On July 26, 2000 Judge Holder left for Reserve
Military Duty. Judge Holder claimed he publicized that he will be
gone. On July 27, 2000 at 5:20 P.M. Judge Robert Bonanno a
Hillsborough Circuit Court judge entered the office of Judge Gregory
Holder and adjacent areas. It was alleged that the door to the office
was locked and the same key opened Judge Holder’s office as Judge
Bonanno’s. Judge Holder’s bailiff returned to the office to pick up
some of her belongings when she discovered Judge Bonanno in Judge
Holder’s office. Judge Holder kept news clippings and e-mail and other
documentation on the activities in the courthouse in his office.
When Judge 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 Judicial 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.
Judge Holder testified on October 11, 2000 that he
was suspicious of the illicit affair that the married Judge Bonanno
had with the female deputy clerk in charge of the assignment of the
cases in the clerk’s office. He questioned the assignment of cases of
certain attorneys to Judge Bonanno. Judge 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
Judicial Canons. Judge 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 Sheriff’s re-election campaign’ yeah any lawyer
that practices in front of me would probably say, ‘Yes, sir, Judge
I will do that.’ Well, that is absolutely contrary to our Judicial
Code, but more importantly, may constitute extortion or some other
violation of Florida law……..
And I am absolutely offended at some the
behavior that’s gone on in this courthouse for a long time…..We
are paid to do a job. We’re paid a god salary. And I look at it as
a higher calling. You know, some would say we have all this power.
It’s not about power, and it shouldn’t 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 we’re sworn in and we swear, not affirm, we don’t
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 that’s 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 University of Phoenix
because I have spoken out, I have bucked the system, I have gone
public. And I’ll be honest with you, but for the media involvement
about a year ago, I don’t think the JQC case with Judge 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 he’d
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 Judge Dennis Alvarez also testified before the
grand jury on October 25, 2000. Judge Alvarez acknowledged, that among
his duties as Chief Judge 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 Sheriff’s office." But,
Judge Alvarez said he would meet with the judge to find out what the
problem is. He would contact the JQC 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 JQC. When, Judge Alvarez
was asked what was the general reputation of Judge Holder amongst the
judiciary he made clear that he was not popular because
"He’s been perceived as a leak to the media. He
likes the limelight. That’s – anytime Judge Holder’s 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
don’t have to do with his division or outside of his area as to
which he’s assigned. But he’s – considered the leak of the
courthouse."
As part of his testimony one the attorneys stated
before the grand jury on October 25, 2000 that,
"I’ve 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 opposition……from 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 you’ve given away a fair amount of money".
On October 11, 2000 Judge Holder’s bailiff gave
testimony to the grand jury describing the X rated activities going on
in a judge’s courtroom adjacent to Judge Holder’s court. She stated
she was told what happened in that judge’s 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
Judge 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 Judge Bonanno
was released by the grand jury, on June 19, 2001. The grand jury
recommended, the resignation or removal of Judge Bonanno. The grand
jury found that Judge Bonanno gave "conflicting answers" to the
question of when or why he was in Judge Holder’s office. The jury also
found that Judge 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 Judge Bonanno carried on an
illicit affair with a court clerk, on public time on public property.
The two spent time together in Judge Bonanno’s 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 Judicial 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 Judge Bonanno should not be removed but receive only a
public reprimand from the Florida Supreme Court. The JQC whitewashed
his illegal entry into Judge Holder’s 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 Judge 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 Judicial Oversight Committee announced that his staff
would conduct a preliminary review of the allegations against Judge
Bonanno. House Speaker Tom Feeney, directed Crow’s committee to
consider whether the Legislature should move ahead with impeachment
against Bonanno. The hearings did get underway in Tampa. Judge 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 Judge Robert Bonanno resigned from the bench
effective January 21, 2001, leaving these questions unanswered. The
JQC treated the matter as moot. Chief Judge Alvarez retired at age of
56 during the summer of 2001.
Well, it would be expected that Judge Holder would
receive appreciation and some form of recognition for ridding the
courthouse of judges unfit to serve the public. But, the good ol’
boy’s club was obviously seeking to retaliate against Judge Holder and
embarked to remove him from the bench.
On November 9, 2001 the Judicial Qualifications
Commission at its meeting in Orlando, Florida instituted formal
charges against Judge 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 JQC
charged that the application was submitted by Judge 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.''
Judge Holder answered "No". But, the JQC's
investigative panel said Judge Holder
"met twice with the Chairman of the JQC to be
admonished concerning your conduct as a result of complaints filed
against you by the JQC. 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 JQC’s own contentions for the most part the
charges arose from Judge Holder’s communications with the media.
Obviously, Judge Holder was to be penalized and stopped from public
disclosure of the scandal at the courthouse. The JQC said that (1) on
or about March 1998 Judge Holder was requested to come to the chambers
of Chief Judge Alvarez. Also present in chambers were the JQC General
Counsel and the JQC Chairman who it was claimed admonished Judge
Holder for remarks he made to the press on an appellate decision
reversing his decision. (2) That even before this meeting Judge Holder
was cautioned by Chief Judge Alvarez about making public remarks
concerning the Thirteenth Circuit judiciary; and (3) On or about
February 9, 2001 Judge Holder was again confronted by the JQC 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 JQC sought public reprimