,691.81 in legal fees, and cost of $140,870.79. [$1,920,562.50 total]
Public files in the above JQC cases are online on the Florida Supreme Court website:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqcarchives.shtml
Public files show Judge Holders life was at risk for reporting judicial misconduct:
During 2001 and 2002, Judge Holder cooperated with the FBI in the courthouse corruption
investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 4-5, at App. 3.] Because of Judge Holders cooperation, the
investigations targets had motive and resources to seek retribution against him. [Id. at pp. 7-8]
Indeed, these targets faced not just loss of position but potential incarceration. [Id.] Detective
Bartoszak testified at trial that the courthouse corruption investigation team was concerned that
Judge Holders activities were being monitored by targets of the investigation. Judge Holder was
advised by federal law enforcement agents to carry a weapon, and he was provided with a secure
cell phone to communicate with the authorities. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 7-8, at App. 3.]
Page 7, Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 58) case 5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS.
Judge Gregory P. Holder, Hillsborough County
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Florida
Cost to Judge Holder: $1.92 million
Note: Six pages are attached hereto from my Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 58) case
5:10-cv-503-oc-WTH-TBS, showing details of the above, see "The Notorious Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit", pages 5 of 50 through pages 10 of 50. The 6 pages appear before Exhibits 1-15.
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission
Inquiry Concerning Judge Gregory P. Holder
JQC Case No. 02-487
Supreme Court Case No. SC03-1171
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/03/03-1171/index.html
1. Notice of Formal Charges, July 18, 2003
2. Order of Dismissal, June 28, 2005
3. Respondents Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees, July 25, 2005: $1,779,691.81
4. Respondents Motion to Tax Costs, July 25, 2005: $140,870.79
5. Memorandum of Law, in Support of Respondents Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees
6. Respondents Initial Brief, February 6, 2006
7. Index to Appendix, Respondents Initial Brief, February 6, 2006
8. JQC Findings and Recommendations, August 17, 2009
9. Supreme Court of Florida Order, September 15, 2009: $70,000 to Judge Holder
10. Grand Jury Presentment, December 8, 2000
An Investigation Into Judicial Misconduct In Hillsborough County
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/01/01-2078/Filed_10-03-
2001_MotionUnsealAppB.pdf
__________________________________________________________________________
11. St. Petersburg Times, Dec. 12, 2000: Report: Web of scandal at Hillsborough courthouse
http://www.sptimes.com/News/121200/TampaBay/Report__Web_of_scanda.shtml
12. St. Petersburg Times Editorial, Dec. 20, 2001: Watch how JCQ handles Holder.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/122001/Opinion/Watch_how_JQC_handles.shtml
13. Tampa Bay Times, July 26, 2005: Judge seeks $1.92-million in costs defending self
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/26/Tampabay/Judge_seeks_192_milli.shtml
14. Citizens for Judicial Accountability, June 25, 2006: The Judge Who Did Not Conform
http://judicialaccountability.net/ajudgewhocouldnotconform.htm
15. Tampa Bay Times Editorial, October 4, 2009: A victory for a judge who was wronged
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/a-victory-for-judge-who-was-wronged/1041143
35 additional pages of related news stories appears after Exhibit 15 on the online version.
Case 5:10-cv-00503-WTH-TBS Document 58 Filed 11/14/11 Page 5 of 50 PageID 1478
BEFORE THE INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
INQUIRY CONCERNING A )
JUDGE, NO. 02-487 )
/
NOTICE OF FORMAL CHARGES
TO: The Honorable Gregory P. Holder, Circuit Judge,
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County
Courthouse, 419 Pierce Street, Tampa, FL 33602.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT the Investigative Panel of the
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, at its meeting held
in Tallahassee, Florida on July 10, 2003, has determined, pursuant
to Rule 6 of the Rules of the Florida Judicial Qualifications
Commission, as revised, and Article V, Section 12(b) of the
Constitution of Florida, that probable cause exists for formal
proceedings to be instituted against you.
Formal proceedings accordingly are hereby instituted to
inquire into the following charges:
1. On or about January 1998, while holding the
office of Circuit Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
of Florida, you were enrolled in the McDill Air Force Base
1
2.
Air War College seminar for the academic year 1997-98 and
submitted a research report to the Faculty of the Air War
College Directorate of Nonresident Studies, Air University,
titled An Analysis of the Anglo-American Combined Bomber
Offensive in Europe During World War II, 1942-45. At the
time, you held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, United
States Air Force Reserve. The research report was
submitted in fulfillment of a writing requirement for the
seminar, completion of which is generally a prerequisite
for promotion to Colonel. Subsequently, you were promoted
to the rank of Colonel, United States Air Force Reserve.
In preparing and submitting the research report (a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), you committed
plagiarism in that approximately 10 pages of the 21-page
research report submitted by you were copied verbatim or
substantially verbatim from a research report prepared in
January 1996 by E. David Hoard, SAF/GCN, who was then
attached to the Office of General Counsel, Department of
Air Force, Washington, D.C., which research report (a copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B) had been
transmitted to you via telecopy on or about September 5,
1997.
3.
2. In submitting the plagiarized research report as
set forth in paragraph 1 above, you signed a certificate
stating, I certify that I have not used another students
research work and that the creative process of researching,
organizing, and writing this research report represents
only my own work, which statement was false, and which
constituted a criminal violation of Article 18, United
States Code 1001, of knowingly and willfully making a
materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or
representation in a matter that was within the jurisdiction
of the Executive Branch of the Government of the United
States.
3. The acts described above, if they occurred as alleged,
were in violation of Canons 1, 2 and 5 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
These acts, if they occurred as alleged, would impair the
confidence of the citizens of this State in the integrity of the
judicial system and in you as a judge, would demean your judicial
office, would constitute a violation of the cited Canons of the
Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct,
would constitute conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary,
would demonstrate your present unfitness to hold the office of
4.
judge, and would warrant discipline, including, but not limited
to, your removal from office.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE in accordance with the provisions of the
Rules of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, as
revised, that you have twenty (20) days following service of this
notice to file a written answer to these charges.
Dated this _____ day of July, 2003.
INVESTIGATIVE PANEL OF THE FLORIDA
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr.
Florida Bar No. 049318
1904 Holly Lane
Tampa, Florida 33629
(813) 254-9871
(813) 258-6265 (Facsimile)
General Counsel for the Florida
Judicial Qualifications Commission
- and -
BEDELL, DITTMAR, DeVAULT, PILLANS &
COXE
Professional Association
By

Charles P. Pillans, III
5.
Florida Bar No. 0100066
The Bedell Building
101 East Adams Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
(904) 353-0211
(904) 353-9307 (Facsimile)
Special Counsel to the Florida
Certificate of Service
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing
Notice of Formal Charges has been furnished to the
following this day of July, 2003.
The Honorable Gregory P. Holder [by Certified Mail]
Circuit Judge
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Hillsborough County Courthouse
419 Pierce Street
Tampa, FL 33602
David B. Weinstein, Esquire [by U.S. Mail]
Bales Weinstein
Post Office Box 172179
Tampa, FL 33672-0179

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION
STATE OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 02-487

INQUIRY CONCERNING JUDGE SUPREME CT. CASE NO. SC03-1171
GREGORY P. HOLDER;
/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter was considered after a six-day evidentiary
hearing before the Hearing Panel of the Judicial Qualifications
Commission (JQC) composed of (1) Judge John P. Kuder (Chair), (2)
Judge Tom Freeman, (3) attorney Howard C. Coker, (4) attorney
John Cardillo, (5) lay member Dr. Leonard Haber and (6) lay
member Ricardo Morales, III. Formal charges were filed by the
JQC Investigative Panel on July 16, 2003. The charges concerned
alleged plagiarism by Judge Holder of an Air War College research
paper which Judge Holder wrote while a Lieutenant Colonel in the
Air Force Reserve. The course may have led to possible
advancement in rank. The charge is that in 1998 Judge Holder
committed plagiarism. Approximately 10-pages of a 21-page
research paper with Judge Holder's name on it were copied almost
verbatim from another paper written in 1996 by another officer
who furnished a copy to Judge Holder. The charge also concerned
a "certificate" that the paper was solely the work of Judge
Holder.
No original paper by Judge Holder was ever located. A
photocopy of his alleged paper obtained from an anonymous source
was attached to the Formal Charges and admitted into evidence.
2
2
Judge Holder denied that the photocopy was his paper and
contended the photocopy was a manufactured forgery. Extensive
discovery occurred and evidence, including expert testimony on
both sides, was presented for six days. Special counsel and
counsel for Judge Holder were well prepared and presented the
respective positions of their clients in a very professional and
competent manner.
The Panel took numerous motions and objections by Judge
Holder under advisement during the hearing. All of these motions
and objections are hereby denied and overruled by the full Panel.
The Panel thus considered the totality of all the evidence
proffered and received during the hearing.
After due deliberation and consideration of all the evidence
and argument of counsel, the Hearing Panel unanimously concludes
that the charges should be and hereby are dismissed. This ruling
is entered pursuant to Rule 20 of the Florida Judicial
Qualifications Commission Rules.
1
The evidence was extremely
conflicting and the implications disturbing. The credibility of
certain witnesses was in doubt. The memories of the long past
events were unclear. The Panel concludes that the evidence was
troublesome but did not rise to the level of clear and convincing

1
Rule 20 provides in relevant part:

If the Hearing Panel dismisses the formal charges, the
Hearing Panel shall promptly file a copy of the
dismissal order certified by the Chair of the Hearing
Panel with the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
3
evidence of guilt. In re: Kinsey, 842 So. 2d 77, 85 (Fla. 2003),
and In re: Davey, 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994). The six
member Hearing Panel voted unanimously to dismiss the charges.
DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2005.

FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSION

By:/s/ John P. Kuder
JUDGE JOHN P. KUDER,
Chairman, Hearing Panel,
Florida Judicial Qualifications
Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
850/488-1581
850/922-6781 (fax)

Copies furnished in accordance with the attached list.
4
David B. Weinstein
Counsel to the Judge
Tampa, FL 33674-0179
(813) 224-9100
(813) 224-9109 (fax)

Juan Morillo
Steven T. Cottreau
Counsel to the Judge
1501 K. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 736-8000
(202) 736-8711 (fax)

Charles P. Pillans, III
Special Counsel
The Bedell Building
101 East Adams Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
(904) 353-0211
(904) 353-9307 (fax)

Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr.
General Counsel
1904 Holly Lane
(813) 221-2500
(813) 258-6265 (fax)

John Beranek
Counsel to the Hearing Panel
Ausley & McMullen
P.O. Box 391
(850) 224-9115
(850) 222-7560 (fax)

Brooke Kennerly
Commission
1110 Thomasville Road
(850) 488-1581
(850) 922-6781 (fax)

3
4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

INQUIRY CONCERNING Supreme Court Case
A JUDGE NO. 02-487 No.: SC03-1171

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
1
More than two years ago, in July of 2003, the Florida Judicial
Qualifications Commission (JQC or the Commission) filed a Notice of
Formal Charges (Charges) alleging that Judge Gregory P. Holder had
plagiarized an Air War College (AWC) paper and falsely stated that it was
his original work. To support its allegations, the JQC relied on a copy of an
AWC paper submitted by E. David Hoard in 1996 (Hoard paper) (Exhibit
B to the Charges) and copies of a paper that contains material from the
Hoard paper and which the JQC alleged was submitted to the AWC by
Judge Holder in 1998 (purported Holder paper) (Exhibit A to the
Charges).
At the time the purported Holder paper mysteriously surfaced,
Judge Holder was a cooperating witness in a criminal investigation into
judicial corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse. The troubles
within the Courthouse ultimately led to the resignation of at least two circuit

1
Some description of the background of this case is necessary here, in part
because the JQC has elected not to transcribe the record.
1
5
judges. The targets and subjects of the investigation, who faced not just loss
of position but potential incarceration, clearly had a motive to discredit or
seek retribution against Judge Holder.
2
In the midst of that investigation, an unmarked envelope (Envelope)
was anonymously slipped under the door of Jeffrey Del Fuoco, an Assistant
United States Attorney who had been involved in the Courthouse corruption
probe. Del Fuoco testified at trial that he found the Envelope early one
weekend morning in January of 2002, when he was serving at the Army
Reserve Headquarters in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Envelope purportedly
contained a typewritten note (Note) to the effect that I thought you would
be interested in this or something should be done about this. The Note
purportedly contained no handwriting but only a typed signature of a
concerned citizen or a concerned taxpayer. The Envelope allegedly
contained copies of the purported Holder paper and the Hoard paper (the
Papers) along with the Note.
In December of 2002, the U.S. Attorneys Office provided these
Papers to the JQC. Although the Papers had been in the possession of the
U.S. Attorneys Office for approximately 11 months, this referral
inexplicably occurred within weeks of Judge Holder writing a letter to the

2
The investigation extended beyond the Courthouse and into other
areas of corruption in the community.
2
Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility complaining
about apparent inactivity in the courthouse corruption investigation. On July
16, 2003, the JQC filed its Charges, alleging that Respondent had violat[ed]
. . . [the] Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Rules of
Professional Conduct and had engaged in conduct unbecoming a member
of the judiciary. Commissions Resp. to Mot. For Award of Attorneys
Fees ( JQC Resp.), Ex. A. 3.
3
The central issue in this proceeding was whether the purported Holder
paper was genuine. Despite the fact that: (a) the JQC admitted that it had no
witness who could testify based on personal knowledge that the purported
Holder paper was an authentic copy of the actual paper that Judge Holder
submitted to the Air War College (See Response to Resp.s 1st Req. for
Admissions 1); (b) both the Note and the Envelope inexplicably vanished
from the U.S. Attorneys Office and were never forensically tested for
fingerprints or otherwise to attempt to identify their source; (c) no original of
Judge Holders actual AWC paper was ever located; and (d) multiple
witnesses who saw Judge Holders actual paper at or about the time he
submitted it to the Air War College swore that the purported Holder paper

3
Because the submission of an Air War College paper also required the
completion of a signed certification of the papers originality, the JQC
also alleged that Respondent had violated 18 U.S.C. 1001. JQC Resp.,
Ex. A. 2.
3
was not authentic, the JQC nevertheless vigorously prosecuted this case.
4
Judge Holder never contested that the purported Holder paper
contained approximately ten pages of nearly verbatim text from the Hoard
paper. Instead, Respondent maintained that the purported Holder paper was
fabricated to discredit him because of his role as a cooperating witness in the
courthouse corruption investigation. Judge Holder was forced to defend
these serious charges by hiring counsel,
5
conducting extensive discovery,
filing and litigating (including full briefing and oral argument) numerous
motions to dismiss the Charges based on multiple evidentiary inadequacies,
6

4
For example, immediately upon filing the Charges, the JQC sought to
suspend Judge Holder from the bench despite the fact that the alleged
misconduct occurred over 5 years earlier.

5
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, one of the law firms retained by
Judge Holder, performed its services with the express understanding that
in the event of a favorable outcome, it would be entitled to seek recovery
of attorneys fees from the State of Florida. Respondents other law
firms were engaged on an hourly fee basis.

6
Judge Holder filed the following motions on the referenced dates: 1)
Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of David Leta (8/27/04); 2)
Motion in Limine to Exclude All Documents provided to the JQC by
Jeffrey Del Fuoco (8/27/04); 3) Motion in Limine to Exclude All
Documents provided to the JQC by the United States Air Force
(8/27/04); 4) Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Jeffrey
Downing (8/27/04); 5) Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of
Jeffrey Del Fuoco (8/27/04); 6) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence
on Best Evidence Grounds (8/27/04); 7) Motion in Limine to Exclude
Evidence on Due Process Grounds (8/27/04); 8) Motion in Limine to
Exclude Copies of the Purported Holder Paper on Authentication
4
and securing experts regarding document authentication, the creation of
documents (e.g., the purported Holder paper) using Photoshop software,
forensic computer analysis, and other issues.
At trial, Judge Holder presented compelling evidence that the
purported Holder paper was fabricated to retaliate against him for his
participation in the courthouse corruption investigation. After six days of
trial, which included the testimony of more than 25 witnesses, the Hearing
Panel of the JQC voted unanimously to dismiss the charges against Judge
Holder. JQC Resp., Ex. B.
II. ISSUE PRESENTED.
On July 25, 2005, Judge Holder moved this Court to enter an order
awarding attorneys fees incurred by him in the successful defense of this
JQC proceeding pursuant to Thornber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 568 So.
2d 914 (Fla. 1990). In Thornber, this Court held that a public official is
entitled to attorneys fees following the successful defense of a case if the
litigation . . . (1) arise[s] out of or in connection with performance of [his]
official duties and (2) serve[s] a public purpose. Id. at 917. The purpose of

Grounds (8/27/04); and, 9) Motion to Dismiss the pending Charges or in
Limine to Exclude the Purported Holder Paper and Hoard Paper Based
on Evidentiary Improprieties (3/21/05). However, despite the fact that
several of these motions were dispositive of the charges, the JQC failed
to timely rule on them. Instead, these motions were carried over into and
through the trial and were summarily denied in the Order of Dismissal.
5
this rule is to avoid the chilling effect that a denial of representation might
have on public officials in performing their duties properly and diligently.
Id., citing Nuzum v. Valdes, 407 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Thus, the public policy expressed in Thornber requires that Judge
Holders attorneys fees be paid. As this Court has recognized, judges in
JQC proceedings are entitled to counsel as a matter of due process, Judicial
Qualifications Commission Rule 15(a), and to effective, affordable counsel
as a matter of fairness. See In re Hapner, 737 So. 2d 1075, 1077 (Fla. 1999)
(recognizing as to costs that [i]t is particularly important that an accused
judge not be placed in the position of foregoing a defense against
unwarranted charges because he or she might otherwise face financial ruin if
unsuccessful in the proceeding.) Otherwise, judges in Respondents
position would face a Hobsons choice between loss of reputation and
removal from the bench on one hand, and mounting an effective defense
(which could lead to financial ruin) on the other. Everyone involved
including the voters who repeatedly elected Judge Holderwould be
damaged by the perpetuation of such a situation.
In its response to Judge Holders motion, the Commission, relying
upon the Attorney General of Florida, concedes that Thornber applies to
judges in proceedings before the Commission. See JQC Resp. at 5 (citing
6
Attorney Generals Opinion 93-21, 1993 WL 361721 (Fla. A.G. 1993). The
JQC also concedes that the second prong of the Thornber test is satisfied,
stating that [u]nquestionably, the resolution of the highly publicized
charges against Judge Holder and matters relating thereto served a public
purpose. JQC Resp. at 5. Thus, the only issue is whether the JQCs case
against Judge Holder arose out of or in connection with the performance
of Judge Holders official duties.
III. ARGUMENT.
A. The JQC Proceeding Arose Out Of Or In Connection With The
Performance Of Respondents Official Duties.

The Charges clearly arose in connection with the performance of
Judge Holders judicial duties. Specifically, the Charges and the resulting
litigation arose in connection with an attempt by an anonymous person or
persons
7
to interfere with Judge Holders participation in the federal
investigation of judicial corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse.
In fact, Judge Holders participation in the corruption investigation
was integral to the performance of his judicial duties. Judicial Canon 3D(1)
states that A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that
substantial likelihood exists that another judge has committed a violation of

7
I.e., whoever fabricated the purported Holder paper, typed the Note, and
slipped the Envelope under Jeffrey Del Fuocos door.
7
this Code shall take appropriate action. (Emphasis added.)
Consequently, when Judge Holder was approached by law enforcement
agents in connection with the investigation, he did the only proper thing
under the Judicial Canons, tell the agents what he knew and suffer the
attendant consequences.
8
By cooperating with the courthouse corruption
investigation, Judge Holder discharged responsibilities that the Judicial Code
required.
In fact, Judicial Canon 3D(3) conclusively answers the official duty
issue before this Court It states that [a]cts of a judge, in the discharge of
disciplinary responsibilities, required or permitted by Sections 3D(1) and
3D(2) are part of a judges judicial duties.... Judicial Canon 3D(3)
(emphasis added). Thus, when viewed in context, this case clearly arose in
connection with Judge Holders performance of his official duties.
In its response, the Commission ignores the facts presented at trial.
The Commission asserts that The preparation of the Air War College
research paper and signing the certification did not arise out of or in
connection with the performance by Judge Holder of his official judicial

8
One law enforcement agent testified at trial that the corruption
investigation team was concerned that Judge Holders activities were
being monitored by targets of the investigation. Judge Holder was
advised by federal law enforcement agents to carry a weapon, and he was
provided with a secure cell phone with which to communicate with
federal agents.
8
duties and thus there is not a sufficient nexus between the writing of the
paper and the certification and the performance of Judge Holders official
duties as a Circuit Judge to satisfy the first prong of the Thornber list [sic].
Id. at 5, 6.
The Commissions position is grounded in neither fact nor law. First,
the Commission ignores the fact that it lost before the hearing panel. It tried
but could not establish that the purported AWC paper was created in
connection with Judge Holders Air Force duties. Instead, the
overwhelming evidence presented at the hearing established that the paper
was not in fact Judge Holders AWC paper and instead was a fabrication.
Indeed, the courthouse corruption investigation and Judge Holders
participation in it were the sole motivation for someone fabricating the
document. In fact, a law enforcement officer testified during the hearing
that other witnesses cooperating in the courthouse corruption investigation
had been retaliated against through the use of fabricated documents. Indeed,
Special Counsel himself, in his closing argument, conceded Judge Holders
actual paper and the Hoard paper (the source of the plagiarized material)
were unlawfully stolen from Judge Holders chambers before the Envelope
was surreptitiously slipped under Jeffrey Del Fuocos door. Indeed, the fact
that the Envelope containing the papers was slipped under the door of Mr.
9
Del Fuocoand not the door of an Air Force or JQC officialdemonstrates
that derailing the judicial corruption investigation was the focus: Mr. Del
Fuoco had been the AUSA assigned to the investigation of corruption at the
Hillsborough County Courthouse.
Second, the Commissions argument simply misinterprets the
Thornber test. The test focuses not on the conduct alleged, but the
proceeding itself. The issue is whether the litigation arise[s] out of or in
connection with the performance of [Judge Holders] official duties.
Thornber, 568 So. 2d at 917 (emphasis added).
Third, the JQC took the position below that the Charges were
sufficiently related to Judge Holders judicial duties to justify seeking
suspension despite the fact that the alleged conduct took place over five
years earlier. To now assert that the events in question are not sufficiently
related so as to satisfy the first prong of the Thornber test is a disingenuous
switch in position.
The inquiry this Court set forth in Thornber looks to the litigation as a
whole, including context, cause, and motivation. The Thornber test is not
answered by the conclusion that the charges against a public official
involved alleged facts or conduct outside the scope of his official duties. If
that were the test, any public official could be subjected to protracted
10
litigation that could cost him his job and savings based on false allegations
of improper conduct unrelated to his judicial duties. This is especially true
of judges because the Canons of Judicial Conduct broadly govern their
behavior. As the General Counsel to the Commission has recognized:
"The canons require a judge to deal honestly in all his affairs,"
MacDonald said. "Our Supreme Court has held that a judge is a
judge 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Whether he does it
within or without his judicial offices is beside the point."

Thomas A. MacDonald, Esq., quoted in Tampa Tribune, Committee
Proceeds with Trial of Holder (Mar. 5, 2004).
9
Where, as here, a judge prevails against allegations clearly intended to
prevent him from effectively performing a judicial duty (in this case,
cooperating with law enforcement investigating alleged corruption among

9
The JQC argued in its formal Charges that the acts do relate to official
duties: These acts, if they occurred as alleged, would impair the
confidence of the citizens of this State in the integrity of the judicial
system and in you as a judge, would demean your judicial office, would
constitute a violation of the cited Canons of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, and the Rules of Professional Conduct, would constitute
conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary, would demonstrate your
present unfitness to hold the office of judge, and would warrant
discipline, including, but not limited to, your removal from office. JQC
Resp., Ex. A 3. The Commissions position is inconsistent: It
simultaneously concedes that Judge Holders conduct was sufficiently
connected to the performance of official duties to charge him and seek
his suspension, yet not sufficiently connected to support repayment of his
fees now that he has prevailed. If no such connection existed, the
Commission had no authority to take jurisdiction in the first place.

11
his colleagues), it should not matter that the false allegations concerned the
preparation of an Air War College paper.
10
Instead, as Judge Holder
established below, the key factor is that the charges were made in an effort
to impair the judicial corruption investigation with which he was
cooperating. Accordingly, the litigation here arose out of or in connection
with performance of his official duties.
The issue in this case is not merely an issue personal to Judge Holder,
but one which goes to the heart of judicial independence. The denial of fees
in this case will impair the ability of any judge to defend against anonymous
false charges designed to derail a judge from doing his job. The correct
result in these instances is to permit a judge to recover reasonable attorneys
fees when the judge prevails.
B. The Successful Defense Of The Case Served A Public Policy Goal.
Judge Holders successful defense of the charges against him, arising
as they did from the troubled circumstances in the Hillsborough County
Courthouse, has the effect of restoring public confidence in the judiciary and

10
There are undoubtedly cases involving alleged personal moral failures of
judges which do not involve official conduct but which would directly
affect their fitness to serve. Unless the litigation of such charges is
accompanied by an improper intention (on the part of the charging party)
to interfere with their ongoing performance of judicial duties, the
granting of relief in the instant proceeding would not control the result in
such cases.
12
in the JQC process for supervising the judiciary. From the inception of the
Commissions case against Respondent, this case has been viewed in
Hillsborough County as entwined with the troubles of the Courthouse and
the resulting judicial corruption investigation. Judge Holders successful
defense was also perceived in that context. See Appendix A (press coverage
of this proceeding).
The Commission has acknowledged that Judge Holders defense
served a public purpose: Unquestionably, the resolution of the highly
publicized charges against Judge Holder and matters relating thereto served
a public purpose.... JQC Resp. at 5-6 (emphasis added). Indeed, the
Commission explains those related matters in a footnote as Judge Holders
participation as an undercover agent in an FBI investigation of corruption.
JCQ Resp. at 6 n.1. But if, as the Commission contends, the litigation
passes the public purpose prong of the Thornber test because of Judge
Holders status as an undercover agent, the Commission should not be
able shield that same fact from the official duties prong of the same test.
The selective relevance urged on this Court by the Commission is not
persuasive. The Commissions own characterization of the litigation
concedes that it did arise out of or in connection with the public corruption
investigation with which Judge Holder cooperated as provided for by the
13
Judicial Canons. Accordingly, he is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees.
C. The Commissions Arguments Do Not Compel Denial Of
Judge Holders Motion.

The Commission contends that In re Hapner, 737 So. 2d 1075 (Fla.
1999), establishes a rule forbidding the award of attorneys fees in this case.
JQC Resp. at 7. That case is inapposite. In Hapner, the Commission sought
and was denied attorneys fees as costs under Article V, Section 12 of the
Florida Constitution. Hapners application of that provision, however, is
irrelevant to a Thornber common law attorney fee awardwhich the
Commission concedes applies in this context. Indeed, a case like the instant
proceeding is precisely the situation envisioned by Thornber, in which the
absence of reimbursement may lead to the chilling effect that a denial of
representation might have on public officials in performing their duties
properly and diligently. Thornber, 568 So. 2d at 917, citing Nuzum v.
Valdes, 407 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
If this Court finds that Judge Holder is entitled to attorneys fees, such
fees will, of course, be limited to the amount deemed necessary and
reasonable in the context of this case. The determination of the amount of
recoverable attorneys fees should be determined by a special master based
on well-established principles of Florida law. In fact, a decision by this
Court that Judge Holder is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees
14
would not be the beginning of a raid on the judicial branch treasury. As a
historical matter, judges rarely prevail in JQC hearings. In fact, the last time
a judge prevailed at trial against the JQC was approximately 19 years ago in
1986.
11
In this rare case, Judge Holder denied all wrongdoing and prevailed.
Thus, the Commissions Thornber obligation to reimburse reasonable
attorneys fees will not unduly deter the Commission from carrying forth its
duties.
IV. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons set forth above, Respondents Motion for Award of
Attorneys Fees should be granted and a special master appointed to make a
recommendation as to the amount of a reasonable attorneys fee which
should be awarded to Judge Holder.
(Attorney signature appears on following page.)

11
Moreover, if a judge prevails only in part, but is otherwise sanctioned, the
judge likely would not qualify as a prevailing party. In re: Cope, 848 So. 2d
301 (Fla. 2003).
15
Dated: August 18, 2005
Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ David B. Weinstein
David B. Weinstein
Florida Bar Number 0604410
Jonathan C. Koch
Kimberly S. Mello
Bales Weinstein
Tampa, FL 33672-0179
Telephone No.: (813) 224-9100
Telecopier No.: (813) 224-9109

-and-

Juan P. Morillo
Steven T. Cottreau
Specially Admitted
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8000
Telecopier: (202) 736-8711

Counsel for Judge Gregory P. Holder

16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 18, 2005, a copy of the foregoing,
Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondents Motion for Award of
Attorneys Fees, has been served by regular U.S. Mail to Brooke Kennerly,
Hearing Panel Executive Director, 1110 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, FL
32303; John Beranek, Counsel to the Hearing Panel, Ausley & McMullen,
P.O. Box 391, Tallahassee, FL 32302; Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., JQC
General Counsel, 1904 Holly Lane, Tampa, FL 33629; Charles P. Pillans,
III, Esq., JQC Special Counsel, Bedell, Ditmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe,
P.A., The Bedell Building, 101 East Adams Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202;
and John P. Kuder, Chairman of the Hearing Panel, Judicial Building, 190
Governmental Center, Pensacola, FL 32501.

/s/ David B. Weinstein
Attorney

17


Case No. SC03-1171

INQUIRY CONCERNING RE: GREGORY P. HOLDER
A JUDGE, NO. 02-487

RESPONDENTS INITIAL BRIEF

David B. Weinstein Juan P. Morillo
Florida Bar No.: 604410 Florida Bar No.: 0135933
Kimberly S. Mello Steven T. Cottreau
Florida Bar No.: 0002968 Specially Admitted
Bales Weinstein Sidley Austin LLP
Post Office Box 172179 1501 K Street, N.W.
Tampa, Florida 33672-0179 Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (813) 224-9100 Telephone: (202) 736-8000
Telecopier: (813) 224-9109 Telecopier: (202) 736-8711

6
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................... ii, iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS..........................................................................6
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT................................................................. 10
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 14
I. JUDGE HOLDER IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE
ATTORNEYS FEES INCURRED IN HIS SUCCESSFULL
DEFENSE OF THE JQCS CHARGES UNDER THE THORNBER
DOCTRINE. ........................................................................................... 14
A. This litigation arose out of or in connection with the
performance of Judge Holders official duties. ................................ 16
B. This litigation served a public purpose. ........................................... 21
II. NEITHER THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, NOR
ANY OTHER DOCTRINE OR STATUTE, PROHIBITS OR LIMITS
THE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES IN THIS PROCEEDING. ......... 23
III. NO ADDITIONAL PARTIES ARE PROPER OR NECESSARY
FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF JUDGE HOLDERS
ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS FEES............................................. 26
CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.......................................................................... 32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................. 32

ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Natl R.R. Passenger Corp.,
908 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2005)..................................................................15, 23, 25
Dade County v. Carter,
231 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) ............................................................... 23
Dade County v. Certain Lands,
247 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) ............................................................... 27
Ellison v. Reid,
397 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)............................................................... 14
Estes v. City of N. Miami Beach,
227 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1969)......................................................................... 14, 22
In re Hapner,
737 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1999) ........................................................................... 15
Kluger v. White,
281 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973)................................................................................. 25
Miller v. Carbonelli,
80 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1955)............................................................................... 22
Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Treasure Island,
796 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2001)....................................................................... 24, 25
State ex rel. Fl. Dry Cleaning and Laundry Board v. Atkinson,
188 So. 834 (Fla. 1938).................................................................................. 24
State of Fla. v. Koch,
582 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) .................................................................. 25
State Road Dept of Fla. v. Tharp,
1 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1941)........................................................................... 24, 26
State v. Egan,
287 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973)................................................................................. 25
iii
Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach,
568 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1990)...................................................................... passim
STATUTES
768.14, Fla. Stat. ............................................................................................ 24
29.004, Fla. Stat. ............................................................................................ 23
28 U.S.C. 361................................................................................................ 27
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Art. 3, 22, Fla. Const. ..................................................................................... 23
Art. 5, 14(c), Fla. Const.................................................................................. 26
Art. 7, 1, Fla. Const........................................................................................ 26
Art. 12, 6(a), Fla. Const.................................................................................. 25
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Codes of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3D(1)................................................................. 16
Codes of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3D(3)................................................................. 17
Del. R. Ct. 68 ................................................................................................... 28
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.030(e) ........................................................................26, 27
Fla. Jud. Qual. Commn R. 15(a)....................................................................... 16
Op. Atty Gen. Fla. 93-21 (1993)....................................................................... 15

1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
More than two and a half years ago, in July of 2003, the Florida Judicial
Qualifications Commission (JQC or the Commission) filed a Notice of Formal
Charges (Charges) alleging that Hillsborough County Circuit Court Judge
Gregory P. Holder (Judge Holder or Respondent) had plagiarized an Air War
College (AWC) paper and falsely stated that it was his original work. Among
other things, the JQC alleged that Judge Holder violated 18 U.S.C. 1001 [a
felony], by making a materially false statement to the federal government. The
JQC also alleged that the charged conduct would demonstrate [Judge Holders]
present unfitness to hold the office of judge, and would warrant discipline,
including, but not limited to, [his] removal from office. [Notice of Formal
Charges, at App. 1.] The Commission also took the extraordinary step of issuing
an Order to Show Cause why the [JQC Investigative] Panel should not
recommend to the Supreme Court that [Judge Holder] be suspended from office
while this matter remained pending. [Commissions Amended Order to Show
Cause, at App. 2.]
To support its allegations, the JQC relied on a copy of an AWC paper
submitted by E. David Hoard in 1996 (Hoard paper) (Exhibit B to the
Charges) and copies of a paper that contained significant amounts of material from
the Hoard paper and which the JQC alleged was submitted by Judge Holder to the
2
AWC in 1998 (purported Holder paper) (Exhibit A to the Charges). Judge
Holder never contested that the purported Holder paper contained approximately
ten pages of nearly verbatim text from the Hoard paper. Instead, he steadfastly
maintained that the purported Holder paper was fabricated, most likely to discredit
him because of his role as a cooperating witness in a federal criminal investigation
of corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse (courthouse corruption
investigation).
The seriousness of the Charges, coupled with the factual and legal
complexities of this case, required Judge Holder to retain experienced counsel,
conduct extensive discovery, file and litigate (including full briefing and oral
argument) numerous motions,
1
and secure experts regarding document

1
Judge Holder filed the following motions on the referenced dates: 1) Motion in
Limine to Exclude Testimony of David Leta (8/27/04); 2) Motion in Limine to
Exclude All Documents Provided to the JQC by Jeffrey Del Fuoco (8/27/04); 3)
Motion in Limine to Exclude All Documents Provided to the JQC by the United
States Air Force (8/27/04); 4) Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of
Jeffrey Downing (8/27/04); 5) Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of
Jeffrey Del Fuoco (8/27/04); 6) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence on Best
Evidence Grounds (8/27/04); 7) Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence on Due
Process Grounds (8/27/04); 8) Motion in Limine to Exclude Copies of the
Purported Holder Paper on Authentication Grounds (8/27/04); and 9) Motion to
Dismiss the Pending Charges or in Limine to Exclude the Purported Holder
Paper and Hoard Paper Based on Evidentiary Improprieties (3/21/05). The JQC
Hearing Panel did not rule dispositively on the evidentiary motions prior to
trial. Instead, evidence at trial was taken subject to such motions, which were
ultimately denied by the Order of Dismissal.
3
authentication, the creation of documents (i.e., the purported Holder paper) using
Photoshop software, forensic computer analysis, and applied linguistics.
Formal discovery commenced in August of 2003, and continued for nearly
two years. During this time, extensive written discovery was served, including six
sets of interrogatories, three requests for production of documents, as well as
requests for admission. Additionally, the depositions of at least 24 witnesses were
taken in this action, many of whom resided outside the State of Florida. Judge
Holders counsel also conducted extensive informal discovery, including dozens of
witness interviews, and secured over two dozen witness affidavits. Judge Holder
also had to expend substantial resources attempting to obtain access to United
States military personnel and Assistant United States Attorneys, who were critical
witnesses in this case, because of the severe restrictions imposed by 28 C.F.R.
1621, et seq., on a civil litigants right to obtain the testimony of federal
employees.
This case was tried from June 6 to June 14, 2005, before the JQC Hearing
Panel, and included the testimony of more than 25 witnesses. During the trial,
Judge Holder presented compelling evidence that the purported Holder paper was
fabricated to retaliate against him for participating in the courthouse corruption
4
investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 7, 12-13, at App. 3.]
2
On June 23, 2005, the
Hearing Panel of the JQC voted unanimously to dismiss the charges against Judge
Holder. [Order of Dismissal, at App. 4.] Research indicates that this is the first
trial defense verdict against the JQC in almost twenty years.
On July 25, 2005, based on his successful defense of the Charges, Judge
Holder moved this Court to enter an order awarding attorneys fees incurred by
him in the JQC proceeding. In support of his motion, Judge Holder relied on the
well-settled common law doctrine [referred to in the Initial Brief as the Thornber
doctrine], which requires that a public official be reimbursed at public expense
following the successful defense of litigation that a) arises out of or in connection
with performance of his or her official duties, and b) serves a public purpose.

2
Pursuant to its September 8, 2005 Order (Order), the Court did not require the
Commission to provide a trial transcript. However, Judge Holders counsel
obtained uncertified trial transcripts of certain witnesses testimony, which are
included in the Appendix to the Initial Brief and cited as _____Tr. p. _____ at
App. ____. While these trial transcripts are not certified, Judge Holder does
not believe that the accuracy of the transcribed testimony cited by Respondent
is reasonably subject to dispute. However, should such a dispute arise, Judge
Holder will respectfully request an opportunity to supplement the record wit h a
certified transcript.

5
In its response to Judge Holders motion, the JQC conceded that a) the
Thornber doctrine applies to these proceedings, and b) this litigation served a
public purpose. [JQC Resp. p. 5, at App. 5.]
3
The JQCs sole argument was that
there was an insufficient nexus with the performance of Judge Holders official
duties as a Circuit Court Judge to satisfy the first prong of the Thornber list [sic].
[JQC Resp. pp. 5-6, at App. 5.] Judge Holder subsequently filed a Memorandum
of Law in Support of Respondents Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees as well
as Respondents Request for Oral Argument.
On December 2, 2005, this Court entered an Order granting Judge Holders
Request and ordering additional briefing on the following issues:
a) The specific basis and authority for an award of
attorneys fees in this case;

b) Any prohibitions or limitations with regard to a
monetary award in this case including, but not
limited to, issues of sovereign immunity or
otherwise; and

c) The joinder of any additional parties, if any,
necessary or proper for a full determination of
issues presented.

3
The Commissions Response to Respondents Motion for Award of Attorneys
Fees will be cited as JQC Resp. p. ____, at App. _____.
6
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Prior to and during his service as a civilian judge, Judge Holder had a
distinguished career in the United States Air Force, beginning with his graduation
from West Point in 1975. Judge Holder was one of 16 graduating cadets
commissioned into the Air Force. He served at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida,
where he concentrated in the study and development of armaments. Judge Holder
was one of the youngest Air Force officers ever to receive the Meritorious Service
Medal, as well as one of the youngest distinguished graduates of Squadron Officer
School. [Holder Tr. pp. 8-14, at App. 6.]
After earning his MBA in 1978, Judge Holder was one of only 25 officers in
the Air Force selected for the highly competitive Air Force Funded Legal
Education Program. [Id. at p. 11.] He graduated in 1981 from Stetson University
College of Law, where he served as an Associate Editor of the Law Review. [Id. at
p. 14.] After graduation, Judge Holder volunteered to go to Korea, where he
served as Area Defense Counsel. Following his tour of duty in Korea, Judge
Holder was transferred to MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. In 1988,
Judge Holder resigned his active duty commission, joined the Air Force Reserves,
and was assigned to U.S. Special Operations Command at MacDill. During his
distinguished military career, Judge Holder was one of only five Air Force Reserve
7
Officers in the world assigned as a Military Judge entrusted with jurisdiction over
special and general courts martial. [Id. at pp. 21-38.]
Judge Holder was elected to the Hillsborough County Court bench in 1994,
and to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in 1996.
4
While serving on the bench,
Judge Holder continued to serve as an officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. In
1997, Judge Holder enrolled in the U.S. Air Force Air War College. To graduate,
Judge Holder was required to pass a series of examinations and write a research
paper. Accordingly, in late 1997 and early 1998, Judge Holder researched and
wrote a paper on the Combined Bomber Offensive during World War II, for which
he received a satisfactory grade, and subsequently graduated from the Air War
College. [Id. at p. 78]
In 1999, Judge Holder reported to former Chief Judge Dennis Alvarez that
certain judges were engaging in improper conduct. [Nasco Tr. pp. 17-19, at App.
8.] In July of 2000, Judge Holders bailiff, Sylvia Morgan, discovered former
Judge Robert Bonanno in Judge Holders chambers, after normal business hours,
while Judge Holder was out of state on Air Force Reserve duty. [Sylvia Gays

4
Since taking the bench, Judge Holder has been described as a jurist of
unquestioned credibility and unassailable integrity and an officer of the highest
possible standards of behavior. Aff. of Colonel John S. Odom, Jr.,
Mobilization Assistant to the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Air Force Reserve
(Odom Aff.) 8, at App 7.
8
(n/k/a Sylvia Morgan) grand jury testimony (Oct. 11, 2000), pp. 55-60, at App. 9.]
5

Judge Bonanno left Respondents chambers carrying unidentified documents. [Id.]
Judge Holder reported this incident, and a law enforcement investigation ensued.
[Id. at pp. 102, 105-07.] Ultimately, impeachment proceedings were commenced
against Judge Bonanno and he resigned from office.
During 2001 and 2002, Judge Holder cooperated with the FBI in the
courthouse corruption investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 4-5, at App. 3.] Because
of Judge Holders cooperation, the investigations targets had motive and resources
to seek retribution against him. [Id. at pp. 7-8] Indeed, these targets faced not just
loss of position but potential incarceration. [Id.]
In early 2002, in the midst of the courthouse corruption investigation,
Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Del Fuoco, who also served in the United
States Army Reserve, claimed that an unmarked manila envelope was
anonymously placed under his office door at the Army Reserve Headquarters in St.
Petersburg. [Del Fuoco Tr., pp. 8-9, at App. 10.] Del Fuoco testified that the
unmarked envelope contained an unsigned typewritten note to the effect that I
thought you would be interested in this, or something should be done about this.
[Id. at p. 10.] The note was purportedly signed A concerned citizen, or A

5
Transcript of Grand Jury Testimony of Sylvia Gay also is available in Supreme
Court Case No. SC01-2078, Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 00-261, Re:
Robert H. Bonanno.
9
concerned taxpayer. [Id.] The note allegedly accompanied a copy of the
purported Holder paper and a copy of the Hoard paper (the Papers). [Id. at pp.
10-12.]
The United States Attorneys Office did not provide the papers to the JQC
until December of 2002, approximately 11 months after it received them.
Tellingly, the referral to the JQC occurred just weeks after Judge Holder wrote a
letter to the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility
complaining about the lack of progress in the courthouse corruption investigation.
[Bartoszak Tr. p. 8, at App. 3.] However, by that time, the purported note and
envelope had inexplicably disappeared from the file in the United States Attorneys
Office. [Del Fuoco Tr., pp. 50-52, at App. 10.] Consequently, the only evidentiary
documents received by the JQC were the purported Holder paper and the Hoard
paper.
However, notwithstanding the Commissions knowledge that the central
issue in this case was whether the purported Holder paper was genuine, the JQC
vigorously prosecuted this case despite the following facts:
The JQC admitted that it had no witness who could
testify based on personal knowledge that the purported
Holder paper was an authentic copy of the actual paper
that Judge Holder submitted to the Air War College
[Commissions Response to Resp.s 1st Req. for
Admissions 1, at App. 11.];
10

Both the note and the manila envelope (i) inexplicably
vanished from the U.S. Attorneys Office and (ii) were
never forensically tested for fingerprints, DNA, or
otherwise to attempt to identify their source [Del Fuoco
Trans., pp. 53-56, at App. 10.];

No original of Judge Holders actual AWC paper was
ever located [Commissions Response to Resp.s 1st Req.
for Admissions 1, at App. 11.]; and

Judge Holder and four third-party witnesses who saw
Judge Holders actual paper at or about the time he
submitted it to the Air War College swore that the
purported Holder paper was not genuine
6
[Vento Dep.
pp. 71, 73, at App. 12.]; [Affidavit of Lt. Col. James
Russick 9, at App. 13.]; [Lawson Dep. pp. 15, 16, at
App. 14]; [Nasco Tr. p. 13, at App. 8]; [Holder Tr. p. 76,
at App. 6.]

Judge Holder incurred significant attorneys fees in his successful defense against
the Commissions Charges, which he is entitled to recover based on the authority
set forth below.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
7

Judge Holder is entitled to an award of attorneys fees based on the well-
settled common law doctrine that a public official is entitled to be reimbursed at
public expense following the successful defense of litigation that a) arises out of or

6
The depositions of John Vento and Ken Lawson were admitted into evidence
during the trial due to their unavailability.

7
This is not an appellate proceeding. Therefore, Respondent has not included a
section on the applicable standard of review.
11
in connection with performance of his or her official duties, and b) serves a public
purpose.
Here, the Charges and the resulting litigation clearly arose out of or in
connection with an attempt by an anonymous person or persons to interfere with
Judge Holders participation in the courthouse corruption investigation. Indeed,
the overwhelming evidence at trial established the requisite connection to the
courthouse corruption investigation, including the fact that the purported Holder
paper was fabricated as a result of Judge Holders participation in that
investigation. Significantly, the Judicial Canons required Judge Holders
participation in the courthouse corruption investigation as part of his judicial
duties. In addition, from the inception of this proceeding, the JQC maintained that
the Charges were sufficiently related to Judge Holders judicial duties to justify his
suspension from the benchdespite the fact that the alleged conduct took place
over five years earlier. Under these circumstances, this litigation clearly arose out
of or in connection with the performance of Judge Holders official duties.
Not surprisingly, the Commission has conceded the second prong of the
Thornber testthat the litigation served a public purpose. From its inception, this
proceeding has been highly publicized and viewed as inextricably entwined with
the courthouse corruption investigation. Accordingly, the public clearly had an
interest in, and the judiciary the responsibility to ensure, the proper functioning of
12
the JQC process as it related to these highly publicized Charges. Moreover, this
litigation served a public purpose because a) the successful defense of Judge
Holder resulted in an accomplished and respected jurist remaining on the bench; b)
the overall functioning of the Circuit Court, as well as the interests of the attorneys
and the litigants with matters pending before the judge, were not adversely
impacted; and c) the litigation has not only restored or enhanced public confidence
in Judge Holders position as a jurist, but restored or enhanced public confidence
in the judiciary.
Judge Holders entitlement to attorneys fees under this common law
doctrine is not barred or limited by sovereign immunity or any other doctrine. This
proceeding is simply not a suit against the State. Rather, the Judicial Qualifications
Commission, an element of the State courts system, investigated and made the
decision to institute this proceeding against Judge Holder. Indeed, to find that the
doctrine of sovereign immunity applied in this circumstance would prevent Judge
Holder from enforcing a right guaranteed to him by the law of this State. As a
result, Judge Holder would have been forced to defend a complex, protracted, and
very expensive case because of a State agencys deliberate decision to proceed
against him, but without meaningful legal recourse for the significant expenses that
he has necessarily incurred. Such an application would transform the doctrine of
13
sovereign immunity into a sword not a shield in direct contravention of Florida
law.
Finally, in determining Judge Holders entitlement to reimbursement for his
attorneys fees under the Thornber doctrine, no additional parties are proper or
necessary. If this Court rules that Judge Holder is entitled to reimbursement, the
issue of a reasonable amount of attorneys fees and an appropriate funding
mechanism will become ripe for this Courts consideration. Likewise, no
additional parties are necessary in order to determine the amount of attorneys fees
to be awarded. When the issue of an appropriate funding mechanism becomes
ripe, the State Courts Administrator (SCA) may have an interest in the
proceeding, though Judge Holder does not believe that the SCA is a necessary
party. This is based on the fact that this Court is vested with the responsibility of
submitting budget requests to the legislature for the purposes of obtaining the
necessary funding. Therefore, any funding necessary for an award of attorneys
fees should be requested by this Court, through its SCA who appears before the
legislature on the Courts behalf.
14
ARGUMENT
I. JUDGE HOLDER IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE
ATTORNEYS FEES INCURRED IN HIS SUCCESSFULL DEFENSE
OF THE JQCS CHARGES UNDER THE THORNBER DOCTRINE.
It is well-established under Florida law that a public officer is entitled to be
reimbursed at public expense for the attorneys fees incurred in successfully
defending a lawsuit or misconduct charges while performing public duties and
serving a public purpose. See e.g. Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So.
2d 914 (Fla. 1990); Estes v. City of N. Miami Beach, 227 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1969);
Ellison v. Reid, 397 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). As this Court has stated, the
purpose of the common law rule is to avoid the chilling effect that a denial of
representation might have on public officials in performing their duties properly
and diligently. Thornber, 568 So. 2d at 917. In order to be entitled to attorneys
fees, a public official must establish the following:
1. the litigation arose out of or in connection with the
performance of his or her official duties; and

2. the litigation served a public purpose.

Id.
Indeed, this common law entitlement to attorneys fees, which arises
independent of any statute, has been broadly construed. See, e.g., Ellison, 397 So.
2d 352 (awarded fees to county property appraiser for defense of charges that he
plagiarized an appraisal report and engaged in other misconduct while attending
15
Department of Revenue training program). In fact, this Court has held that section
111.07, Florida Statutes, which provides for reimbursement of public officials
attorneys fees for the defense of civil actions, does not supplant the common law
doctrine. Thornber, 568 So. 2d at 918. Rather, the common law doctrine provides
to public officials the clear right to seek reimbursement for attorneys fees in
proceedings other than civil actions. Id. at 918, 919 n. 7 (public officials should be
reimbursed for the fees incurred by successful defense of charges relating to ethical
misconduct in connection with their official duties).
Importantly, Floridas Attorney General has expressly recognized that
judges should be reimbursed for their legal fees in successfully defending JQC
charges if the two-pronged test set forth in Thornber (Thornber test) is met. Op.
Atty Gen. Fla. 93-21 (1993). This Court has held that these opinions, while not
binding, are highly persuasive. Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Natl R.R. Passenger
Corp., 908 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2005).
Given this overwhelming authority, the JQC has conceded that the Thornber
doctrine applies to this case. [JQC Resp. p. 5, at App. 5.] Indeed, without the
ability to seek such reimbursement, judges would face a choice between loss of
reputation and removal from the bench on one hand, and mounting an effective
defensewhich could lead to financial ruinon the other. See In re Hapner, 737
So. 2d 1075, 1077 (Fla. 1999) (an accused judge should not be placed in the
16
position of foregoing a defense against unwarranted charges because he or she
might otherwise face financial ruin if unsuccessful in the proceeding); Fla. Jud.
Qual. Commn R. 15(a). Florida law does not require a judge to make such a
Hobsons choice. Instead, as set forth below, Judge Holder is entitled to an award
of attorneys fees pursuant to the Thornber doctrine.
A. This litigation arose out of or in connection with the performance
of Judge Holders official duties.

The first prong of the Thornber test focuses on whether the litigation
arise[s] out of or in connection with the performance of [Judge Holders] official
duties. Thornber, 568 So. 2d at 917. Here, the Charges and the resulting
litigation clearly arose out of or in connection with an attempt by an anonymous
person or persons
8
to interfere with Judge Holders participation in the courthouse
corruption investigation. Significantly, Judge Holders participation in this
corruption investigation was not just in connection with, but, in fact, was required
by, his judicial duties. Codes of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3D(1) states as follows:
A judge who receives information or has actual
knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that another
judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take
appropriate action.

8
i.e., whoever fabricated the purported Holder paper, typed the note, and slipped
the unmarked envelope under Jeffrey Del Fuocos Army Reserve Office door.

17
(Emphasis added.) Consequently, when Judge Holder was approached by law
enforcement agents in connection with the courthouse corruption investigation, he
did exactly what the Judicial Canons required of himhe told the agents what he
knew and suffered the attendant consequences.
9
Thus, by cooperating in the
courthouse corruption investigation, Judge Holder discharged responsibilities that
the Canons required.
In fact, Canon 3D(3) states that [a]cts of a judge, in the discharge of
disciplinary responsibilities, required or permitted by Sections 3D(1) and 3D(2)
are part of a judges judicial duties.... Codes of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3D(3)
(emphasis added). It was Judge Holders discharge of his judicial duties that
motivated an anonymous person or persons to steal Judge Holders actual AWC
paper from his chambers. Special Counsel for the JQC effectively conceded this
point during closing argument when he stated that Holders actual paper and the
Hoard paper were stolen from Judge Holders chambers.
Indeed, the overwhelming evidence at trial established the requisite
connection to the courthouse corruption investigation, including the fabrication of
the purported Holder paper. Significantly, the fact that the envelope containing the

9
Detective Bartoszak testified at trial that the courthouse corruption investigation
team was concerned that Judge Holders activities were being monitored by
targets of the investigation. Judge Holder was advised by federal law
enforcement agents to carry a weapon, and he was provided with a secure cell
phone to communicate with the authorities. [Bartoszak Tr. pp. 7-8, at App. 3.]

18
Papers was slipped under the door of Mr. Del Fuocowho had been the
prosecutor assigned to that casedemonstrates that the objective of this scheme
was to derail the courthouse corruption investigation. [Bartoszak Tr. p. 4, at App.
3.] Moreover, the testimony of a) Judge Holder, b) four third-party witnesses who
saw Judge Holders actual Air War College paper at or about the time it was
submitted, and c) an expert on applied linguistics, established that the purported
Holder paper was not the paper that Judge Holder actually submitted to the AWC
in 1998. This testimony included the following:
Judge Holder testified that he was absolutely
certain that the purported Holder paper was not
his paper. [Holder Tr. p. 76, at App. 6.];

John Vento, a respected member of The Florida
Bar and retired Air Force Colonel, reviewed Judge
Holders AWC paper shortly after it was written
and testified that the purported Holder paper
cannot be the same paper . . . [n]o doubt in my
mind about it. [Vento Dep. pp. 71, 73, at App.
12];

James Russick, another respected member of The
Florida Bar and retired Air Force Lieutenant
Colonel, testified that he also reviewed the actual
Holder paper and did not recognize any part of
this [purported Holder] paper as being [Judge
Holders] work. [Aff. of Lt. Col. Russick 9, at
App. 13.];
19

Ken Lawson, a former federal prosecutor, testified
that he did not notice any similarities between the
Hoard paper and the actual Holder paper that he
had received from Judge Holder in early 1998, and
that he never gave Jeffrey Del Fuoco a graded
copy of Judge Holders paper, directly refuting Mr.
Del Fuocos testimony. [Lawson Dep. pp. 15, 16,
at App. 14.];

Lorraine Nasco, Judge Holders former judicial
assistant, testified that the purported Holder paper
was not the one she typed and submitted to the Air
Force. [Nasco Tr. p. 13, at App. 8]; and

Dr. John T. Crow, a Fulbright lecturer and
professor of linguistics, carefully examined Judge
Holders writing style, syntax, and use of
grammatical constructs from multiple writing
samples of Judge Holder dating back several years.
After analyzing the purported Holder paper, Dr.
Crow testified that it was his opinion that Judge
Holder was not the author of the purported Holder
paper. [Crow Dep. pp. 15-16, at App. 15.]

This testimony regarding fabrication was further buttressed by the testimony of
Detective Bartoszak that another cooperating witness in the courthouse corruption
investigation had also been retaliated against through the use of fabricated
documents. [Bartoszak Tr. p. 19, at App. 3.]
From the inception of this proceeding, the JQC maintained that the Charges
were sufficiently related to Judge Holders judicial duties to justify his suspension
from the benchdespite the fact that the alleged conduct took place over five
20
years earlier.
10
For the Commission to now argue that this litigation arises neither
out of nor in connection with the performance of Judge Holders official duties
particularly given the overwhelming evidence presented at trialis, at best, a
convenient change in position and, in any event, is unavailing. While there may be
JQC proceedings involving alleged personal moral failures of judges that do not
involve official conduct but which would directly affect their fitness to serve, this
was not such a case. Here, a judge prevailed in a proceeding which arose out of an
attempt to prevent him from effectively performing a judicial dutycooperating
with a law enforcement investigation of alleged courthouse corruption.
Accordingly, this litigation clearly arose out of or in connection with the
performance of Judge Holders official duties.

10
The JQC alleged as follows: These acts, if they occurred as alleged, would
impair the confidence of the citizens of this State in the integrity of the judicial
system and in you as a judge, would demean your judicial office, would
constitute a violation of the cited Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
the Rules of Professional Conduct, would constitute conduct unbecoming a
member of the judiciary, would demonstrate your present unfitness to hold the
office of judge, and would warrant discipline, including, but not limited to, your
removal from office. [Commissions Notice of Formal Charges, at App. 1.]
The Commission also took the extraordinary step of issuing an Order to Show
Cause why the [JQC Investigative] Panel should not recommend to the
Supreme Court that [Judge Holder] be suspended from office, either with or
without compensation, while . . . [this matter] is pending. [Commissions Am.
Order to Show Cause, at App. 2.]

21
B. This litigation served a public purpose.

The Commission has conceded that this litigation clearly served a public
purpose stating:
Unquestionably, the resolution of the highly publicized
charges against Judge Holder and matters relating
thereto served a public purpose....

[JQC Resp. pp. 5-6, at App. 5 (emphasis added)]. The related matters
acknowledged by the Commission involve Judge Holders participation as an
undercover agent in the courthouse corruption investigation. [Id. at p. 6 n.1] The
decision of the Commission to concede the public purpose prong of the Thornber
test is not surprising. From its inception, this proceeding has been highly
publicized and viewed as inextricably entwined with the courthouse corruption
investigation, in which Judge Holder was a cooperating witness. [Appendix to
Respondents Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees, filed August 9, 2005.] Thus,
it simply cannot be reasonably disputed that this proceeding directly raised issues
relating to the publics confidence in, and proper functioning of, the judiciary,
particularly in Hillsborough County, Florida. Accordingly, the public clearly had
an interest in, and the judiciary the responsibility to ensure, the proper functioning
of the JQC process as it related to these highly publicized Charges. Thornber, 568
So. 2d at 917 (public had interest in knowing that the proper procedures were being
followed with regard to recall petition to remove council members from office).
22
Moreover, this Court has clearly recognized that there is a public purpose to
be served in protecting public officials from improper charges. Thornber, 568 So.
2d at 917 (there is a public purpose to be served in the City protecting its officers
from untimely and illegal recall petitions). The successful defense of Judge
Holder resulted in an accomplished and respected jurist remaining on the bench.
Indeed, Judge Holder is extremely well regarded in both the legal community and
the community at large. He was elected by the voters of Hillsborough County with
over 63% of the vote when he ran for an open County Court judgeship. [Holder
Tr. p. 55, at App. 6.] Throughout his tenure on the bench, Judge Holder has not
only carried a significant case load, but has earned the confidence and respect of
the citizens of Hillsborough County as well as his peers. This is exemplified by
the fact that in 2000, Judge Holder was selected by his peers as the Judge Patton
Jurist of the Year for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. [Id. at p. 60]
In addition, because of Judge Holders vindication, the overall functioning
of the Circuit Court, as well as the interests of the attorneys and the litigants with
matters pending before the Judge, were not adversely impacted. Ensuring the
overall effective and efficient functioning of a government bodyin this case, the
judiciary, has been repeatedly recognized as serving a public purpose. Thornber,
568 So. 2d at 917; See also Estes v. City of N. Miami Beach, 227 So. 2d 33 (Fla.
1969); Miller v. Carbonelli, 80 So. 2d 909, 909 (Fla. 1955). Ultimately, Judge
23
Holders successful defense of the Charges not only restored or enhanced public
confidence in his position as a jurist, but restored or enhanced public confidence in
the judiciary, and has prompted discussion regarding whether reform of the JQC is
appropriate. Based on these factors, Judge Holders defense of the JQC
proceeding clearly served a public purpose.
II. NEITHER THE DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, NOR
ANY OTHER DOCTRINE OR STATUTE, PROHIBITS OR LIMITS
THE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES IN THIS PROCEEDING.

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is a fundamental tenet of Anglo-
American jurisprudence that prohibits suits against the State. Am. Home
Assurance Co. v. Natl R.R. Passenger Corp., 908 So. 2d 459, 471 (Fla. 2005).
Accordingly, under the Florida Constitution, no suit can be brought against the
State unless authorized by the Legislature through general law. Art. 3, 22, Fla.
Const.
This proceeding is simply not a suit against the State. Rather, the
Commission, an element of the State courts system, investigated and made the
decision to institute this proceeding against Judge Holder. See 29.004, Fla. Stat.
(declaring the JQC to be an element of the State courts system for purposes of
funding). When, as here, the State voluntarily decides to bring an action, it cannot
hide behind the cloak of sovereign immunity. See Dade County v. Carter, 231 So.
2d 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (when the State brings an action, it cannot hide behind
24
the cloak of sovereign immunity); 768.14, Fla. Stat. (waiving sovereign
immunity when the State institutes an action in tort); Provident Mgmt. Corp. v.
City of Treasure Island, 796 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2001) (sovereign immunity does not
apply to restrict award of damages against a governmental entity for the erroneous
issuance of a temporary injunction). For this reason, the doctrine of sovereign
immunity does not apply to this proceeding.
Indeed, even in suits brought against the State, the doctrine is not a universal
concept except in tort suitswhich this proceeding was not. As this Court has
stated:
As to tort actions, the rule is universal and unqualified
unless relaxed by the State, but in other fields, it is not
universal in application and cannot be said to cover the
field like the dew covers Dixie.

State Road Dept of Fla. v. Tharp, 1 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1941). Thus, among other
things, sovereign immunity does not afford protection against an unconstitutional
statute, against a duty imposed on a State officer by statute, or against illegal acts
of the State. In fact, it has been expressly held that sovereign immunity does not
apply to suits in which the interest of the State is merely in the vindication of its
laws, or their enforcement as affecting the public at large or the rights of
individuals or corporations. State ex rel. Fl. Dry Cleaning and Laundry Board v.
Atkinson, 188 So. 834 (Fla. 1938).
25
Moreover, Judge Holders right to be reimbursed for his attorneys fees at
public expense has expressly been made part of Florida law. Art. 12, 6(a), Fla.
Const. (laws in effect upon 1968 revision to Florida Constitution remain in force in
this state). Therefore, to find that the doctrine of sovereign immunity applied in
this circumstance would prevent Judge Holder from enforcing a right guaranteed to
him by the law of this State. In essence, this would have the effect of judicially
abolishing a common law rightat least in this context. See, e.g., State of Fla. v.
Koch, 582 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (sovereign immunity statute does not
abolish common law right in existence as part of the laws of Florida of 1968);
Kluger v. White, 281 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973). This, of course, is almost never done.
See State v. Egan, 287 So. 2d 1, 6-7 (Fla. 1973).
Consequently, Judge Holder would have been forced to defend a complex,
protracted, and very expensive case because of a State agencys deliberate decision
to proceed against him, but without meaningful legal recourse for the reasonable
expenses that he has necessarily incurred. Such an application would transform the
doctrine of sovereign immunity into a sword not a shield. Provident Mgmt. Corp.,
796 So. 2d at 487 (sovereign immunity intended to be a shield not a sword); See
also Am. Home Assurance Co., 908 So. 2d at 471 (sovereign immunity intended to
protect government from profligate lawsuits). Accordingly, for these reasons,
sovereign immunity simply should not, and does not, apply in this circumstance.
26
To find otherwise would render would render a public officials right to
reimbursement nothing more than a tinkling of empty words. State Road Dept.
of Florida, 1 So. 2d at 870.
III. NO ADDITIONAL PARTIES ARE PROPER OR NECESSARY FOR
THE ADJUDICATION OF JUDGE HOLDERS ENTITLEMENT TO
ATTORNEYS FEES.

In determining whether Judge Holder is entitled to reimbursement for his
attorneys fees under the Thornber doctrine, no additional parties are proper or
necessary. If this Court rules that Judge Holder is entitled to reimbursement, the
issue of a reasonable amount of attorneys fees and an appropriate funding
mechanism will become ripe for this Courts consideration. Likewise, no
additional parties are necessary in order to determine the amount of attorneys fees
to be awarded. When the issue of an appropriate funding mechanism becomes
ripe, the State Courts Administrator (SCA) may have an interest in the
proceeding, though Judge Holder does not believe that the SCA is a necessary
party. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.030(e).
Importantly, funding for the state courts system, which includes the
Commission, is provided by state revenues appropriated by general law. Art. 7,
1, Fla. Const. (no money shall be drawn from the treasury except in pursuance of
appropriation made by law); Art. 5 14(c), Fla. Const. (Court has no power to fix
appropriations). This Court is vested with the responsibility of submitting budget
27
requests to the legislature for the purposes of obtaining the necessary funding. Fla.
R. Jud. Admin. 2.030(e). Therefore, any funding necessary for an award of
attorneys fees should be requested by this Court, through its SCA who appears
before the legislature on the Courts behalf. Id. In fact, counsel for Judge Holder
previously placed the SCA on notice of Judge Holders attorneys fee claim.
[Letter from David B. Weinstein to the Hon. Manuel Menendez (July 25, 2005), at
App. 16.]
Ultimately, the failure to establish an appropriate funding mechanism would
render Judge Holders entitlement to attorneys fees illusory. As recognized by
Florida courts, a right without a remedy is a ghost in the law and difficult to
grasp. Dade County v. Certain Lands, 247 So. 2d 787, 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
The most obvious funding mechanism would be the submission of a line item in
the Courts yearly budget request. A similar procedure is followed in the federal
system. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. 361 provides as follows:
Upon the request of a judge whose conduct is the subject
of a complaint under this chapter, the judicial council
may, if the complaint has been finally dismissed under
section 354(a)(1)(B), recommend that the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts award
reimbursement, from funds appropriated to the Federal
judiciary, for those reasonable expenses, including
attorneys' fees, incurred by that judge during the
investigation which would not have been incurred but for
the requirements of this chapter.

28
This statute makes the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts (the apparent federal equivalent of the SCA) the person responsible for
obtaining the necessary appropriation. Under the statute, the Director regularly
submits a specific appropriation request to Congress. Congress, in turn, approves a
general appropriations bill for the entire amount of salaries and other expenses,
from which a specific portion of the amount appropriated is allocated for
reimbursement of attorneys fees or other expenses incurred by judges in
successfully defending themselves in disciplinary proceedings. The Director then
approves reimbursement of legal expenses, as recommended by the Circuit Judicial
Council.
11

Another recognized funding mechanism is through an established Court
contingency or trust fund. This process is followed in Delaware, which has a rule
that provides for reimbursement to private counsel for attorneys fees incurred by
judges in disciplinary proceedings. Del. R. Ct. 68. If an award of attorneys fees is
approved in accordance with this rule, the Supreme Court Administrator pays the
amount from the Supreme Courts pro hac vice fund, which is comprised of

11
This information was provided by Mr. William Burchill, General Counsel for
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

29
money collected yearly from pro hac vice applicants.
12
In Florida, based on
research conducted to date, the Court presently appears to have existing trust or
contingency funds for different purposes. However, it is not clear at this juncture
whether any of those funds could be utilized for this purpose and, if so, whether
legislative approval would be required.
Based on the above analysis, no other additional parties, other than perhaps
the SCA, appear to be proper or necessary parties to any part of this attorneys fees
proceeding. However, while a public officials common law right to
reimbursement of attorneys fees has been in existence for well over a hundred
years, it is a very rare occurrence for a Florida JQC matter to proceed to trial and
for the respondent judge to prevail. Indeed, the issue of reimbursement in this
context has never been directly addressed by this Court. Therefore, if additional
parties or possible other avenues for funding are identified, Judge Holder
respectfully requests that he be afforded the opportunity to supplement his brief on
this issue.

12
Information relating to Delaware procedure was provided by Ms. Margaret
Naylor, the Clerk of the Court on the Judiciary, and Mr. Stephen Taylor, the
Supreme Court Administrator. Mr. Taylor further advised that if the
contingency funds are insufficient, the Court would inform the State Budget
Director that this was a legitimate bill that needed to be paid on behalf of a state
officer.
30
CONCLUSION
A decision by this Court that Judge Holder is entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys fees would not be the beginning of a raid on the treasury. As a
historical matter, judges rarely prevail in JQC hearings. In fact, the last time a
judge prevailed at trial against the JQC was approximately 20 years ago in 1986.
In this rare case, Judge Holder denied all wrongdoing and has prevailed,
notwithstanding a lengthy and vigorous prosecution by the JQC. As set forth
above, this litigation clearly arose out of or in connection with the performance of
Judge Holders official duties and served a public purpose. Under these
circumstances, Judge Holder is entitled to be reimbursed from public funds for his
attorneys fees incurred in his successful defense against the Commissions
Charges. Accordingly, Judge Holder respectfully requests that this Court enter an
Order granting reimbursement of his reasonable attorneys fees in accordance with
the Thornber doctrine.
(Attorney signature appears on following page.)
31

Dated: February 3, 2006.
Respectfully Submitted,

David B. Weinstein
Florida Bar No.: 0604410
Kimberly S. Mello
Bales Weinstein
Tampa, FL 33672-0179
Telephone: (813) 224-9100
Telecopier: (813) 224-9109

-and-

Juan P. Morillo
Steven T. Cottreau
Specially Admitted
Sidley Austin LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8000
Telecopier: (202) 736-8711


32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 3, 2006, a copy of the foregoing, Respondents
Initial Brief, has been served by regular U.S. Mail to Brooke Kennerly, Hearing
Panel Executive Director, 1110 Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, FL 32303; John
Beranek, Counsel to the Hearing Panel, Ausley & McMullen, P.O. Box 391,
Tallahassee, FL 32302; Thomas C. MacDonald, Jr., JQC General Counsel, 1904
Holly Lane, Tampa, FL 33629; Charles P. Pillans, III, Esq., JQC Special Counsel,
Bedell, Ditmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe, P.A., The Bedell Building, 101 East
Adams Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202; and John P. Kuder, Chairman of the
Hearing Panel, Judicial Building, 190 Governmental Center, Pensacola, FL 32501.

Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief complies with the font requirements of rule
9.210(a)(2) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Attorney


Case No. SC03-1171

A JUDGE, NO. 02-487

APPENDIX TO RESPONDENTS INITIAL BRIEF

David B. Weinstein, Esquire Juan P. Morillo
Florida Bar No. 0604410 Florida Bar No: 0135933
Kimberly S. Mello, Esquire Steven T. Cottreau
Florida Bar No. 0002968 Specially Admitted
BALES WEINSTEIN Sidley Austin LLP
P.O. Box 172179 1501 K Street, N. W.
Tampa, Florida 33672-0179 Washington, D. C.
Telephone: (813) 224-9100 Telephone: (202) 736-8000
Telecopier: (813) 224-9109 Telecopier: (202) 736-8711

7
2
INDEX TO APPENDIX

Commissions Notice of Formal Charges dated July 16, 2003........................... A-1
Commissions Amended Order to Show Cause dated August 11, 2003 ............. A-2
Excerpts of Trial Testimony of Detective James Bartoszak............................... A-3
Order of Dismissal dated June 23, 2005........................................................... A-4
Commissions Response to Respondents Motion for Attorneys Fees
and Costs dated August 8, 2005....................................................................... A-5
Excerpts of Trial Testimony of Judge Gregory P Holder................................... A-6
Affidavit of Colonel John S. Odom dated June 4, 2003..................................... A-7
Excerpts of Trial Testimony of Lorraine Nasco................................................ A-8
Excerpts of the Grand Jury Testimony of Sylvia Gay (n/k/a Sylvia
Morgan) ......................................................................................................... A-9
Excerpts of Trial Testimony of Jeffrey J. Del Fuoco....................................... A-10
Commissions Response to Respondents First Request for Admissions.......... A-11
Excerpts of the May 28, 2005 Deposition of John Vento ................................ A-12
Affidavit of James Russick dated August 5, 2003........................................... A-13
Excerpts of the February 11, 2005 Deposition of Kenneth Lawson ................. A-14
Excerpts of the May 4, 2005 Deposition of Dr. John Crow............................. A-15
Correspondence from David B. Weinstein to the Hon. Manuel
Menendez dated July 25, 2005 ...................................................................... A-16

INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHE
STATEOFFLORIDA
INQUIRYCONCERNINGA SC03-1171
JUDGE,GREGORYP. HOLDER,
CASENO. 02-487
FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONON COSTS
Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court, the Hearing Panel of the
Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission requested and received from Judge
Holder detailed schedules setting forth the costs incurred in successfully
responding to allegations in this cause. The Hearing Panel has carefully
reviewed the costs pursuant to Rule 2.310, Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration.
TheCommission, afterconsultingwith Judge Holder, reviewingJudge
Holder'sdetailedscheduleofcosts, and analyzingthe FloridaRulesofJudicial
Administrationand relevantcase law, hasconcludedcostsshould be awardedto
Judge Holderin the amountofseventythousanddollars($70,000).
8
Therefore the Hearing Panel hereby recommends to the Court that it
award costs in favor of Judge Holder in the amount of seventy thousand dollars
($70,000).
DONE AND ORDERED this 17
th
day of August, 2009.
Copies furnished:
David B. Weinstein, Esq.
Counsel for Judge Holder
Greenberg, Traurig
Courthouse Plaza, Suite 160
625 East TWiggs Street
(813) 318-5701
Michael L. Schneider, Esq.
General Counsel
111 0 Thomasville Road
(850) 488-1581
FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSION
Judge Paul L. Backman
Chairman, Hearing Panel
Commission
Tallahassee, FL 32303
(850) 488-1581
John Beranek, Esq.
Counsel to the Hearing Panel
Ausley & McMullen
P.O. Box 391
(850) 244-9115
Brooke Kennerly
Executive Director
Judicial Qualification Commission
(850) 488-1581

___________________________________________________________________

Supreme Court of Florida
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
CASE NO.: SC03-1171
A JUDGE, NO. 02-487
Upon consideration of the Motion to Tax Costs, the Hearing Panel of the
Judicial Qualifications Commission's Findings and Recommendation, and the
Stipulation on Costs, it is ordered that said recommendation and stipulation are
approved and the Motion to Tax Costs is hereby granted.
Judgment is entered for Judge Gregory P. Holder, for recovery of costs from
the Judicial Qualifications Commission in the amount of $70,000.00, for which
sum let execution issue.
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and
PERRY, JJ., concur.
A True Copy
Test:
bm
Served:
HON. JAMES R. WOLF STEVEN T. COTTREAU
JOHN R. BERANEK GREGORY W. KEHOE
CHARLES P. PILLANS, III JUAN PABLO MORILLO
MARVIN E. BARKIN JONATHAN C. KOCH
DAVID BARNETT WEINSTEIN VIRGINIA ZOCK HOUSER
MICHAEL LOUIS SCHNEIDER KIMBERLY STAFFA MELLO
HON. JOHN PATRICK KUDER
HON. GREGORY PAUL HOLDER, JUDGE
9
INTIIE CIRCUITCOURTOFTImnDRTEENTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OFFLORIDAINAND FORmLLSBOROUGHCOUNlY
INRE: ANINVES11GATIONINTOJUDICIALMISCONDUCT
INHILLSBOROUGHCOl,JNTY.
:
PRESENTMENT
"Late- in theafternoon July 27,2000,BailiffSylviaGayused"herkey to
entertheofficesofCircuitJudgeGregoryHolderinthe HillsboroughCountyCourthouse.
GaywhoisassignedbytheHillsboroughCO\Ulty OfficetoworkforJudgeHolder
was theretoretrievesomepersonaleffects. Whensheenteredtheoffices,shefOWldtoher
surprisethattheywereoccupiedby JudgeRobertBonanno.
Behindthis simplescenarioliemanycomplicatedlegalandethicalIssues
whichhavecapturedtheattentionandaffectedtheoperationofthePJllsboroughCounty
judicial system since that July day. To son out these issues, we the Grand Jury for
HillsboJ;OughCountYfortheFallTermof2000,wereaskedtoconductaninvestigationinto
JudgeBonanno'sconductandotherrelatedmatters. In theprocess,we metonsix separate
occasions, listenedtothetestimonyoftwenty-fourwitnesses, examinedmanyitemsof
documentary evidence, andmade a visit to JudgeHolder's offices. As a result ofour
investigation,we todayrecommendtheresignationorremovalofJudgeBonannofrom
hispositionasajudgeof theThirteenthJudidalCircuit. WewillalsO haveseveral other
observationstomake,but webegin with whatIstheprimaryfocusof ourinquiry. Based
-1-
App.B
10
on the testimony we heard, we make the faCtual findings.
In addition to serving as a drcult judge, Judge Holder is a reserve military judge
assigned to the United States Air Force Judiciary. From time to time this requires his
presence at military trlals held outside pf the State of Florida. July 27, 2000, was such a
day. However, his Judi:cial assistant kept his office open throughout the day Wltil she left
at 4:30 p.m. At that time she turned off all the in Judge Holder's suite of offices and
checked all of the doors leading into the suite. All of them were locked. In order to
understand what followed, it. Is helpful to know the'layout of the suite, and to that end a
diagram is attached to this report as Exhibit A.
Because ofJudge Holders absence, Bailiff Gay was temporarily assigned to work for
another judge on the twenty.seventh. However, as was her custom, she stored her personal
effects in Judge Holder's break room. Thw, when her nonnal workday ended she returne4
to Judge Holder's offices at about 5:20 p.m. The third floor of the courthouse where they
are located was quiet and as,it was before 5:30 p.m. when the cleaning. crew would clock
in and begin its. rounds, she expected to find no one there.
Using her key, Baillff Gay unlocked the front door of the suite and entered into the
waiting room. To her smprlse and constemal1on, she saw that lights were on in the break
room and Judge Holder's private office. She stood still for several seconds, but when she
saw a reflection or shadow moving in a furtive' manner on a picture hanging on t:he wall in
the private office, she called out the word "hello." in a raised tone of voice. .When thts
elidted no response, she called out "hello" in an even louder tone. After a moment's
pause, Judge Bonanno appeared through the door of the private oftice mto the waiting
-2-
room. He said he was there to talk to Judge Holder about several matters and thought that
..,."
Judge Holder was not leaving town until that evening. He then engaged Bailiff Gay In a few
moments of idle conversation before they both left the suite together.
Upset by the inddent, Bailiff <fay sought to lnfonn Judge Holder of what had
happened. With the of Judge Holder's wife, she was successful. Judge Holder was
equally concerned. Although he mew that Judge Bonanno, like all the other judges with
offices on the floor ofthe courthouse, had a keyto his office, he could think of no good
reason for him to be there the conditionS in which B8iliff Gayfuund him. As a
. consequence, he contacted the Chief Judge and requested a meeting with the Chief Judge
'and Bonanno. That meeting was scheduled for the following Monday.
At the Monday meeting, Judge Bonanno immediately attacked Judge Holder for
implying that he might have 40ne anything wrong. Affronted by this attitude, Judge Holder
terminated the meeting and an official investigation of the matter, which led to
our involvement.
The investigation .qf Judge Bonanno's entry into Judge Holder's offices was
undertaken by the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Oftlce and the Flonda Department of law
Enforcement. While we need not review that investigation in detail, there are certain points
which are relevant to our conclusions. Primarily they concern statements given by Judge
Bonanno to investigators and others relating to how he entered the offices of Judge Holder,
how he foUnd the offices, hQw he responded to Bailiff Gay's enayJ and why he went there.
As to his entry into Judge lIolder's he told investigators that he entered through the
side hall door Into Judge Holder's private office which he found to be ajar. This is
..3-
significant because of the credible testimonywe received which indicated that the door was
locked. Moreover, the evidence/we received" as well as our own physical examinatlon of
the door, demonstrated that because of a closing bar at its top, it Is Impossible for that door
to remain ajar. On the issue of. how Judge Bonanno found the offices, he said in his
I
statement to that lights were on in the private office and hearing room but
nowhere else. This flies in the face ofBailiff Gay's assertion that lights were on only in the .
private office and the break room. Another confllet between his story and Bailiff.Gay's
account is that he told investigators he called out Judge Holder's first name 'when he heard
..
someone enter through the, :ftont door while Baillff Gay heard only silence until Judge
Bonanno walked into the waiting room.. From our visit to Judge Holder's offices, we
conclude that if Judge Bonanno had spoken at anything above a whisper, Bailiff Gay
have heard him.
The most significant. part of the investigation dealt with the reason or motive for
Judge Bonanno entering Holder's offices. On that point, the evidence we received
establishes that Judge Bonanno himself has at various times given conflicting answers to
that question. For example, the Tuesday after the lnddent, he told a lawyer that he was in
. . .
the offices to deliver statistics. Yet in various statements he told investigators that he went
to the offices to discuss a particular case with Judge Holder. In other he
mentioned not only a discussion of the case but also a need to discuss politics.
The evidence we heard establishes that others have very different opinions as to why
Judge Bonanno went to Judge Holder's offices. Judge Holder has a reputation for being a
fotthright man who is willing to speak his mind and who takes a dim view of misbehavior
on the part of his colleagues. Thus, many people believed that Judge Bonanno went to
Judge Holder's offices looking far written material or evidence ofthe misconduct of other
judges who were friends of Judge Bonanno. In particular, they smmised that he might have
been looking fOf material on Judge GasJ?er Ficarrotta.
While Judge remains the primary focus o(our repon, we thJnk it Is
important at this point to also examine the condua of Judge Flcarrotta who has recently
resigned from his position as a circuit judge. As can be seen from the evidence which we
have just related, our inquiry into Judge Flcarrotta's conduce flows naturally from our
investigation of Judge Bonanno. Moreover" we think that the pazalle1s between Judge
FicarrottaJs actions and those of Judge Bonanno are instructive. Filially, we believe that the
public deserves some explanation as to the reasons behind Judge FicaItOtta's resignation.
The evidence which we heard establishes that Judge Flcarrorra conducted an
extramarital affair with a Hillsborough Cou.nty Tara Plsano" which 18sted for more
than a year. While we do not believe it is necessary for us to chronicle the details of their
relationship, we think it is important to note that sexual relations occurred between them
in the courthouse during normal business hours.
In addition, we find from the evidence that Judge Ficaaotta assisted "with
Hillsborough County Sheriffcal Henderson's 2000 election amlpaign by helping to organize
a fund raising party given by several lawyers on the Sheriffs behalf. Judge Fica.rrotta was
aided in this endeavor by Bailiff Pisano and by Corporal Michael Sheehan who is also
.
employed by Sheriff Henderson. A8ain, we it should be noted that both engaged in
these activities while on duty. We should add that we heard no evidence that
-5-
Henderson of or wCiuld have approved of Judge Ficarrotta's involvement 1n his
. .
.,'
campaign or of the face that Pisano and Sheehan were doing campaign work on county time.
After the relationship ended between BailiffPisano and Judge Ficarrotta, she brought
Judge Flcaxrotta's activities to the attenti9n ofthe Judicial Qualifications Commission which
,
Initiated a secret him. That investigation has been terminated without its
results being made public as a result ofJudge FicarrottaJs resignation from the Bench. While
we in no way condone the conduct of Judge Ficarrotta, we beUeve that his resignation was
an honorable act which taxpayers of this county and the state an untold amount
afmoney.
We now return to our discussion of Judge Bonanno and the ways in which his
situation parallels Judge. FicaII'Otta's. In the course of our investigation we fotmd
incontrovertible evidence that Judge Bonanno, like Judge conducted an illicit
courthouse affair. This affair lasted for approximately five years and involved a person who
was then an employee ofthe HIllsborough County Clerk's Office. The two spent much time
together in Judge Bonanno's private offices and once attended a judicial conference together
in FoIt Lauderdale. While we acknowledge that a judge's private life Is not publlc propertyJ
we think that improprietie.1 committed on public time and public property are properly
subject to public scrutiny.
What then are we to say about Judge Bonanno? First we must examine the issue of
whether he committed a crime by entering Judge Holders offices he did. Based on the
. .
law as we understand it, we conclude that he did not. While we do not condone his
conduct, we think that the fact: that he, like manY,others, was assigned a key to Judge
-6-
Holder's offices gave him the if not moral right to enter as he did
Having dedded that issue, we turn to the question of what If any impact Judge
Bonanno's conduct has had on his ability and right to hold office. Quite simply, we
conclude, based on the evidence we heard, that Judge Bonanno has violated Florida's
Code ofJudicial Condut:t by demeaning his judidal office. Moreover, we believe that he has
lost tI?e credibility necessary for a judge. It Is imponant that the public understand that we
reach this conclusion based nOt only on the face of his having been found in Judge Holders
offices under suspicious which while poor fonn was not, as we have noted,
a crime. Rather, we are more concerned about the. incredible and conflicting accounts he
has given about the inddent. Whether his observation and memoIY are faulty or he is just
plain lying, we cannot determine. What we can determine is that because of his lack of
credibility and his conduct of his personal Ufe, he is no longer fit to be a judge. We ask him
to follow Judge FiC81Totta's commendable example and immediately resign his position as
ajudge ofthe Thirteenth.Judicial CIrcuit. However, ifhe should fail to do so, we urge the
Judicial Quali.f1cations Commission and the Florida Supreme Court to take acd.on to
immediately suspend him and then him from office after appropriate proceedings.
Before concluding, we believe it proper to make three observations abom matters
which while not directly related to our conclusions about Judge Bonanno were presented
by the evidence we heard. The first deals with Baillff Tara Pisano and Michael .
Sheehan. As we have noted, the eviderice we heard established that she had sexual
relations with Judge FicaITOtta In the courthouse during working hours and that both she
and Sheehan engaged in campaign activities while on duty. Although we do not know what
-7-
disciplinethis might command,wesaongly recommendthattheSherlffInitiatean
'affairs investigation. GiventhepricewhichJudgeFlcarrottahasp8td.webetleve
fairnessdemandsthatthe conduceof his notgo
Oursecondobservationdeals theJudicialQuaJJftcationsCommissiQn. Thisis
;
the agency charged investigating misconduct on the part ofjudges and making
recommendationstotheFloridaSupremeCourtforappropriatedisclpline. As inthecase
ofJudgeFicarrotta,theyoperatein duringtheirinvestigativestage andshoulda
judgeresignpriortobeingform.a11y the Investigationremains secretevenif it
contains evidence of a crime. Consequently, Inthe case of Judge Ficarrcn:ra the public would
never have knownofthenamre ofhis misdeedsbutfor ourinvestigation. We do not
believethattheserolesinstill confidenceinthejucnciaryorotherwiseservethepublicwell.
Therefore,we wouldurgetheSupremeCouttandotherappropriateauthoritiesto
thesecrecyrolesoftheJudicial.QualificationsCommissionsoastobringtheproceedings
andrecordsofthatbod}intothesunshine.
Thethirdobservationwhich.wewishtomakefOQ1SesonChiefJudgeDennis Alvarez
andtheoffice o(Chief JuQge oftheCircuit. Opinionevidence we received a
concemwith the practice ofachiefjudge--serving an unlimited number of terms, as'has long
been thecasein Hillsborough County,andwith the ability of alongservingchIefjudgesuch
asJudgeAlvareztoeffectivelydealwith problemsliketheoneswehaveexamined inthis
report. On theorherhand,otherswhotestifiedbeforeusthoughtthatthecurrentsystem
works'well. Basedthen on recordbefore whilewemightwishthat theChief Judge
hadtaken a more active role inpreventing theembarrassment ourjustice system has
8
suffered:, we are simply not in a position to make a finding on issue. we do
it is an issue which deserves further examination, and 'we would strongly encourage
our local judiciary as well as the Florida Supreme COUlt to undertake a careful of the
matter..
In closing, we think,it is 'vitally to. say that there are many fine, hard-
working judges in the Hillsborough Coumyjudicial system. We findit unfortunate that their
, reputations have :been tarnished by the antics of a few, but we are certain that once. this
process is concluded, they will be able with a conceIted eftOlt to restore the public's
confidence in its judiciary.
This report of the Hillsborough County Grand JUlY made in open court this
Day of 2000..

FLOYD CE "

R.OBERT E. BENSON VICKI A. SON

ciA:" n. ELTZR TIl ,.
-9-
---
BARBARAR.. KALT
J A.L G
LYNCH /"'.
...... ..-.----.._...........,._. ----.--...-.---...---
n1 r
---j7_. __.__.__...._....._.--.----... .,e.,
4'
EVEANNM.MCBRIDE . VALERIEW.
KiVINH.WALKER .'
ofSTATEATTORNEY
I, JERRYHW.,StateAttorneyoftheTenthJudidalCircuitbeingassignedtothe
ThlneenthJudicialCircuitbyorderoftheGovernorof.l-1orlda, doherebycertifythatas
authorizedanddirectedbylaw,IhaveadvisedtheGrandJuryinregardstoreturningthis
presennnent.
rJ7h
THIS__t!'_-_ DayofDecember,2000.
;JERRY
t/ STATE
TEN'lHJUDICl1\LCIRCUIT
-10
PRESENTED by the Grand Jury and filed in open coutt in Tampa, Hillsborough
thisL Day of 2000.
. .
_.. -.-....-..... ......_.".......... .... ..
-11-
0
w
(.)
i!
u.
0
w
-0

a::
u
Q.
-
0-
Cd
o
<
(.
tJ
Z l-
[II I-
S

c
Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Records describe accusations of sexual affairs and secret safe deposit boxes.
By CHRISTOPHER GOFFARD and JEFF TESTERMAN
St. Petersburg Times, published December 12, 2000
TAMPA -- A months-long inquiry into the Hillsborough County courthouse has found accusations ranging
from sexual affairs in a judge's chambers to death threats and secret safe deposit boxes.
A grand jury report of the matter remains sealed, but investigative records released Monday suggest a broad
web of scandal.
The records show that Circuit Judge Gregory Holder told investigators of conversations he had with bailiff
Tara Pisano, who made the following claims:
Pisano and Circuit Judge Gasper Ficarrotta had sex in Ficarrotta's chambers while Holder conducted jury
trials in the next room. Ficarrotta offered his resignation after the affair became public.
Pisano saw large amounts of money in Ficarrotta's office, including a cash-filled security box.
Pisano saw Ficarrotta solicit and receive money from lawyers for Sheriff Cal Henderson's 2000 election
campaign. Judges are ethically forbidden from raising money for political candidates.
Holder also alerted investigators to an incident in which Pisano accused her husband, sheriff's Cpl. Carmine
Pisano, of threatening to kill Ficarrotta in response to the affair.
The Sheriff's Office made no report of that incident.
Sheriff's Maj. Robert DeLuna told the Times Monday that Tara Pisano called him one night last year to report
that she had been in an argument with her husband, and that he made threats against the judge and drove off.
DeLuna said he and other deputies waited at Judge Ficarrotta's house to ensure his safety, but Cpl. Pisano
didn't show up that night. The next day, he denied making a death threat.
"It's not against the law to threaten anybody except the president of the United States, unless there's an overt
act to substantiate it," said Sheriff Cal Henderson. "We didn't do an investigation because one was not
needed."
Carmine Pisano declined comment Monday.
The release of reports Monday from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Hillsborough sheriff's
authorities comes three days after a grand jury issued its report on the courthouse matters.
For 15 days, only people named in the report, called a presentment, can see it. They can decide to contest or
Tampabay: Report: Web of scandal at Hillsborough courthouse http://www.sptimes.com/News/121200/news_pf/TampaBay/Report__We...
1 of 3
11
seek suppression of parts of the report.
The grand jury began looking into courthouse goings-on after Holder's complaint that his bailiff found Robert
Bonanno in Holder's darkened chambers last July.
The grand jury handed down no indictments.
One area of the grand jury's inquiry was whether Judge Ficarrotta had assisted in campaign fundraising for
Henderson.
According to the FDLE documents, lawyers Bennie Lazzara and Joseph Ficarrotta -- a distant cousin of
Gasper Ficarrotta -- told investigators that in 1999, Ficarrotta contacted them separately regarding a
fundraiser for the sheriff.
Among those involved was Michael Sheehan, the sheriff's corporal who oversees courthouse bailiffs and who
has been named in the sealed grand jury presentment.
FDLE agents discovered that Judge Ficarrotta and Sheehan share a safe deposit box at a Bank of America
branch on Davis Islands. The report does indicate what the safe deposit box was used for.
Henderson said his internal affairs division would investigate allegations against Sheehan of improper political
activity, and against Pisano of having sex on duty.
The FDLE documents also indicate for the first time the five-year extramarital affair between Judge Bonanno
and his former court clerk, Joan Helms.
In an interview with Special Prosecutor Jerry Hill and an FDLE agent, Helms, 48, said her sexual relationship
with Bonanno began in 1995 and ended earlier this year. Helms was the court clerk assigned to Bonanno in
the civil trial division during 1998.
Helms, who has since left her $27,955-a-year clerk's job and now works in the family intake department at
the Hillsborough Courthouse, testified before the grand jury for 37 minutes on Nov. 15. The grand jury then
heard from Bonanno, accompanied by attorney Ralph Fernandez, for about an hour and 20 minutes.
Helms told investigators she spent her breaks and lunch hours with the judge in his chambers on a regular
basis, often discussing what she said were "discrimination problems" involving her job. While working as
Bonanno's court clerk, Helms said the two worked closely.
"That was nice," Helms told investigators. "It gave us time to talk and be together."
Sexual encounters with Bonanno occurred during the evenings or on weekends at Helms' home in north
Tampa, she said, never at the courthouse.
Reached at her home Monday evening, Helms declined to comment on the FDLE report.
One of the more provocative details in the report concerned Ficarrotta.
Judge Holder quotes bailiff Pisano as saying Ficarrotta went shopping with her at Victoria's Secret and that he
2 of 3
wore her T-back underwear in his private office.
Ficarrotta resigned his position several days after testifying before the grand jury. The resignation likely
brought to an end any investigation by the state's Judicial Qualifications Commission.
Ficarrotta did not return a call seeking comment.
Also on Monday, an attorney for Bonanno said he planned to ask a judge to root out the unnamed source of a
Tampa Tribune article that revealed a grand jury's findings about his client.
The grand jury's report was sealed Friday by Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Susan Schaeffer, who presided over
the group's review of misconduct allegations at the Hillsborough County Courthourse.
"This information was confidential and not to be disclosed under any circumstances," said Ralph Fernandez,
Bonanno's attorney.
The Tribune reported Saturday that the grand jury concluded Bonanno had conducted an extramarital affair in
his chambers at the Hillsborough County Courthouse and that such conduct was unbecoming of a judge.
According to the Tribune, the grand jury recommended that Bonanno resign and that the Judicial
Qualifications Commission, which polices Florida's judges, investigate him.
Tribune attorney Gregg Thomas said he would not comment on Fernandez's allegations until a formal court
filing had been made. Fernandez said a motion would be filed today.
- Times staff writer Sarah Schweitzer contributed to this report.
Copyright, St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.
3 of 3
Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
A Times Editorial
St. Petersburg Times, published December 20, 2001
Like him or not, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Greg Holder has helped bring about positive change at the county
courthouse. The local judiciary is more diverse, more open, more professional and more accountable because
Holder alone among 48 judges had the courage to speak out against the good ol' boy system that has long
been the fabric of Tampa politics. Now Holder is the subject of a conduct complaint -- thin gruel, by the look
of documents and interviews released thus far. How the Judicial Qualifications Commission handles the
matter will reflect on that agency's own judgment and candor.
Like him or not, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Greg Holder has helped bring about positive change at the county
courthouse. The local judiciary is more diverse, more open, more professional and more accountable because
Holder alone among 48 judges had the courage to speak out against the good ol' boy system that has long
been the fabric of Tampa politics. Now Holder is the subject of a conduct complaint -- thin gruel, by the look
of documents and interviews released thus far. How the Judicial Qualifications Commission handles the
matter will reflect on that agency's own judgment and candor.
We are in no position to judge at this stage whether Holder violated judicial ethics. The JQC is trying to
determine whether Holder misled a federal judicial nominating panel by declaring at the time he was unaware
of any professional complaints filed against him. Holder had met on two occasions with the JQC chairman,
who admonished him for speaking to reporters. Several attorney-members of the nominating commission said
they did not believe that Holder misled them. They also said they doubted that the facts amounted to a
material change or would have played a role in determining whether Holder was nominated. It will be up to
the JQC to make a convincing case that a meeting between judicial colleagues somehow equates with a
formal disciplinary process.
Holder has welcomed an airing of the facts, and we'll leave his defense to him. But the episode raises
troubling questions about the process and whether judges who blow the whistle face retaliation. On what
pretext, for example, did a JQC representative meet with Holder? The disciplinary process exists to establish a
public record and to prevent a small circle of judges from refereeing ethical and political disputes. If the JQC
meeting with Holder was intended to keep him quiet, what confidence can the public have in the agency's
ability to handle judges who are genuine problems?
The JQC has at least as many questions to answer. If it is firing a shot over Holder's bow to keep other judges
from voicing dissent, then the whole concept behind the JQC -- that the judiciary can be trusted to self-police
-- will lose its moral authority.
Holder has his detractors -- they call him a showboat -- but it would be derelict to disregard the political and
personal risks he took to right a justice system terribly off-track. Don't forget what the community learned
about Judge Ward, Judge Ficarrotta, Judge Bonanno. If the JQC has a case against Holder, it should pursue it
without reserve for the contribution he's made. What we may see instead is another example of the old boys
at work.
Opinion: Watch how JQC handles Holder http://www.sptimes.com/News/122001/news_pf/Opinion/Watch_how_J...
12
After wi nni ng a case l ast month, Hi l l sborough Ci rcui t Judge Gregory Hol der
wants the Judi ci al Qual i fi cati ons Commi ssi on to pay hi s l egal bi l l s.
By CANDACE RONDEAUX
Published J uly 26, 2005
TAMPA - Hillsborough Circuit J udge Gregory Holder says he racked up a $1.92-million tab fighting charges that he plagiarized
an Air Force research paper. Now, a month after the case was dismissed, he wants the J udicial Qualifications Commission to
foot the bill.
"I've paid considerable sums and so has my family," Holder said.
On Monday, Holder's attorneys filed a motion asking the J QC to pay the judge's legal bill. Holder hired attorneys from three
separate law firms a little more than two years ago to defend against charges he plagiarized a 1998 research paper for a course
at MacDill Air Force Base. His attorneys deposed dozens of witnesses and called several experts to the stand during the J une
J QC hearing.
Holder said he's personally shelled out about $100,000 for his legal defense. It's just a fraction of what he owes, but it represents
about 75 percent of his nearly $135,000 annual salary. In a 2001 financial statement, the judge listed his net worth at $265,680.
During the J QC hearing, several witnesses raised serious doubts about allegations that the former Air Force reservist had
cribbed the paper from another student, E. David Hoard. No one was ever able to produce the paper Holder originally submitted.
The J QC concluded the evidence against Holder was not convincing enough and dismissed the charges against Holder.
A J une 23 J QC order recommended that the Florida Supreme Court award costs to Holder. But commission officials said costs
are one thing, attorney fees are quite another.
"It seems awfully high to me," said J QC general counsel Tom McDonald.
McDonald said Tuesday that he hadn't seen the motion filed by Holder's attorney. But he said the J QC's annual budget is only
about $800,000.
"We can't pay it," said J QC general counsel Tom McDonald. "The state would end up paying it."
Holder's Tampa attorney, David Weinstein, said he was "cautiously optimistic" that the six-member panel that reviewed Holder's
case would consider paying the estimated $140,000 in costs. Weinstein acknowledged, however, that he'll probably have a fight
on his hands when it comes to collecting the roughly $1.77-million in legal fees. But he said the fees are reasonable.
"It's not unusual for a case that goes on for several years and that involves experts and witnesses and depositions from around
the country," Weinstein said. "We had to start from scratch investigating these charges ourselves. This was a very
time-consuming and expensive proposition."
Charles Pillans, the J QC's special counsel on the Holder case, said the payment of attorney fees would be unprecedented.
"I think there will be an issue as to whether they're entitled to fees," he said.
Weinstein cited Florida common laws that entitle public officials who successfully defend against legal charges brought in
connection with their jobs to seek to recover expenses. He has asked the court to appoint a special master to determine what, if
any, fees can be collected from the J QC.
The J QC rarely dismisses charges after a full hearing. In 1987, Orlando J udge J oseph Baker faced an allegation that he had
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/26/news_pf/Tampabay/Judge_seeks_1...
1 of 2
13
taken a leave of absence without getting permission from his chief judge. The J QC tried the case but decided the evidence was
not convincing.
The commission's executive director could not be reached to comment on who bore responsibility for Baker's costs and fees.
In the Holder case, as with Baker, the J QC will make a recommendation to the court about the repayment of costs and fees.
McDonald said he doubts Holder will get everything he's asking for.
"We probably will negotiate with him on costs but the court has ruled that fees are not to be repaid," McDonald said.
-- Candace Rondeaux can be reached at 813 226-3337 or rondeaux@sptimes.com
****
The cost of Judge Gregory Holder's defense
TOTAL COSTS: $140,870.79
A sampling of costs
Expert expenses & fees: $63,226.86
Copy fees: $19,065.56
Trial exhibit expenses: $2,547.78
Legal research fees: $9,527.00
TOTAL ATTORNEY FEES: $1,779,691.81
By law firm
Bales Weinstein: $1,194,947.50
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood: $533,627.50
J ames, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich: $51,116.81
2007 All Rights Reserved St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-893-8111
Contact the Times | Privacy Policy | Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/26/news_pf/Tampabay/Judge_seeks_1...
2 of 2
The Judge Who Did Not Conform
Sunday, June 25, 2006 - Citizens for Judicial Accountability
J udge Gregory Holder
Gregory Holder was elected county judge in 1994. In 1996 J udge Holder was elected Circuit J udge for
Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida. His latest assignment was in the family law
division. J udge Holder has a reputation for speaking his mind and for being extremely open with the
press. He has the attitude that the entire justice system belongs to the people, that there should be
nothing to hide and that the public should know what is going on. J udge Holder refused to be drawn into
"inside politics" by dishonest Hillsborough judges. J udge Holder was bent on rooting out and ridding the
court system of corruption.
On J uly 26, 2000 J udge Holder left for Reserve Military Duty. J udge Holder claimed he publicized that
he will be gone. On J uly 27, 2000 at 5:20 P.M. J udge Robert Bonanno a Hillsborough Circuit Court
judge entered the office of J udge Gregory Holder and adjacent areas. It was alleged that the door to
the office was locked and the same key opened J udge Holders office as J udge Bonannos. J udge
Holders bailiff returned to the office to pick up some of her belongings when she discovered J udge
Bonanno in J udge Holders office. J udge Holder kept news clippings and e-mail and other
documentation on the activities in the courthouse in his office.
When J udge Holder returned he requested an investigation of this "break in". It was widely publicized by
the news media and exploded into a scandal. The matter was taken up by the Florida J udicial
Qualifications. A grand jury was also convened. Commencing on October 3, 2000 secret hearings were
conducted. However, at a later date the transcript of the grand jury hearing was made public. The
transcript contains interesting testimony, which offers some insight into what goes on in the courthouse,
that is what should not.
J udge Holder testified on October 11, 2000 that he was suspicious of the illicit affair that the married
J udge Bonanno had with the female deputy clerk in charge of the assignment of the cases in the clerks
office. He questioned the assignment of cases of certain attorneys to J udge Bonanno. J udge Holder
further stated that he was told by court personnel that that there were large sums of cash in a safe
deposit box co-owned by another judge in the courthouse with a deputy sheriff, but did not know the
source of that money. That he also heard that that judge was soliciting funds from lawyers for reelection
of the County Sheriff, which was in violation of the J udicial Canons. J udge Holder was concerned, that
because judges have tremendous authority and power over the lawyers that come before them, they
can easily say to them:
"Look I want you to give a maximum contribution of $500 to the Sheriffs re-election
campaign yeah any lawyer that practices in front of me would probably say, Yes, sir,
J udge I will do that. Well, that is absolutely contrary to our J udicial Code, but more
importantly, may constitute extortion or some other violation of Florida law..
And I am absolutely offended at some the behavior thats gone on in this courthouse for a
long time..We are paid to do a job. Were paid a god salary. And I look at it as a higher
calling. You know, some would say we have all this power. Its not about power, and it
shouldnt be. It ought to be about doing the right thing, about, you know, exercising that
discretion that has been given by the people. You know, we put our hand on a Bible when
were sworn in and we swear, not affirm, we dont affirm, we swear that we will uphold
the laws of the State of Florida, the Constitution of the State of Florida and that we will
serve the people that elect us or appoint us, people that pay our salaries. You know, and
thats what it ought to be about. And for some reason some of us in this courthouse have
lost sight of that goal, that aspiration goal, I think we should have.
You know, my life has been a case study for the ethics courses that I teach over at the
Legal Reform Now http://www.legalreform-now.org/archive/anmviewer.asp?a=266&print=yes
9/13/2013 9:45 PM 1 of 4
14
University of Phoenix because I have spoken out, I have bucked the system, I have gone
public. And Ill be honest with you, but for the media involvement about a year ago, I dont
think the J QC case with J udge Ed Ward would nave gone anywhere. It would have died.
It would have been swept under the rug and he would still be a judge today. And hed still
be allowed to inflict the damage on the women that he inflicted for many years in this
courthouse using that robe and that office to absolutely destroy these women.
Chief J udge Dennis Alvarez also testified before the grand jury on October 25, 2000. J udge Alvarez
acknowledged, that among his duties as Chief J udge was to make sure that the judges are at work
doing their jobs, watching their calendars. That he would try to sit down with the judges if he comes in
late, and where a judge violated a law, a criminal violation, "my responsibility would go first to the State
Attorney and/or the Hillsborough County Sheriffs office." But, J udge Alvarez said he would meet with
the judge to find out what the problem is. He would contact the J QC who would also try to sit down on
a one and one basis with the judge. If it did not succeed then a Notice of Inquiry would be sent out by
the J QC. When, J udge Alvarez was asked what was the general reputation of J udge Holder amongst
the judiciary he made clear that he was not popular because
"Hes been perceived as a leak to the media. He likes the limelight. Thats anytime
J udge Holders seen talking to a reporter from the news media, a day or two later there
will be a story in the newspaper. He would be quoted in matters that dont have to do with
his division or outside of his area as to which hes assigned. But hes considered the
leak of the courthouse."
As part of his testimony one the attorneys stated before the grand jury on October 25, 2000 that,
"Ive probably been contacted by virtually everyone in this building about giving a campaign
contribution. You know, I mean, many of these judges raise funds for the sake of basically
driving away oppositionfrom the Clerk of Court right up to, you know most of the
judges, yes. The judges are not permitted to solicit funds themselves. But, they have
people raising funds for them."
He explained that committees are set up to raise funds and the lawyers contact other lawyers. That "by
the time you get hit by all the candidates, you might be talking about a campaign cycle of where youve
given away a fair amount of money".
On October 11, 2000 J udge Holders bailiff gave testimony to the grand jury describing the X rated
activities going on in a judges courtroom adjacent to J udge Holders court. She stated she was told
what happened in that judges court by his former girlfriend, who was a bailiff to another judge. The
judge who was married, wanted to have a pole installed in his office so that this young woman, the
bailiff, could dance on the pole like they do in a strip club. (Well, obviously this is the new version of the
judicial poll.) The judge wanted the young woman to wear his robe with no clothes on underneath
because he wanted her to feel the power that his robe had. The judge had a new sofa brought in
purchased at public expense so that he could have his sexual pleasures on the sofa. She also traveled
with him. He enjoyed wearing her T-back underwear. While J udge Holder was holding court this judge
next door would be conducting his affair with his judicial assistant in the closet and so forth. This judge
has since resigned.
A sealed grand jury report, regarding J udge Bonanno was released by the grand jury, on J une 19,
2001. The grand jury recommended, the resignation or removal of J udge Bonanno. The grand jury found
that J udge Bonanno gave "conflicting answers" to the question of when or why he was in J udge Holders
office. The jury also found that J udge Bonanno "lost the credibility necessary for a judge" by virtue of
the "incredible and conflicting accounts he had given about the incident, but could not determine
"whether his observation and memory are faulty or he is just plain lying." The grand jury also cited
"incontrovertible evidence" that J udge Bonanno carried on an illicit affair with a court clerk, on public
time on public property. The two spent time together in J udge Bonannos offices, and even attended a
judicial conference together in Ft. Lauderdale. The grand jury concluded that, "because of his lack of
credibility and his conduct of his personal life he is no longer fit to be a judge".
The J udicial Qualification Commission took this as a mere recommendation over which they could pass
their judgment. In a Report and Recommendation issued in September 2001 they made the finding that
J udge Bonanno should not be removed but receive only a public reprimand from the Florida Supreme
9/13/2013 9:45 PM 2 of 4
Court. The J QC whitewashed his illegal entry into J udge Holders office as not intentional and his illicit
affair with the deputy clerk (the assignment clerk) as a private consensual affair and also disregarded
other charges made against J udge Bonanno.
However, it did not end here because the matter was also taken up by the Florida Legislature. Rep.
Larry Crow the chairman of the House J udicial Oversight Committee announced that his staff would
conduct a preliminary review of the allegations against J udge Bonanno. House Speaker Tom Feeney,
directed Crows committee to consider whether the Legislature should move ahead with impeachment
against Bonanno. The hearings did get underway in Tampa. J udge Bonanno was summoned to appear
to answer questions concerning his professional and personal life, the financing of a $450,000 house
and accusations that he sealed cases and did favors for relatives and friends. On December 26, 2001
J udge Robert Bonanno resigned from the bench effective J anuary 21, 2001, leaving these questions
unanswered. The J QC treated the matter as moot. Chief J udge Alvarez retired at age of 56 during the
summer of 2001.
Well, it would be expected that J udge Holder would receive appreciation and some form of recognition
for ridding the courthouse of judges unfit to serve the public. But, the good ol boys club was obviously
seeking to retaliate against J udge Holder and embarked to remove him from the bench.
On November 9, 2001 the J udicial Qualifications Commission at its meeting in Orlando, Florida instituted
formal charges against J udge Holder which had nothing to do with his performance on the bench, for
allegedly providing "false or misleading" information on a federal judgeship application. The J QC
charged that the application was submitted by J udge Holder on or about May 2001 in which he was
asked:
"Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, bar
association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group. If so give particulars.''
J udge Holder answered "No". But, the J QC's investigative panel said J udge Holder
"met twice with the Chairman of the J QC to be admonished concerning your conduct as a
result of complaints filed against you by the J QC. The answer was also false or
misleading in view of complaints made against you to the chief judge of your circuit, of
which you had been aware."
By the J QCs own contentions for the most part the charges arose from J udge Holders communications
with the media. Obviously, J udge Holder was to be penalized and stopped from public disclosure of the
scandal at the courthouse. The J QC said that (1) on or about March 1998 J udge Holder was requested
to come to the chambers of Chief J udge Alvarez. Also present in chambers were the J QC General
Counsel and the J QC Chairman who it was claimed admonished J udge Holder for remarks he made to
the press on an appellate decision reversing his decision. (2) That even before this meeting J udge
Holder was cautioned by Chief J udge Alvarez about making public remarks concerning the Thirteenth
Circuit judiciary; and (3) On or about February 9, 2001 J udge Holder was again confronted by the J QC
Chairman and was advised of a complaint against him for throwing handcuffs on his desk in heated
hearing in his courtroom, which one of the attorneys considered as threatening to him and his client.
Based on these charges the J QC sought public reprimand and/or the removal of J udge Holder from the
bench.
J udge Holder responded that, he had made a prior application for federal judgeship in J anuary 4, 1999
and May 27, 2000, all of which were after that 1998 meeting in J udge Alvarez office and he gave the
same answer to the same question in these applications, without resulting in any investigation by the
J QC. J udge Holder said he didn't provide details of those discussions in his unsworn federal application
because he believed those discussions were informal, did not result in formal charges and that he was
specifically told that it was to be kept confidential and not to be disclosed to anyone. As to the
incidence with the handcuffs J udge Holder explained it was a raucous family law hearing, one attorney
calling the other a liar on which no charges were filed against him. However, that was to remain
confidential as well. J udge Holder further said that he did not intend to make any misleading statements
in his application for federal court judgeship, and he even signed a waiver as to all documents from any
source as to his qualification for judicial office.
9/13/2013 9:45 PM 3 of 4
Ironically, while the objective of the J QC was to eliminate publicity, the Holder case generated wide
media coverage and public outcry. (See, one of those news articles below) J udge Holder wanted to
make all the records concerning the J QC proceedings in his case public but, the J QC opposed it. The
J QC went to the extent of retaining noted attorney Barry Richard , (who represented President George
W. Bush during the 2000 election recount) to make sure the records about J udge Holder would stay
secret and to fight newspaper requests to inspect those records. This came at a time when the state
House of Representatives was preparing for hearings on an amendment to the Florida Constitutional to
make the J QC records public (which never came to pass).
The matter came to an end with a Stipulation entered into between J udge Holder and the J QC. J udge
Holder was required to admit that regardless of what he believed the discussion with members of the
J QC was whether informal and/or confidential his answer to the question on the application for federal
judgeship "was incorrect given the Commissions broad interpretation of this question." J udge Holder "
was required to acknowledge that the Commissions interpretation on that question was correct" and
that "in hindsight, regrets his answer to the question" and that he "apologizes for his error to the
Commission and the citizens of the Thirteenth J udicial Circuit, State of Florida". On J une 6, 2002 the
Florida Supreme Court approved the Stipulation and dismissed the Notice of Formal Charges against
J udge Holder.
New attacks were made against J udge Holder by the J udicial Qualifications Commission in J uly, 2003.
J udge Holder was charged with plagiarizing a paper he submitted to the Air Force as a reservist. To
see the formal charges by the J udicial Qualification Commission click on
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqc/index.shtml
J udge Holder denied those charges. 38 witnesses are to testify for J udge Holder at a hearing to
decide whether Holder should be suspended pending an investigation. A final evidentiary hearing was
scheduled before the J udicial Qualifications Commission Hearing Panel on the Formal Charges for
J anuary 20, 2004 at the Hillsborough County Courthouse, Tampa Florida. The hearing panel is to
consist of two judges, two lawyers and two lay members. That hearing has been continued. J udge
Holder filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the matter was investigated by the Air Force and no
wrongdoing was found by J udge Holder and so the charges which are based on the same occurrences
by the J QC should be dismissed. The J QC in its response has rejected the determination by the Air
Force saying that it was not upon evidence and testimony at a trial. The J QC denied the motion to
dismiss without prejudice to raise it based on evidence and argument at the final hearing on the
charges. The matter has now been set for final hearing for J une 14, 2004, but that hearing has been
continued. A new date for the hearing before the J QC was set for September 20, 2004. However, that
date was continued because of the hurricane. The trial is now rest J une 6, pursuant to Report of the
the state J udicial Qualifications Commission on the charge that Holder plagiarized a 1998 research
paper as an officer in the Air Force Reserve.
To read News Articles on the Holder story and on the J udicial Clique click here.

Legal Reform Now
http://www.legalreform-now.org/
9/13/2013 9:45 PM 4 of 4
A Times Editorial
Sunday, October 4, 2009 4:30am
The state agency that polices Florida's judges went off half-cocked six years ago and nearly ruined Greg Holder's
judicial career. Now the state's highest court has partly righted that wrong. It ruled the state must reimburse Holder
for costs that the Hillsborough circuit judge incurred in defending himself against plagiarism charges that were
ultimately dismissed.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission charged that Holder, an Air Force reservist, plagiarized a paper for a course
he took in 1998 at MacDill Air Force Base to qualify for a promotion to the rank of colonel. The evidence was so
flimsy no original report, no paper or computer trail and no firsthand, credible witnesses that a hearing panel
dismissed the charges only days after the JQC presented its weeklong case.
For an agency that did so much to clean up the Hillsborough judiciary in the 1990s, the JQC showed terrible
judgment in prosecuting Holder. The case looked more like payback for a judge who dared to speak out against the
politically connected at the courthouse than it did a good-faith effort to uphold the judiciary's ethical standards. The
JQC compounded its mistake by fighting Holder's request for costs and attorney's fees bills he never would have
faced had the JQC exercised sound discretion.
The state Constitution does not authorize attorney's fees in JQC cases, though the high court can award costs. The
judge and JQC agreed last month for the state to repay Holder $70,000, a fraction of his $1.8 million legal bill. That
is a small price for an agency in the accountability business. But it is the last word.
A victory for judge who was wronged 10/04/09
A victory for judge who was wronged | Tampa Bay Times http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/a-victory-for-judge-who-w...
15

Courthouse Inquiry Ends With No Sign Of Corruption
By Elaine Silvestrini and Thomas W. Krause
The Tampa Tribune
September 8, 2006
TAMPA - No officials at the Hillsborough County Courthouse will be
charged with any crimes at the conclusion of a lengthy investigation into
possible corruption.
Carl Whitehead, special agent in charge of the Tampa office of the FBI,
said: "I am very confident that we have conducted a thorough and
exhaustive investigation into these allegations. We were not able to
substantiate those allegations. I believe the public should feel comfortable
and have a sense of confidence that they can deal with their state court
system. I have no information that would indicate otherwise."
U.S. Attorney Paul Perez said Thursday: "Bottom line, is that the FBI and
the FDLE over the last number of years received a lot of complaints, leads,
allegations, and they did their due diligence in running out each one of
those, and that took time."
Perez wrote a letter to Hillsborough Chief Judge Manuel Menendez Jr. on
Aug. 29, saying, "The investigation has concluded with our assessment that
no current judicial officer or court employees engaged in any alleged
wrongdoing and that there was no credible evidence of 'courthouse
corruption' within the 13th Judicial Circuit."
Perez said Thursday that the investigation also cleared former judges and
courthouse employees.
Menendez said he hopes the letter will assure the public that there's no
corruption at the courthouse.
"I would really like this to be the last chapter of that saga," he said.
Case Predated Investigators
Perez said the corruption investigation, which began before he took office
in March 2002, really involved a series of unrelated incidents that were "all
looked at by the same group of federal or state investigators."
"Whenever a lead or tip was given, it would go to them," Perez said. "To me
this was unfortunate, because most of these [cases] stood on their own."
Whitehead said the investigation, which also predates his tenure, was an
http://www.judicialaccountability.net/articles/judgeholderandlawyer.htm
1 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
umbrella investigation into several similar allegations involving people who
traveled in the same circles. But he said the allegations of wrongdoing were
unrelated in that they didn't involve people who were accused of
committing crimes together.
The way the investigation was set up, Whitehead said, "everything that
came in that was remotely connected was kind of put in under this
umbrella."
Because he was not involved in the beginning, Whitehead said he wasn't
sure of the thinking behind that approach. "Maybe there was some good
reason to do that," he said. "Tangentially, they were somewhat related, but
not in the way that you would think of in an investigation."
Whitehead said the investigation started in 2002 as a spinoff of an organized
crime case in the Sarasota area. He said a subject in that investigation gave
agents information about possible wrongdoing at the Hillsborough County
Courthouse. The source, whom Whitehead wouldn't identify, mentioned
former sheriff's Maj. Rocky Rodriguez, who would later figure prominently
in stories about the investigation.
Perez said the only indictment resulting from the investigation was of
former postal union chief Lenin "Lenny" Perez - not related to the U.S.
attorney - who was accused of accepting kickbacks from health care
providers for referring union workers' compensation claims to them.
Lenin Perez, past president of Local 599 of the National Association of
Letter Carriers in Tampa, was sentenced in May to 21 months in federal
prison after pleading guilty to a single felony charge of receiving a
kickback. Under a plea deal, federal prosecutors dismissed 32 other charges.
His co-defendant, private investigator Joseph Anthony Gonzalez, was
sentenced to probation.
Whitehead said Lenin Perez was investigated as part of the larger
investigation because authorities initially received allegations that he was
involved in wrongdoing at the courthouse. "That was not substantiated,"
Whitehead said. "What was substantiated was that he was involved in other
scams."
Menendez said he has spoken to Paul Perez about the courthouse
investigation on several occasions. Typically, Menendez said, federal
officials do not comment publicly on investigations. In this case, because
there were public statements, Menendez said he made a special request to
Perez.
"All I ask, in fairness to everyone involved, is that we announce when it is
concluded," Menendez said.The closed investigation, he said, shows that
corruption did not exist. "If they found anything, they would have brought
charges," he said.
Chief Judge Criticizes Tribune
Menendez had harsh words for the local media, The Tampa Tribune
specifically.
The Tribune strung together many unrelated events and tried to "paint a
picture of some giant entity" of courthouse corruption, Menendez said.
2 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
He said federal agencies did investigate several allegations regarding
courthouse officials.
"That doesn't mean there was a massive investigation into corruption at the
courthouse," he said.
Although the investigations were minor and unrelated, Menendez said, the
Tribune consistently pointed to them as evidence of one large corruption
investigation.
At least three sworn affidavits acquired by the Tribune mention an
investigation into corruption at the Hillsborough County Courthouse.
In 2003, Circuit Judge Gregory P. Holder provided an affidavit in which he
says he has taken a stand against courthouse corruption. That same year, a
Tampa police detective and a former FBI agent said in sworn affidavits that
they worked with Holder as part of an investigation into corruption at the
courthouse.
The affidavits were all filed as part of a separate investigation into Holder.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission investigated whether Holder had
plagiarized in a paper he wrote as an Air Force Reserve officer in 1997.
Holder was cleared of that allegation.
Last year, during a JQC hearing, Holder said under oath that he assisted in a
federal investigation into former chief Judge F. Dennis Alvarez, former
Circuit Judge Robert H. Bonanno and former Hillsborough County sheriff's
deputy Rodriguez.
Menendez Dismissed Holder's Testimony.
"I'm not going to disagree with him," Menendez said. "I don't have any
details about what he was or was not doing."
Holder declined to comment on the closed investigation.
Barry Cohen, Alvarez's lawyer, said: "I think Mr. Perez is to be commended
for sending a letter advising the courts that an investigation has been
concluded. A person spends a lifetime building a reputation. Most of the
time, it's more important that anything we have. When there is a suggestion
in the media that someone has been involved in criminal or corrupt activity
it is a serious matter and not to be taken lightly. We're glad it's over
with."
Bonanno, who is now in private practice, said no one from the FBI or FDLE
has ever contacted him about any investigation.
"It's really nice to see that the Greg Holder flight of fantasy has finally
landed," Bonanno said. "I don't need any vindication. No one has ever
accused me of anything."
Bonanno was discovered after hours in July 2000 inside Holder's darkened
chambers. He resigned in January 2002 as the state Legislature was about to
commence an impeachment hearing.
Rodriguez, who now works as a private investigator, expressed relief that
the investigation has closed, but frustration that it took so long. A former
3 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
major with the sheriff's office, Rodriguez turned aside an undercover
informant's attempt to give him a bribe in 2002.
Rodriguez was forced to retire from the sheriff's department in 2003 for
making thousands of dollars worth of unauthorized calls on his department-
issued cell phone.
"I dedicated my entire adult life to law enforcement," he said Thursday. "I
don't wish those allegations or those innuendos on my worst enemy."
Judge Asks That JQC Repay Fees
Gregory Holder Is Innocent
after Spending $1.8-million to Fight Plagiarism Charges.
By Colleen Jenkins
Times Staff Writer
June 9, 2006
TALLAHASSEE - Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder asked
Florida Supreme Court justices on Thursday to do something they never
have done before:
Order the Judicial Qualifications Commission to pay attorneys' fees for
judges who beat the rap on misconduct charges, starting with him.
Holder racked up about $1.8-million in legal fees during his successful
two-year fight against plagiarism charges.
Justices didn't rule on the motion or talk specifics Thursday, but they
questioned whether reimbursing Holder would serve a public purpose.
"There's not a pot of money to keep going back to fund these things,"
Justice R. Fred Lewis said.
Even if they granted Holder's motion, justices said, the power to actually
pay his legal bill would rest with the state Legislature.
Holder made the unusual request last year after a hearing panel dismissed
charges that he plagiarized portions of a 1998 research paper for a course at
MacDill Air Force Base.
It was the first time since 1987 that the JQC dismissed charges against a
judge after a trial.
Complicating matters, the constitutional amendment that regulates JQC
procedure permits the prevailing party to recover legal costs for things such
as copies and experts but doesn't address attorneys' fees.
David Weinstein, Holder's lead attorney, argued that the judge was entitled
to recoup the fees because he spent his own money fighting charges related
to the performance of his official duties. Holder thinks his participation in a
federal probe of courthouse corruption prompted the anonymous plagiarism
allegation.
The judge's victory helped restore a good judge to the bench and the public's
faith in the judiciary, Weinstein said during the hearing.
"It's a common law right" to be reimbursed at public expense, he said.
4 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Weinstein said judges have two inadequate options when faced with public
JQC probes: resign or risk financial ruin mounting a rigorous defense.
Holder said he's paid about $100,000 of the total cost to hire attorneys from
three law firms to depose dozens of witnesses and several experts from
around the country.
"A blanket rule covering judges' fees is a far more workable rule,"
Weinstein said. Because judges rarely prevail, the rule would not put undue
burden on the JQC, he said.
Charles Pillans III, who prosecuted the case for the JQC, said the issue
wasn't nearly that broad.
He urged justices to focus on the "very compelling circumstantial evidence"
against Holder, saying the case was driven solely by the allegedly cribbed
paper and not the judge's whistle-blowing ways.
"This case did not arise out of Judge Holder's official duties,'' he said.
Chief Justice Barbara Pariente wondered whether holding the JQC liable for
judges' legal fees would make its members less willing to prosecute future
misconduct cases.
The Holder case has significant ramifications for the ethics body, JQC
executive director Brooke Kennerly said.
"It's very important how they decide," said Kennerly, who attended the oral
arguments. "Because I think the independence of the JQC and its duties can
be affected."
The court did not set a deadline for a decision, which requires four votes
from the panel of six. Justice Charles T. Wells recused himself from
Thursday's proceedings because his daughter recently took a job with
Pillans' Jacksonville firm, Supreme Court spokesman Craig Waters said.
A ruling siding with Holder would mark only the start of his quest. The
judge's attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to appoint a special master
to decide how much the judge is entitled to.
Then Holder likely would have to bring his request to the Legislature, which
has approved only one claims bill of any kind since 2001.
State Rep. Kevin Ambler, a Lutz Republican who served with Holder in the
Air Force and Reserve, said after the hearing that legislators may need to
create a mechanism for judges seeking such reimbursement.
Judge Holder Aims for Spot on Federal Bench
Cleared of Plagiarism Charges by a Judicial Review Board,
He Seeks a Seat in Federal Court in Jacksonville.
By Candace Rondeaux
St. Petersburg Times
January 5, 2006
TAMPA - Last year, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder was facing
the possibility of being booted from the bench. This year, he's looking for a
new, higher profile judgeship.
5 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Six months after the state's Judicial Qualifications Commission cleared him
of plagiarism charges, Holder, 52, has applied to be a Florida federal district
judge. A 10-year veteran of state court, Holder is one of 25 candidates
being considered for a slot in the Middle District of Florida.
Reached at his office Wednesday, Holder declined to comment.
Florida Judicial Nominating Commission chairman Micky Grindstaff
confirmed, however, that Holder's application was one of several received
last month. The appointee would replace retiring Jacksonville federal Judge
Harvey E. Schlesinger but would initially be assigned to work in federal
court in Fort Myers, Grindstaff said.
"This is a very strong pool of applicants. We have a number of state court
judges and we have half a dozen or more federal magistrates. There are
several folks with lengthy federal experience," Grindstaff said. If
nominated, Holder would not be the first Hillsborough judge to make the
leap to the federal judgeship. Several former state circuit judges now work
in Tampa's federal courts, including U.S. District Judges Elizabeth A.
Kovachevich, Richard Lazzara, James D. Whittemore and James Moody Jr.
But applying for a federal judgeship is a rigorous process. In addition to
providing letters of reference, work and educational history and several
writing samples, applicants undergo a screening process of interviews and a
detailed background check.
Not long ago, a background check might have proved a problem for Holder.
Long known as a squeaky clean whistleblower, Holder recently faced
allegations that he had plagiarized portions of a research paper by a fellow
Air Force reservist. After a lengthy and expensive trial, the JQC cleared
Holder of the plagiarism charges in June.
But the controversy didn't end there. A month after the charges were
dismissed, Holder's attorneys filed a motion asking the JQC to pay his
nearly $2-million legal bill. Although the JQC recommended paying about
$140,000 in costs it balked at using public funds to pay all of Holder's legal
fees. The Florida Supreme Court has yet to rule on who should pay.
Ironically, one of Holder's competitors for the federal post is JQC chairman
James R. Wolf. A judge in the state's 1st DCA, Wolf has twice had a hand in
JQC investigations into charges against Holder in recent years.
A select pool of candidates will be interviewed Jan. 25. Following that,
committee members will send three or more names to Sen. Mel Martinez,
who will review nominees with Sen. Bill Nelson.
After the bipartisan review, a name will be forwarded to President Bush for
official nomination and confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee.
Grindstaff said a nominee's name could be forwarded to President Bush as
early as spring.
State Justices To Hear Holder Case
By John W. Allman
6 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Tampa Tribune
December 5, 2005
TAMPA - -- As 2005 comes to a close, the legal saga of Hillsborough
County Circuit Judge Gregory P. Holder does not.
Holder was cleared this year by the Judicial Qualifications Commission of
charges that he plagiarized a military research paper in the late 1990s and
lied about the work. He has said he should not have to pay $1.77 million in
legal fees he accrued during his defense.
Now the state Supreme Court will decide who gets the bill. The court agreed
Friday to hear arguments in 2006.
Holder's legal team must submit a brief to the court stating its position by
Dec. 28. The JQC will have 20 days to respond.
"We're very pleased," David Weinstein, Holder's lead attorney, said Friday.
"It certainly shows the Supreme Court is interested in the issue and is
prepared to take a hard look at the merits."
Charles Pillans III, the JQC's special counsel in the case, said Friday he had
not received the court order.
The JQC filed charges against Holder in July 2003.
By the time the case reached trial in June, Holder was revealed as an
informant for the FBI and Florida Department of Law Enforcement in a
corruption investigation at the courthouse, and a former assistant U.S.
attorney in Tampa was accused of crafting a labyrinthine plot to discredit
the judge.
Holder was cleared by unanimous decision following six days of testimony.
This story can be found at: http://www.tampatrib.com/floridametronews
/MGBJ5G0GRGE.html
Judge Deserves Reimbursement
Editorial
August 18, 2005
The agency that polices Florida judges sure thought Hillsborough Circuit
Judge Greg Holder's fitness on the bench was at issue when it charged him
with cribbing a paper for an Air Force course. But after spending two years
prosecuting a case it lost, the state Judicial Qualifications Commission
makes the reverse argument for not paying his legal bills. This injustice
compounds the wrong-headed decision to prosecute. Holder deserves
reasonable reimbursement, and the JQC needs to fix the way it enforces
judicial ethics.
Holder hired three law firms to defend against charges he plagiarized a
research paper the then-Air Force reservist submitted for work required for
a promotion to colonel. The JQC dismissed the charges in June after a week
of testimony before a six-member board that raised doubts about the
7 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
TROXLER

allegations. Holder's original paper was never found - a key lack of evidence
that should have scuttled the case. The origin of the alleged copy was so
weak, the JQC, in a rare move, cleared Holder only days after the testimony
ended.
Such a sweeping rebuke of the judgment to prosecute should have made the
JQC sensitive to Holder's request for legal fees. While the panel suggested it
would repay at least some of his nearly $141,000 in court costs, it balked at
paying roughly $1.8-million additionally in legal fees. Holder is not entitled,
at public expense, to the priciest defense his team can assemble. But he
certainly is entitled to recover some costs the state imposed on him and his
family. His job and reputation, after all, were at stake. The JQC caught itself
in a tangle. It cannot dodge paying fees by arguing, as it tries, that "there is
not a sufficient nexus" between the paper and Holder's duties as a judge
when it made the opposite case to justify charging him. And if there is no
nexus, what authority did the JQC have to initiate prosecution in the first
place? Rather than prolong a spectacle that undermines support for an
agency that has cleaned up the Hillsborough judiciary, the state should offer
to pay some reasonable fees and learn from the experience. We know who
is watching the judges. Who is watching the JQC?
JQC Needs To Pay Up For Gamble With Weak Case
By Howard Troxler
St. Petersburg Times Columnist
August 16, 2005

If the case against Gregory Holder had been an act on
American Idol, Simon Cowell would have sneered it off
the stage.
If the evidence against Holder had to compete on
Survivor, it would have been voted out in the first
episode.
As things really went, the ethics case against Holder, a
circuit judge in Tampa, was thrown out after a panel
actually heard the evidence (or the lack thereof).
To sum up: The case stunk.
Now Holder is asking to be paid $1.77-million for his legal bills. But the
same state outfit that prosecuted him in the first place says he shouldn't get
a dime.
We oughta pay him something.
Admittedly, $1.77-million is one big fat lawyer bill. The right way to go is to
appoint an outside party, pore through the records and arrive at a figure.
As you might recall, Holder was accused of plagiarism for a paper he wrote
in the U.S. Air Force Reserve back in the 1990s.
It was a bizarre case. Holder's accuser popped up with a crudely faked
paper that supposedly had been slipped under his door. Holder's defense
8 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
was that it wasn't the same paper he turned in, and that he was being
framed.
Since nobody ever found Holder's original paper, there was no way to tell
whether the alleged copy was genuine. It didn't look genuine though. It sure
looked like a clumsy, artless fake, with portions pasted onto some of the
pages, so that the margin notations didn't even match what was on the page.
Besides, Holder was a proud, pain-in-the-neck, straight-arrow Boy Scout in
every other way, even squealing on other judges for their own ethics
problems. It was extremely unlikely that he would suddenly turn into a
cheater, especially in the military service of which he was so proud.
Could it be that the JQC's eagerness to prosecute was influenced by ill will?
After all, Holder was a constant complainer and a snitch about the state
court system. He was such a good source for the FBI that at one point the
feds even gave him his own cell phone.
As for the lawyer bills:
Interestingly, there is no cut-and-dried rule in Florida on the payment of
legal defense fees for public officials. In a 1990 case, the Florida Supreme
Court ruled that it depends on whether public officials were defending
themselves on charges related to their official duties.
Here, the JQC contends that the charges relate to Holder's military service,
not to any action he took as a judge.
Yet Holder faced ethics charges only because the JQC decided to file them.
He was not accused of any crime, but of violating the canons of ethics that
apply to Florida judges. The charges against him existed precisely because
of his status as a judge, whose "official duties" included obeying those rules.
As a second line of argument, the JQC mounts a "poor man" defense against
Holder's claim, pointing out that it is greater than the commission's annual
budget. The JQC warns that handing out big pots of money for legal fees
could hurt the commission's ability to pursue future cases.
To this latter argument, I would reply, using a technical legal term: tough
noogies.
Holder is the total and clear winner in this case. He is the wronged party.
The JQC ought not be able to file a weak case against him, drag him through
two years of suffering, lose in a slam-dunk ruling and then walk away
whistling.
If anything, there ought to be an investigation into the JQC itself, to see
whether its members violated their oaths of office by pursuing a prosecution
with insufficient evidence. If the commission suffers a kick in the budget as
a consequence, well, fine.
For sure, the JQC is usually the good guy when it comes to judicial
misconduct. We in the Tampa Bay area have plenty of experience with
being rescued from bad judges by the JQC. But in this case, the commission
went oddly awry. Holder is entitled to reasonable legal fees.
9 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Judicial Panel Rejects Reimbursing Holder's Fees
By John W. Allman
Tampa Tribune
Aug 10, 2005
TAMPA - Circuit Judge Gregory P. Holder was not acting as a judge when
he wrote a military research paper he later was alleged to have plagiarized,
and therefore he should not be paid for his attorney fees.
That was the response this week of the Judicial Qualifications Commission
to Holder's request to the Florida Supreme Court last month for $1.77
million he says he owes three law firms that handled his successful defense.
The court will take the matter under advisement and determine what the
next step will be, said Craig Waters, a public information officer for the high
court.
Holder, at the time an Air Force Reserve lieutenant colonel, was accused of
copying passages from a peer's research paper during a 1997-98 military
class he took while seeking promotion to colonel. He also was alleged to
have violated judicial ethics by certifying the work as his own.
The JQC, which polices Florida's judges, dismissed charges against Holder
on June 23. The panel found that while troubling, the evidence failed to
meet the level needed to clearly and convincingly establish guilt.
Holder's motion for fees cites Florida case law that states public officials are
eligible for reimbursement of fees at public expense if the case coincides
with their official duties and serves a public purpose.
Charles Pillans III, the JQC's special counsel in the Holder case, in a
response Monday, said that while Holder's case served a public purpose,
there is no correlation between his job as a judge and his writing a research
paper.
Pillans also said that Holder's request ignores a Florida Supreme Court
ruling that costs accrued during a JQC proceeding ``must be kept within
strict bounds'' so the JQC is not deterred ``from initiating a prosecution or a
judge from defending against a charge.''
The same ruling, Pillans wrote, states that costs are not to include attorney
fees.
Holder also has asked for reimbursement of court costs totaling $140,870.
The JQC hearing panel, in a separate response filed Monday, asked the
court to refer that issue back to the panel to determine the exact amount of
costs to be awarded.
Reporter John W. Allman can be reached at (813) 259-7915.
/MGBDP6137CE.html
Holder's Pricey Defense
10 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Editorial
Tampa Tribune
Aug 3, 2005
Hillborough County Circuit Judge Gregory Holder says he racked up a
$1.92-million tab fighting charges that he plagiarized an Air Force research
paper. Now, a month after the case was dismissed, he wants the Judicial
Qualifications Commission to foot the bill.
On Monday, Holder's attorneys filed a motion asking the JQC to pay the
judge's legal bill. Holder hired attorneys from three separate law firms a
little more than two years ago to defend against charges he plagiarized a
1998 research paper for a course at MacDill Air Force Base. His attorneys
deposed dozens of witnesses and called several experts to the stand during
the June JQC hearing.
Holder said he's personally shelled out about $100,000 for his legal defense.
It's just a fraction of what he owes, but it represents about 75 percent of his
nearly $135,000 annual salary. In a 2001 financial statement, the judge
listed his net worth at $265,680.
During the JQC hearing, several witnesses raised serious doubts about
allegations that the former Air Force reservist had cribbed the paper from
another student, E. David Hoard. No one was ever able to produce the
paper Holder originally submitted. The JQC concluded the evidence against
Holder was not convincing enough and dismissed the charges against
Holder.
A June 23 JQC order recommended that the Florida Supreme Court award
costs to Holder. But commission officials said costs are one thing, attorney
fees are quite another.
"It seems awfully high to me," said JQC general counsel Tom McDonald.
McDonald said Tuesday that he hadn't seen the motion filed by Holder's
attorney. But he said the JQC's annual budget is only about $800,000.
"We can't pay it," said JQC general counsel Tom McDonald. "The state
would end up paying it."
Holder's Tampa attorney, David Weinstein, said he was "cautiously
optimistic" that the six-member panel that reviewed Holder's case would
consider paying the estimated $140,000 in costs. Weinstein acknowledged,
however, that he'll probably have a fight on his hands when it comes to
collecting the roughly $1.77-million in legal fees. But he said the fees are
reasonable.
"It's not unusual for a case that goes on for several years and that involves
experts and witnesses and depositions from around the country," Weinstein
said. "We had to start from scratch investigating these charges ourselves.
This was a very time-consuming and expensive proposition."
Charles Pillans, the JQC's special counsel on the Holder case, said the
payment of attorney fees would be unprecedented.
11 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Weinstein cited Florida common laws that entitle public officials who
successfully defend against legal charges brought in connection with their
jobs to seek to recover expenses. He has asked the court to appoint a
special master to determine what, if any, fees can be collected from the
JQC.
The JQC rarely dismisses charges after a full hearing. In 1987, Orlando
Judge Joseph Baker faced an allegation that he had taken a leave of absence
without getting permission from his chief judge. The JQC tried the case but
decided the evidence was not convincing.
The commission's executive director could not be reached to comment on
who bore responsibility for Baker's costs and fees.
In the Holder case, as with Baker, the JQC will make a recommendation to
the court about the repayment of costs and fees. McDonald said he doubts
Holder will get everything he's asking for.
"We probably will negotiate with him on costs but the court has ruled that
fees are not to be repaid," McDonald said.
This story can be found at: http://www.tampatrib.com
/News/MGBYSYPTWBE.html
Judge Seeks $1.92-Million in Costs Defending Self
After winning a case last month, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder
wants the Judicial Qualifications Commission to pay his legal bills.
By Candace Rondeaux
July 26, 2005
TAMPA - Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder says he racked up a
$1.92-million tab fighting charges that he plagiarized an Air Force research
paper. Now, a month after the case was dismissed, he wants the Judicial
Qualifications Commission to foot the bill.
On Monday, Holder's attorneys filed a motion asking the JQC to pay the
judge's legal bill. Holder hired attorneys from three separate law firms a
little more than two years ago to defend against charges he plagiarized a
1998 research paper for a course at MacDill Air Force Base. His attorneys
deposed dozens of witnesses and called several experts to the stand during
the June JQC hearing.
Holder said he's personally shelled out about $100,000 for his legal defense.
It's just a fraction of what he owes, but it represents about 75 percent of his
nearly $135,000 annual salary. In a 2001 financial statement, the judge
listed his net worth at $265,680.
During the JQC hearing, several witnesses raised serious doubts about
allegations that the former Air Force reservist had cribbed the paper from
12 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
another student, E. David Hoard. No one was ever able to produce the
paper Holder originally submitted. The JQC concluded the evidence against
Holder was not convincing enough and dismissed the charges against
Holder.
A June 23 JQC order recommended that the Florida Supreme Court award
costs to Holder. But commission officials said costs are one thing, attorney
fees are quite another.
"It seems awfully high to me," said JQC general counsel Tom McDonald.
McDonald said Tuesday that he hadn't seen the motion filed by Holder's
attorney. But he said the JQC's annual budget is only about $800,000.
"We can't pay it," said JQC general counsel Tom McDonald. "The state
would end up paying it."
Holder's Tampa attorney, David Weinstein, said he was "cautiously
optimistic" that the six-
member panel that reviewed Holder's case would consider paying the
estimated $140,000 in costs. Weinstein acknowledged, however, that he'll
probably have a fight on his hands when it comes to collecting the roughly
$1.77-million in legal fees. But he said the fees are reasonable.
"It's not unusual for a case that goes on for several years and that involves
experts and witnesses and depositions from around the country," Weinstein
said. "We had to start from scratch investigating these charges ourselves.
This was a very time-consuming and expensive proposition."
Charles Pillans, the JQC's special counsel on the Holder case, said the
payment of attorney fees would be unprecedented.
Weinstein cited Florida common laws that entitle public officials who
successfully defend against legal charges brought in connection with their
jobs to seek to recover expenses. He has asked the court to appoint a
special master to determine what, if any, fees can be collected from the
JQC.
The JQC rarely dismisses charges after a full hearing. In 1987, Orlando
Judge Joseph Baker faced an allegation that he had taken a leave of absence
without getting permission from his chief judge. The JQC tried the case but
decided the evidence was not convincing.
The commission's executive director could not be reached to comment on
who bore responsibility for Baker's costs and fees.
In the Holder case, as with Baker, the JQC will make a recommendation to
the court about the repayment of costs and fees. McDonald said he doubts
Holder will get everything he's asking for.
"We probably will negotiate with him on costs but the court has ruled that
fees are not to be repaid," McDonald said.
****
13 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
The cost of Judge Gregory Holder's defense
TOTAL COSTS: $140,870.79
A sampling of costs
Expert expenses & fees: $63,226.86
Copy fees: $19,065.56
Trial exhibit expenses: $2,547.78
Legal research fees: $9,527.00
TOTAL ATTORNEY FEES: $1,779,691.81
By law firm
Bales Weinstein: $1,194,947.50
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood: $533,627.50
James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich: $51,116.81
Judge Holder Cleared By Panel
By John W. Allman
Tampa Tribune
June 23, 2005
TAMPA - Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder was cleared
Wednesday of charges that he plagiarized a research paper in 1997 and
violated judicial ethics by certifying the work as his own.
The verdict, which was unanimous, was delivered by a six-person hearing
panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the agency that polices
Florida's judges. It was outlined in a 2 1/2-page dismissal order.
Although some of the evidence against Holder was ``troublesome,'' the
order stated, it failed to meet the level needed to clearly and convincingly
establish guilt.
``The evidence was extremely conflicting and the implications disturbing,''
the order continued. ``The credibility of certain witnesses was in doubt. The
memories of the long past events were unclear.''
Neither Holder nor his attorneys returned telephone calls Wednesday night
seeking comment.
Leonard Haber, a clinical and forensic psychologist from Miami Beach who
is a lay member of the JQC hearing panel, said in an interview that no single
factor led the panel to its finding.
`Ì couldn't point to one thing,'' Haber said.
Neither side could produce an original copy of Holder's research paper, and
several witnesses gave conflicting testimony about having seen it, he said.
Haber declined to say when or how the panel reached its decision but said
members had an ongoing sense of the evidence as it emerged in what
amounted to a trial this month at the Hillsborough County Courthouse.
Panelist John Cardillo, a Naples lawyer, said he, too, found the evidence
14 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
conflicting.
`Ànybody who sat through that trial could see both sides had a point,''
Cardillo said.
It was complicated, he added, by witnesses on each side whose testimony
was problematic, he said. In particular, he cited Assistant U.S. Attorney
Jeffrey Del Fuoco, who testified that he received the disputed research
paper anonymously in 2002.
`Ì would say that he had some memory problems,'' Cardillo said.
For Holder, the verdict ends an ordeal that began nearly two years ago.
The JQC filed charges against him in July 2003 alleging that he had cribbed
nearly 10 pages of text verbatim from a colleague for a research paper he
had to submit as a requirement for promotion in the Air Force Reserve.
Holder, 51 and a West Point graduate, was a lieutenant colonel in the
Reserve at the time and was striving to make colonel. The case rested upon
a photocopy of what was purported to be his research paper. No original
version of it could be found.
Holder denied the plagiarism allegation and subsequently said he had been
framed by unnamed enemies.
At times, his conspiracy theory and a subplot involving his role in a
long-running public corruption investigation threatened to overshadow the
JQC hearing.
Holder testified that during 2001 and 2002, he helped FBI and Florida
Department of Law Enforcement agents with the corruption investigation. It
was begun over allegations of past case-fixing at the courthouse, as well as
prostitution, gambling and money laundering, involving judges and some
then in law enforcement.
Holder named three people as being targets of the probe: Former Chief
Judge F. Dennis Alvarez, former Circuit Judge Robert Bonanno and Rocky
Rodriguez, formerly a major in the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office.
Alvarez, speaking through his attorney, and Bonanno chided Holder's
testimony as rumor. Rodriguez did not respond to a request for comment.
No one has been charged in the investigation. The case is ongoing, the FBI
says.
Holder testified that people at the courthouse knew he was an informant.
He also testified about writing a letter to the Justice Department in 2002 in
which he complained that investigators hadn't followed up on evidence he
provided of case-fixing and bribery.
Holder's attorneys zeroed in on Del Fuoco. He stood to be embarrassed the
most by Holder's criticism of the investigation, they said, because Holder
was complaining to Del Fuoco's superior.
Del Fuoco, however, stood by his account under cross-examination.
15 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
This story can be found at: http://www.tampatrib.com
/News/MGB9C2VIAAE.html

Panel's Decision On Judge Could Take Weeks
By John W. Allman
Tampa Tribune
June 15, 2005
TAMPA - There's the simple answer, and the not so simple.
The simple answer might mean disgrace. The not so simple could rocket
skepticism of law enforcement in Hillsborough County to a new plateau,
one where anyone is capable of anything.
In the middle of it all is a man accustomed to being behind the bench, not
on trial before it: Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory P. Holder, a military
man from a military family, who may or may not still have his job come
July.
Holder's six-day hearing before the state Judicial Qualifications Commission
ended Tuesday with a recap of allegations that he plagiarized an Air Force
Reserve research paper in 1997-98.
The West Point graduate, where honor is supposed to mean all, is accused
of breaching judicial ethics by signing a certificate affirming the paper as his
own.
The allegation has been hanging over Holder for two years. Now he must
wait while a JQC hearing panel - in essence, a jury of his peers - considers
whether clear and convincing evidence exists of guilt. If so, Holder could
face a range of punishment up to removal from the bench.
The courtroom filled early Tuesday for closing arguments. More than 60
Holder supporters were there. ``Thank you all for coming,'' said his mother,
Alice.
Charles Pillans III, retained by the JQC to prosecute the case, offered the
simple answer: The judge made a terrible mistake. Stressed and rushing to
meet a deadline, he lifted 10 pages of text verbatim from a paper written
years earlier by a military colleague.
David Weinstein, Holder's lawyer, countered with a more elaborate
explanation, a not- so-simple conspiracy theory that plays off Holder's role
as an FBI informant in an ongoing public corruption investigation. A plot to
discredit the judge perhaps carried out by a controversial assistant U.S.
attorney, Jeffrey Del Fuoco, who once specialized in corruption cases,
Weinstein said. He fabricated the disputed paper, then lied about it,
Weinstein suggested.
``That [he] made this up is pure fantasy,'' Del Fuoco's attorney, Craig
Huffman, said Tuesday night. ``My client's credibility is beyond question.''
Original Copy Missing
The hearing was hindered by the fact that no one has an original version of
16 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Holder's research paper, which he submitted in January 1998 as part of an
Air War College course. At the time Holder was seeking promotion in the
Air Force Reserve to colonel.
Neither the judge nor the military can locate an original copy of the
document. The paper in dispute is a photocopy.
Pillans said Holder had already flunked the first exam of the course because
he didn't read the material. His judicial office was moving. His wife was ill,
and his judicial assistant was on pain medication and having trouble typing
the paper in the military's exacting format.
Then Holder made a poor choice, Pillans said. He had asked for, and
received, a copy of a peer's paper, one whose passages appear in the
plagiarized version. The same paper was found typed into his judicial
assistant's computer. Text from that computer file appears verbatim in the
plagiarized copy, Pillans said.
The disputed photocopy also contains written comments specific to the text,
Pillans said, put there by the Air Force Reserve officer who graded Holder's
paper.
If the photocopy was fabricated, then the fabricators were `ìngenious,''
Pillans said. ``They put incorrect information in there and then comments
pointing out [its inaccuracy].''
Del Fuoco, Pillans said, didn't act like a conspirator. He testified during the
hearing that he received an anonymous package in 2002 containing two
research papers, one of them the alleged Holder paper.
By that point, Holder was aiding agents investigating allegations of
courthouse corruption. Del Fuoco was the federal prosecutor heading up the
probe.
``To suggest to you [that Del Fuoco] had some motive to derail a public
corruption case,'' Pillans said, ``there's no basis, no motive, no fact.''
Credibility Questioned
Citing testimony Monday from Manatee County Sheriff Charles Wells, who
said Del Fuoco once tried to extort money from him, Weinstein argued that
Del Fuoco is a liar with no credibility.
And he had motive - a letter from Holder to the Justice Department
criticizing the slowness of the corruption investigation.
`Ìf there was an anonymous source, that person would have come forward
by now,'' Weinstein said. ``They don't exist.''
The simple, and the not so simple.
The members of the hearing panel went home to ponder the evidence. The
chairman, Escambia County Circuit Judge John Kuder, said the verdict
could take two weeks.
Reporter Lenny Savino contributed to this story. John W. Allman can be
reached at (813) 259-7915.
17 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
This story can be found at: http://www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro
/MGBFEL2YY9E.html
Judge Names Inquiry's Targets
By Candace Rondeaux
June 14, 2005
TAMPA - Two years ago, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder's
lower left desk drawer was just an ordinary file holder. But on Monday, the
drawer and its contents became a Pandora's box of questions about the
former Air Force reservist's role as a courthouse whistle-blower in a federal
investigation into courthouse corruption.
Less than a week after a Tampa detective testified that Holder, 51, was a
key witness in the federal corruption inquiry, Holder detailed his role in the
investigation and named several Tampa officials as targets of the
investigation in testimony before the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
"The targets of that federal investigation were (Judge) F. Dennis Alvarez,
Judge Robert Bonnano and Maj. Rocky Rodriguez of the Hillsborough
County Sheriff's Office," Holder said.
Holder also again denied allegations brought by the JQC that he plagiarized
a 1998 Air Force research paper. He said he was meticulous about the file
he kept in his desk drawer that contained both the paper he submitted for an
Air Force course and a similar paper by another student, E. David Hoard.
Holder has consistently contended that the allegations stem from his role in
the federal investigation. The veteran jurist's defense attorneys also have
repeatedly brought up an incident involving a nighttime visit Bonnano made
to Holder's chambers in July 2000, but have made no direct allegation that
Bonnano might somehow be behind the current accusations against Holder.
Holder told the six-member panel he provided information to federal
investigators about courthouse corruption from September 2001 to May
2002.
"I felt that my actions as a cooperating witness were consistent with my
oath to God and the community," Holder said.
The JQC panel will decide whether Holder cribbed parts of the research
paper from Hoard, a fellow Air Force reservist. If the panel finds the
evidence against Holder to be credible and convincing, they can
recommend to the the Florida Supreme Court punishment ranging from a
reprimand to removal from the bench.
Holder has questioned what became of the federal inquiry. In November
2002, Holder fired off a stern letter to the U.S. Justice Department's Office
of Professional Responsibility that raised concerns about how the
corruption inquiry had been handled. He said he was incensed by the FBI's
decision to drop the inquiry despite "compelling evidence" he had provided
about a bribe received by another unnamed Circuit Court judge in Tampa.
http://www.tampabay.com Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times
18 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Holder Says Others Had Ax To Grind In Frame-Up
By John W. Allman
The Tampa Tribune
Jun 15, 2005
TAMPA - Former Chief Judge F. Dennis Alvarez is a target in a sweeping
federal and state corruption investigation stretching from the Hillsborough
County courthouse to the Sheriff's Office, a sitting judge testified Monday.
The judge, Gregory P. Holder, spent eight months as an FBI informant in the
corruption investigation, and is currently on trial for allegedly plagiarizing a
research paper he wrote as an Air Force Reserve officer in 1997.
The probe was launched four years ago by the FBI and Florida Department
of Law Enforcement. It has focused on allegations of case-fixing at the
courthouse, prostitution, money laundering and illegal gambling.
A longtime Alvarez friend, former Circuit Judge Robert H. Bonanno, also is
a target of the investigation, Holder said. Bonanno resigned 2 1/2 years ago
on the eve of an impeachment hearing after a bailiff caught him inside
Holder's chambers after hours in 2000 while Holder was out of town.
And so is Rocky Rodriguez, a former Hillsborough County sheriff's major
who was once considered a likely successor to former Sheriff Cal
Henderson, Holder said. Rodriguez retired in lieu of being fired in 2003 for
making scores of personal calls on his departmental cellular telephone, most
to his girlfriend.
Alvarez left the bench under pressure in 2001 after a series of courthouse
scandals.
Holder named the three testifying in his own defense before the Judicial
Qualifications Commission, the body that regulates Florida's judges. A JQC
hearing panel is considering the plagiarism case against him. Holder is
accused of violating Florida's Judicial Code of Conduct by signing a
statement on the paper affirming the work as his own. If convicted, he could
be removed from the bench.
Holder's defense is that he was framed because of his role in the corruption
investigation.
``The folks I was offering evidence against knew of my involvement,''
Holder testified, `ànd would do anything to stop the investigation.''
Several witnesses for Holder, however, testified that they knew of no
attempt to discredit or harm him, even after word began to spread that he
might be cooperating in the probe.
Coming To A Conclusion
Monday marked the fifth day of testimony. The proceeding is expected to
conclude today.
Holder's role as an informant spanned part of 2001 and early 2002. Agents
repeatedly met with Holder secretly and told him to call a secret telephone
19 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
number if he needed anything, according to court documents.
Holder's former judicial assistant, Lorraine Nasco, testified last week that
she also met with agents and was given a phone number to call if she felt
threatened.
Holder did not say how he knew that the agents were focusing on Alvarez,
Bonanno and Rodriguez, nor did he say anything about what the agents
were after.
But court documents show that Holder told them about a judge believed to
have taken a bribe.
Holder pointed agents to other judges at the courthouse, he testified.
``They spoke with a number of colleagues,'' he said.
Asked why they picked him out of more than 50 sitting judges, Holder fell
back on his reputation for tolerating no wrongdoing.
``They thought I had information,'' he said, ``[and they] felt I was honest
and forthright and would do the right thing.''
Charles Pillans III, the JQC's special counsel in the case, suggested that by
assisting in the investigation, Holder might have violated another provision
of Florida's Judicial Code of Conduct. Pillans also asked if Holder sought
advice before agreeing to help.
`Àt no time did I seek anyone's advice,'' Holder replied, adding that he did
not actually investigate anything.
In other developments Monday:
* A computer software expert testified that with modern technology,
someone could have easily created a forgery to make it look as though
Holder's research paper had been plagiarized.
* Holder's cross- examination revealed inconsistencies in what he told
military investigators when the plagiarism allegation first surfaced against
him and what he has said since.
* After recalling names, dates and minute details of his life in direct
testimony last week, Holder said he couldn't remember certain things about
the disputed research paper.
* And members of the hearing panel peppered Holder and other witnesses
on his behalf about his character.
After learning that Holder had once failed a military exam, for example,
panel member John T. Cardillo asked about Holder's failings.
``We've heard a lot about all his qualities,'' Cardillo said. ``There are things
that occur. We're not dealing with someone who is super-human.''
Holder Breaks New Ground
But the big news came when Holder named names, and thus became the
first person with inside knowledge about the corruption investigation to
20 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
speak of it publicly.
Alvarez, speaking through his attorney, Barry Cohen, brushed aside
Holder's revelation.
``Judge Holder of all people should know that we're a system of facts and
evidence, not rumor and scuttlebutt,'' Cohen said. ``The [corruption]
investigation is four years old and we assume that if there were any fact to
support any allegations of wrongdoing, the government would have acted.''
Bonanno said much the same.
`Ì have been hearing about this ongoing corruption probe for four years,''
he said. ``Greg Holder has spoken to every agency that would listen to him.
It's all in his head. It's sad.''
Rodriguez did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
FBI and FDLE officials said Monday they're prohibited from discussing
ongoing investigations.
But Carl Whitehead, special agent in charge of the FBI's Tampa office,
recently said in an interview that the corruption investigation is still active.
Reporter Lenny Savino contributed to this story. John W. Allman can be
reached at (813) 259-7915.
/MGBTFG8MX9E.html

Judge's Lawyers Say Paper Fake
Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge Gregory Holder Is Accused of
Plagiarizing a Research Paper He Wrote in 1998 for a Seminar at the
Macdill Air Force Base.
By Jennifer Liberto,
St. Petersburg Times.
June 9, 2005
TAMPA - Missing, zig-zagging staples and a wrong date were cited
Wednesday as reasons to doubt the authenticity of a research paper being
used to attack the integrity of Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge Gregory
Holder.
Holder's defense team began presenting its case Wednesday before the
Judicial Qualifications Committee, which is considering whether Holder
plagiarized a 1998 research report written for a seminar at MacDill Air
Force Base.
Holder has since retired from the U.S. Air Force Reserve but had completed
a research paper to further his rank.
Now attorneys are arguing about two copies of a research paper, which
have since surfaced, while the original has disappeared. The copies show
21 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
that 10 pages of Holder's 21 page report were copied verbatim from a report
written by a Pentagon employee.
Holder and his attorneys say these copies are not the report Holder
submitted to U.S. Air Force officials at Air War College. The defense says
the research papers presented at the JQC hearing were fabricated, in a plot
to retaliate against the judge for his part in a pending federal corruption
investigation at the Tampa courthouse.
Holder, 51, could lose his job if the panel finds the plagiarism charges are
clear and convincing during the hearing. The deliberations are expected to
continue through next week.
Holder's attorneys started building their case Wednesday that Holder did not
author the research paper copies in question. Their strongest witnesses
included a forensic analyst who specializes in documents and said the
papers were forged. Also a Tampa Police Department employee said that
Holder could be a target for retaliation.
Detective James Bartoszak had been working with the FBI investigating
corruption at the courthouse and said he worked with Judge Holder, who
had been a secret informant in the investigation.
Holder had been given a secret mobile phone for contacting law
enforcement to avoid tipping anyone off about his cooperation, Bartoszak
said.
Later, Bruce Dekraker, a documents analyst with Green and Associates of
Tampa, said that the two copies in question had clearly been assembled,
which he determined by analyzing different numbers of staple holes in
different pages. Some had up to nine holes, some had four and one had
none. "It's consistent with forgery," Dekraker said.
The defense also presented a videotaped deposition given by Tampa
attorney John Vento who said he had read an original copy of Holder's
ungraded research paper back in 1998, because Holder had sent him a copy
to read over. Vento, also an Air Force veteran, had earlier completed a
research paper for the same Air War College course and had coached
Holder how to approach the research paper.
Vento gave examples of how the research paper in question contained many
typographical and factual errors, such as the wrong date for the Battle of
Britain in World War II, something Holder would have known.
The commission makes recommendations to the Florida Supreme Court
about whether a judge should be privately or publicly reprimanded,
suspended or even removed from office.
Witnesses Say No Evidence
Of Plot To Discredit Holder
By John W. Allman
Tampa Tribune
June 9, 2005
TAMPA - Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Gregory P. Holder has said for
22 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
nearly two years that he is the victim of an elaborate effort to discredit him
and undermine his role as a federal informant in a sweeping public
corruption investigation.
As the third day of testimony ended Wednesday in his Judicial
Qualifications Commission hearing, the crucial questions - why, who and
how - remain unanswered.
Holder, an Air Force Reserve colonel, is alleged to have plagiarized an
academic paper he submitted seven years ago for a military class to gain
promotion. He is accused of violating judicial ethics by signing a statement
on the paper authenticating his work.
If the JQC's hearing panel, which polices Florida's judges, finds him guilty,
Holder could be removed from the bench.
Two law enforcement experts who worked the corruption investigation both
testified Wednesday that there is no evidence anyone has tried to discredit
him.
Scott Peterka, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement agent, spoke at
length about a July 2000 incident in which former Circuit Judge Robert
Bonanno was found inside Holder's locked judicial office.
The incident sparked a grand jury inquiry and defined a time of turmoil at
the courthouse. Bonanno, former Chief Judge Dennis Alvarez and former
Circuit Judge Gasper Ficarrotta all resigned during that period. All had
issues with Holder.
``The question has been raised maybe someone, someone in the courthouse,
fabricated the paper,'' Charles Pillans III, special counsel to the JQC, said on
cross- examination.
Peterka said he was not testifying that Alvarez, Bonanno or Ficarrotta was
involved.
Tampa police Detective James Bartoszak, who spent more than a year with
the FDLE and FBI investigating possible corruption at the courthouse and
the sheriff's office, said it is typical for targets in white-collar corruption
cases to try to discredit informants.
``Putting them in compromising positions with women. Planting drugs in
their vehicles,'' he said, adding that he has never heard of anyone forging a
research paper as retaliation.
Bartoszak, however, could not name names. He said the corruption
investigation remains open.
He told Pillans he had no knowledge of `àny direct retaliation against Judge
Holder.''
The day began with Holder's attorney, Steven T. Cottreau, addressing an
invisible witness. Pillans called it the most ``surreal event'' in his legal
career.
`Ì can't disagree with that,'' said Circuit Judge John Kuder of Pensacola,
who is chairing the JQC panel. `Ìt is unusual and hard for me to grasp, too.''
23 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Cottreau said he wanted to inform the panel of what he might ask Pillan's
chief expert, Linda James, a forensic document examiner from Dallas.
Cottreau's address, however, became a monologue on why James'
conclusion is wrong.
The Tampa Tribune hired James in February 2004 to review the paper
allegedly plagiarized by Holder. She, along with two other experts retained
by the newspaper, concluded the purported Holder paper had not been
forged.
Pillans sought James as a witness after the Tribune's story appeared. She is
recovering from a medical condition at her home, he said, and is unable to
appear at the hearing.
Holder's expert is Bruce Dekraker, a former law enforcement officer with
more than 30 years' experience detecting falsified documents.
He inspected two documents at issue in the Holder case: one slipped
anonymously under the door of an assistant U.S. attorney in early 2002 and
another copy found nearly a year later by the same person in a storage
locker.
Both documents have markings on them similar to notations made by an
instructor grading the work. However, both are missing key marks such as a
written grade and a time-date stamp used to log a paper when it is
submitted.
Dekraker based his analysis on such criteria as staple marks that don't line
up. He concluded that critical portions of the two papers - the cover sheet
and 10 pages of verbatim text lifted from another student's paper - are
actually duplicates.
``They're highly remanufactured documents,'' Dekraker said, `ànd, in my
opinion, they're forgeries.''
``What level of sophistication would it take to forge these papers?'' asked
panelist Howard Coker.
Dekraker said it would require computer skills, including use of Adobe
Photoshop, a program that allows for manipulation of images; a knowledge
of the military course Holder took; and, the ability to write a military
research paper.
`Ìf one person did it, he'd have to possess all those abilities,'' Coker said.
http://www.tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBZPMOFQ9E.html
Ex-Judge Recounts Invitation To Clique
By John W. Allman and Michael Fechter
The Tampa Tribune
May 2, 2004
Tampa Fl - The conversation, he says, came less than a year after he
became a Hillsborough County judge.
24 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
He sat and listened, he says, as a judge told him about a small band of
judges who gave one another a heads-up whenever friends were to come to
court. Then the other judge asked whether he would join the group.
Donald Evans remembers that he was stunned.
He still appears to be, more than 20 years later, recounting the moment,
with clarity and conviction, when he says he realized he was privy to ``some
conspiracy of sorts amongst a handful of judges.''
Evans said it was his first substantial interaction with F. Dennis Alvarez ,
the man who would eventually control the courthouse for 12 years as chief
judge. At the time, Evans and Alvarez were county judges. Evans was
essentially a rookie, having taken the bench in 1982.
Alvarez said `` Ì have this same understanding with six, seven, eight
judges,' '' Evans said in an interview with The Tampa Tribune. `Ì said,
`Dennis, don't put me on your list.' ''
Evans didn't report the conversation at the time, he said.
But it stayed with him, much like a subsequent series of events with another
colleague, Circuit Judge Robert Bonanno, one of Alvarez's closest friends.
The events Evans describes provide the first detailed look at the courthouse
issues tied to a broad federal and state corruption investigation in Tampa.
The probe, being conducted by the FBI and Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, has been moving along two tracks. One involves allegations
of past case-fixing at the courthouse by former judges and others. The other
involves allegations of money laundering, loan-sharking, illegal gambling
and prostitution, and has touched on individuals in law enforcement and
private business.
Evans, 65, has been interviewed twice by FBI agents, he said, most recently
in late 2001.
Although several past judges thought to be under scrutiny, including Alvarez
and Bonanno, have resigned while being investigated for noncriminal
ethical issues, no one has been criminally charged in the corruption
investigation.
The Players Involved
Evans' relationship with Alvarez and Bonanno would play out over the next
two decades, culminating in a rumor being spread about Evans' sexuality
and Evans later being subpoenaed to testify before a state legislative
committee that was considering whether to recommend Bonanno's
impeachment.
Alvarez, now a private lawyer, initially agreed to an interview for this story,
then canceled, then said he would not comment publicly even after hearing
Evans' claims in detail.
Bonanno, after an expletive- filled rant against Evans, also initially agreed
to consider an interview. He did not return three subsequent phone calls.
25 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
The Tribune spoke with Chief Judge Manuel Menendez Jr., Circuit Judges J.
Rogers Padgett and Debra Behnke, the late Circuit Judge Robert J. Simms,
who died of an apparent heart attack April 9, six other current or former
circuit judges who refused to allow their names to be used, plus former
Chief Judge J. Clifford Cheatwood.
All but one had heard about some or all of Evans' experiences either
directly from him or from others at the courthouse.
Menendez declined to talk about Evans without saying why.
Many of the other judges interviewed by the Tribune said they respect
Evans and have no reason to doubt him, although some questioned why he
would go public with his story now.
Evans is perhaps best remembered for his 10 years at the helm of
Hillsborough County's drug court, an alternative to jail or prison for people
who might benefit from treatment for substance addiction. He retired from
the bench in January 2003 and now runs a private mediation office.
`Ì'm confident there's not any sort of mass conspiracy'' involving all of
Hillsborough County's judges, Evans said, `ànd the vast majority of judges I
hold in high esteem.''
But Evans does not feel that way about Alvarez and Bonanno, who he
believes led a small clique of judges who ``held great sway over some of
their colleagues.''
The Conversation
Evans launched a quiet campaign while on the bench to inform and educate
new judges about the ways of the courthouse when they were elected or
appointed. He took them to lunch or spoke to them in passing.
`Ì would tell them about that meeting with Dennis,'' Evans said. ``When he
did it to me, I had no idea it was coming. At least they could have a
heads-up.''
It was his way of trying to `ùndermine their efforts to compromise new
judges,'' he said.
Alvarez's alleged overture began with a telephone call, Evans said. Evans
wasn't available and called Alvarez later. This time Alvarez wasn't available.
Meanwhile, Evans kept the cases on his docket moving through court.
Later, Alvarez came to his office, Evans said.
``He said, À friend of mine came in front of you today.' '' Evans recalled,
after which Alvarez mentioned the person by name. `Ì said, `Yeah, I
hammered him pretty heavy.' He said, `Yeah, you sure did. That was the
reason I was calling you, because he was a friend of mine.' ''
In that case, Evans said, it was just as well he and Alvarez hadn't spoken
beforehand. If they had, Evans said, he would have recused himself and
passed the case to another judge.
Alvarez assured him that he wouldn't have asked him to do anything wrong,
26 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Evans said. Then, he said, Alvarez made his pitch.
``He said, `Look, you're going to have people that are friends of yours come
in front of me,' '' Evans said. `` Ì'm going to have friends come in front of
you. I would like to be comfortable calling you. If a friend of yours comes
in front of me, I would like you to be comfortable calling me.' ''
That's when Alvarez said ``six, seven, eight'' other judges did this for one
another, Evans said.
`Ì reached a clear conclusion,'' Evans said. `Ì concluded that the reason
there was a sharing of this friendship relationship was because there was an
expectation it would be a factor in how the case would be handled.''
What sort of factor? ``That there would be some level of preferential
treatment,'' Evans said.
Alvarez left when Evans told him he wasn't interested, Evans said.
``He smiled, said he understood and that was it,'' Evans said.
The Judges' Feud
Evans took the opportunity to tell new judges about other incidents, as well.
He said he talked about what he perceived as a questionable arrangement in
the county's traffic court whereby defendants with attorneys could enter no
contest pleas, have judgment withheld and be penalized court costs only.
That allowed them to keep their records clean.
He talked about how his decision not to follow suit angered the attorneys,
and about how Bonanno, also then a county judge, had once disposed in
similar fashion of a number of cases assigned to Evans - without Evans'
knowledge or approval.
Evans protested to Bonanno afterward, he said. Nothing was resolved. To
the contrary, they began a long-running feud.
For example: Bonanno subsequently applied for a seat on the circuit court
bench. Evans said the chairwoman of the Judicial Nominating Commission,
a panel that recommends judicial candidates to the governor when
vacancies occur, called him to ask whether a story she had heard about
Bonanno disposing of Evans' cases was true. It was, Evans said, and the
commission passed over Bonanno for the nomination.
Then things got really ugly.
Bonanno, aided by Alvarez, launched a smear campaign that angers Evans
to this day, he said.
Evans was going through a divorce. A rumor began circulating about a
document in Evans' divorce file in which he supposedly acknowledged
being gay and having had a torrid affair. As if seeking added shock value,
his partner was alleged to have been black.
A fellow judge, Susan Bucklew, who now sits on the federal bench, told him
that she heard the rumor from Alvarez and Bonanno, Evans said. Bucklew
did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
27 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Although it wasn't true, the rumor spread quickly.
`Ì looked into bringing a slander action against them,'' Evans said.
Time has eased some of his concerns over discussing the incident publicly.
But Evans still simmers at the mention of it.
`Ì considered it then, and still consider it, to be about as low class an act as
a person can do,'' he said, visibly uncomfortable. `Ìt bothered me that
circuit judges, whom many people would not think they would tell lies like
this, were doing so. Especially when one was the chief judge.''
Other judges were distressed, too.
Simms was especially flabbergasted. He was the judge in Evans' divorce
case.
``Whoever said it to me didn't go further because I was emphatic,'' he said.
`Ì had read the file.''
In addition to the Evans rumor, Behnke said that Alvarez, while chief judge,
spread similar rumors about other members of the judiciary who weren't
considered members of his inner circle. She declined to discuss details.
The Chance To Testify
Evans was finally asked to tell his side of the story publicly in late 2001.
Bonanno, who had since become a circuit judge, had become embroiled in a
series of scandals beginning in mid- 2000. He was caught after- hours inside
the locked offices of another judge, Gregory P. Holder, and was later
accused of having had an affair with a court clerk.
A special grand jury launched an investigation. It found no basis for
criminal charges, but in a scathing report said Bonanno should resign or be
removed. The Judicial Qualifications Commission, the agency responsible
for policing Florida's judges, recommended that Bonanno be reprimanded
publicly for poor judgment.
Throughout, Bonanno refused to step aside. So a committee of the state
House of Representatives began impeachment proceedings against him.
A legislative aide called Evans and asked him to testify. Evans said he
would, if subpoenaed.
The morning Evans was to appear in late December 2001, Bonanno decided
to resign. He left the bench less than a month later, in January 2002.
No one on the committee knew exactly what he had planned to say, Evans
said. He skirted questions from reporters that day.
But first and foremost, Evans said, he planned to address the rumor, as well
as how Bonanno once disposed of cases that had been assigned to Evans,
plus anything else he was asked.
``Had I been asked the question, I would have told the truth,'' he said.
Reporter John W. Allman can be reached at (813) 259-7915. Reporter
28 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Michael Fechter can be reached at (813) 259-7621.
This story can be found at: http://news.tbo.com
/news/MGA6R9XKQTD.html
Informant Judge Complains Corruption Probe Abandoned
The Associated Press
Herald Tribune
December 4, 2003
TAMPA, Fla. -- A Hillsborough Circuit Court judge who served as an FBI
informant in an investigation of courthouse corruption complained the
probe was abandoned and asked the U.S. Justice Department to step in, The
Tampa Tribune reported Thursday.
Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge Gregory P. Holder complained 13 months
ago the FBI had abandoned the investigation, the newspaper reported. The
Justice Department began its inquiry into Holder's allegations in February
and has since passed the case to the Justice Department's inspector general's
office.
Meanwhile, a Tampa police detective working on the case corroborated
Holder's concerns and tells a remarkable tale of the judge working as an
informant and putting his life in danger to assist the FBI, the Tribune
reported. The judge was so concerned for his family's safety he began
carrying a gun, Detective James W. Bartoszak said in an affidavit. "I was
just concerned about the safety of my family more than myself," Holder
told the Tribune. "I was warned about that by FBI agents so I warned my
family and carried a weapon."
Hillsborough County's courthouse has been rocked by allegations of
case-fixing, bribery, prostitution, loan-sharking and illegal gambling. A
special grand jury seated several years ago issued no indictment but wrote a
scathing report on the courthouse shenanigans, and former Chief Judge
Dennis Alvarez resigned under pressure from state judicial watchdogs.
Holder is now the subject of a Judicial Qualifications Commission
investigation that he plagiarized a paper he wrote as an officer in the Air
Force Reserves. Holder denies the plagiarism charge and said the document
given to investigators was fabricated to frame him in retaliation. He is to
face a JQC trial on that charge in January.
The Tribune obtained Bartoszak's affidavit from the JQC through a public
records request. The detective said in the affidavit investigators approached
Holder for help because they were confident he was clean and Holder
proved to be a good source. Bartoszak's affidavit does not name targets or
provide any other details of the corruption investigation. But it says the
probe "was halted and the investigation team was dismantled for reasons
that were not made clear to me or any other member of the team" in 2002.
Moses Jordan, chief of investigations for the Tampa office of the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, said Wednesday that the corruption
investigation is still open and is being worked actively by FBI and FDLE
agents. The FBI declined to comment, citing a pending investigation.
Alvarez, who left office under pressure from the JQC in 2001, said
Wednesday that he had no knowledge of an investigation into judicial
29 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
corruption under his watch, and he dismissed Bartoszak's claim as
"fantasyland."
38 to Testify for Judge Holder
By Cassio Furtado
Tampa Tribune - Florida
September 16, 2003
TAMPA - Attorneys for Circuit Judge Gregory Holder, accused of
plagiarizing a paper he submitted to the Air Force in 1998, on Monday
released a list of 38 witnesses they will call to testify at a hearing to decide
whether Holder should be suspended pending an investigation.
Among them is Tampa FBI Special Agent Kelly Thomas, who was a leading
investigator in the ongoing federal probe of Hillsborough County
Courthouse scandals.
David Weinstein, one of Holder's attorneys, said the witnesses will show
that Holder ``has been and continues to be a hard-working and fair judge,
who clearly should remain on the bench.''
In July, the Judicial Qualifications Commission accused Holder, 49, of
plagiarizing about half of his 21-page report on the Allied bombing of
Europe during World War II.
The commission alleges much of the report was copied from Col. E. David
Hoard's version written two years before Holder's. But Holder says the
plagiarized report is not the one he submitted to the Air War College as part
of a process to be promoted to colonel.
The witness list for the Nov. 14 hearing at the Airport Marriott Hotel also
includes several judges, Tampa area lawyers such as multimillionaire Steve
Yerrid, Air Force officials and Holder's former secretary, Lorraine Nasco,
who says she typed Holder's original paper in late 1997.
Attorneys John Vento and James Russick and Air Force Lt. Col. William O.
Howe Jr., who recently filed affidavits saying Holder didn't plagiarize his
paper, will be called.
A Hillsborough County judge since 1994, Holder has been a whistleblower
in past court scandals. He assisted in a sexual harassment investigation
against Judge Edward Ward and demanded that Judge Robert Bonanno be
investigated for entering Holder's chambers after hours without permission.
Both judges resigned.
To see full story on Judge Holder on this Website click here.
Ousted Lawyer Wants the Judge Removed
Judge Gregory Holder Knocked Attorney Arnold Levine Off
a Plum Case Now Levine Wants Holder Recused

By Jeff Testerman,
Times Staff Writer
September 4, 2003
30 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
TAMPA - Two weeks ago, Circuit Judge Gregory P. Holder threw prominent
attorney Arnold Levine off a civil case involving the Tampa Bay Lightning
and former team owner Art Williams.
The judge ruled Levine acted improperly when he stepped into an empty
courtroom and viewed documents involving another Lightning case that had
gone to trial.
Now, Levine has fired back.
Relying on transcripts from a grand jury investigation into the Hillsborough
County judiciary, Levine's attorney, David Maney, says Holder should be
disqualified from trying the Williams lawsuit because of the judge's
relationship with his bailiff, Sylvia Morgan.
Judge Holder never revealed his close relationship with Morgan, Maney
claims in papers filed this week, yet gave great weight to her testimony
about Levine's actions in the empty courtroom, even though what she said
was "diametrically opposed" to Levine's explanation.
Williams and his company now maintain they cannot receive a fair trial in
Holder's court. Maney's motion to remove Holder stems from a tip he says
he got from an anonymous male caller on Aug. 22, two days after Holder
had removed Levine. The tipster said "a close personal relationship" existed
between Holder and Morgan, and suggested Maney and Levine read the
grand jury transcripts of the investigation into former Hillsborough Circuit
Judge Robert Bonanno.
The two lawyers did just that, downloading six volumes of transcripts from
the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission's Web site.
They found testimony concerning bailiff Sylvia Morgan - known then as
Sylvia Gay - entering Holder's darkened chambers on July 27, 2000, and
unexpectedly encountering Bonanno lurking there. Morgan didn't buy
Bonanno's explanation, that he wanted to discuss courthouse politics with
Holder, who was no friend of his and was away on U.S. Air Force Reserve
duty. She reported the incident to Holder.
Holder, characterizing Bonanno's motives as "nefarious," demanded an
investigation. Bonanno resigned months later, as the Florida House Judicial
Oversight Committee was preparing to launch impeachment proceedings
against him.
In grand jury testimony about the incident, former Chief Hillsborough
Circuit Judge Dennis Alvarez said, "Sylvia and Holder are very, very close.
In fact he considers her family; very close."
Other testimony revealed that Holder helped his bailiff prepare a memo
about the Bonanno incident, that she was named Bailiff of the Year in 2000
after being nominated by Holder, that she kept personal items such as her
lunch and magazines in Holder's break room, and that she frequently had
lunch with Holder in his break room.
In his motion to disqualify Holder, Maney complains that the judge refused
at an Aug. 20 hearing to allow Levine to take the stand to rebut the sworn
deposition of Morgan.
31 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Levine has said he looked at only "public records" on the Lightning defense
table when he entered an empty courtroom prior to resumption of a tax trial
in June. And he insists he had no words with Morgan when she came in
through a side door.
According to her deposition, Morgan said Levine was lying.
She says she told Levine "to get away from that stuff," whereupon he
replied, "I am an attorney. I know what I can do and what I cannot do."
Morgan said she replied, "I am a bailiff and I know exactly what I can do,"
before writing a report on his actions around the Lightning's legal papers.
Based partly on Morgan's testimony, Holder ruled last month that Levine's
conduct amounted to an "absolute appearance of impropriety," that
mandated banishment from the Williams case.
Williams, through the entity ALW Sports, claims he did not receive
appropriate broadcast revenue when he sold the Lightning, nor was he
responsible for some property taxes at the downtown arena then known as
the Ice Palace.
The Lightning's new owners claim in the suit that Williams improperly
depleted the team's bank account and reduced arena staff at the time of the
sale.
After Levine was discovered by Morgan, Lightning attorneys asserted
Levine sought to gain unfair and unethical competitive advantage by
secretly peering at confidential Lightning records being used in the hockey
team's tax lawsuit against Hillsborough Property Appraiser Rob Turner.
In that case, the Lightning won a reduction in the assessment of the arena,
now known as the St. Pete Times Forum, from $110-million to $25.5-
million.
Holder's removal of Levine was a severe blow to Williams' defense team.
Maney told Holder last month that Levine, whose billings had already
reached $510,000 in the case, was "utterably irreplaceable."
Like The Inquisition?
Letters to the Editor
By David Hubbard - Tampa
Published: Jan 15, 2002 Tampa Tribune
Florida's Judicial Qualification Commission operates like the Spanish
Inquisition, independent of any checks and hidden from public view. It has
cooked up charges against Judge Gregory Holder, a judge we are assured
has integrity and is impartial. The charges are absurd and reveal the failure
of the JQC. Holder is a good judge and is gagged by archaic secrecy rules
for the JQC to hide behind. Others' years of misconduct have gone
undetected, but meticulous examination of Holder's truthful application
brings the JQC running. Judicial governance must come out of the dark
ages. Sunshine laws must apply.
JQC In The `Sunshine'
32 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
Letter to the Editor
By Debbie Ressler - Tampa
Published Jan 15, 2002 Tampa Tribune
``Florida in the sunshine'' is a phrase that is often used to ensure that
governmental activities are open to the citizens of our state. Elected
officials can no longer hide behind the door of secrecy. Judge Greg Holder
has relinquished his right to privacy with the JQC investigations. Florida in
the sunshine is not a feared phenomenon to Holder. One has to wonder if
the JQC is fearful of the openness of records. All judges who are elected by
the populace should be more than happy to have all investigations open to
the public. The judiciary serves the citizens, and the citizens have the right
to know exactly what is occurring in the investigations. Allow Judge Greg
Holder to serve as an example of honesty, openness and service.
Bonanno's Calculated Dodge
A Times Editorial
Published December 28, 2001
Hillsborough County Circuit Judge Robert Bonanno could have saved
taxpayers a lot of money and the judiciary a lot of grief had he resigned
before Thursday over what clearly were unethical acts that ruined his
credibility as a judge and public servant. By clinging to the privileges of
power so long, Bonanno brought additional disgrace to the judiciary by
revealing the weaknesses of Florida's system for holding unfit judges
accountable.
Bonanno is the latest embarrassment to depart the Hillsborough judiciary,
and his ouster should help the new chief judge, Manuel Menendez Jr., to
build a courthouse culture based on candor and integrity. For all his bluster,
Bonanno in the end wasn't willing to stand and explain his alleged affair
with a courthouse clerk or why he was caught alone in a fellow judge's
darkened office. There were other questions about his professional and
personal life that were to be raised Thursday as impeachment hearings got
under way in Tampa. Many had also hoped the hearings would reveal more
about how then-chief Judge Dennis Alvarez handled a string of courthouse
scandals.
Even though Bonanno is gone, the people of Hillsborough still deserve
answers to many questions about a man who spent two decades on the
bench. For all the promises he and his lawyer made, Bonanno still hasn't
given the public his side to stories about the case sealings, the land deal, the
girlfriend.
Bonanno's resignation is an embarrassing blow to the Judicial Qualifications
Commission, which recommended to the state Supreme Court that Bonanno
be allowed to remain on the bench. Indeed, it was the JQC's failure that
prompted state lawmakers to begin impeachment proceedings. It would be a
disappointing footnote for the record if Bonanno could spin his resignation
as a reaction to the political process of impeachment, rather than, as it was,
a calculated dodge to avoid professional punishment by his peers. For that
reason, it is important for the JQC to finish its work.
33 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
However welcome the outcome, state Rep. Larry Crow, R-Dunedin,
chairman of the House Judicial Oversight Committee, jumped the gun by
starting the impeachment process before the state Supreme Court completed
its own disciplinary process against Bonanno. If lawmakers are serious
about improving the process for policing judges, they should give the JQC
an adequate budget and determine whether the secrecy clause governing
investigations protects bad judges more than it does the wrongly accused. In
Bonanno's case and others, the record has never been made fully public
because judges are allowed to time their resignations in a way that keeps
their dirty laundry concealed.
Thursday represented incremental progress, but the best protection against
future Bonannos is a more open process that rewards candor and integrity,
not the cleverness to play the system.
Watch how JQC handles Holder
Times Editorial
December 20, 2001
Like him or not, Hillsborough Circuit Judge Greg Holder has helped to bring
about positive change at the county courthouse. The local judiciary is more
diverse, more open, more professional and more accountable because
Holder alone among 48 judges had the courage to speak out against the
good ol' boy system that has long been the fabric of Tampa politics. Now
Holder is the subject of a conduct complaint -- thin gruel, by the look of
documents and interviews released thus far. How the Judicial Qualifications
Commission handles the matter will reflect on that agency's own judgment
and candor.
We are in no position to judge at this stage whether Holder violated judicial
ethics. The JQC is trying to determine whether Holder misled a federal
judicial nominating panel by declaring at the time that he was unaware of
any professional complaints filed against him. Holder had met on two
occasions with the JQC chairman, who admonished him for speaking to
reporters. Several attorney-members of the nominating commission said
they did not believe that Holder misled them. They also said they doubted
that the facts amounted to a material change or would have played a role in
determining whether Holder was nominated. It will be up to the JQC to
make a convincing case that a meeting between judicial colleagues
somehow equates with a formal disciplinary process.
Holder has welcomed an airing of the facts, and we'll leave his defense to
him. But the episode raises troubling questions about the process and
whether judges who blow the whistle face retaliation. On what pretext for
example, did a JQC representative meet with Holder? The disciplinary
process exists to establish a public record and to prevent a small circle of
judges from refereeing ethical and political disputes. If the JQC meeting
with Holder was intended to keep him quiet, what confidence can the public
have in the agency's ability to handle judges who are genuine problems?
The JQC has at least as many questions to answer. If it is firing a shot over
Holder's bow to keep other judges from voicing dissent, then the whole
34 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM
concept behind the JQC -- that the judiciary can be trusted to self-police --
will lose its moral authority.
Holder has his detractors -- they call him a showboat -- but it would be
derelict to disregard the political and personal risks he took to right a justice
system terribly off-track. Don't forget what the community learned about
Judge Ward, Judge Ficarrotta, Judge Bonanno. If the JQC has a case against
Holder, it should pursue it without reserve for the contribution he's made.
What we may see instead is another example of the old boys at work.

[Index to Articles]

Beyond the
Facade
Individual
Cases
Lawyers
Tell
Judge's
Case
Patronage
A Feast
Lawyers
Seek
Legal Abuse
Syndrome
Links
Take Action
Judicial Accountability | Judicial Independence | Discipline State Court Judges
Appeals-State Court | Disposal of JQC & Other Records | Discipline Federal Court Judges | Appeals -Federal Court | Judicial Canons |
Violation of Separation of Powers
History of the Bar | Privatization of the Bar | Unauthorized Appropriation of Funds
The Judicial Bar Rules | Unauthorized Bar Functions | Law is Big Business | Endnotes

35 of 35 9/25/2013 9:42 AM

Judge Who Did Not Conform (To Corruption)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judge Who Did Not Conform (To Corruption)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report: Web of scandal at Hillsborough courthouse

You might also like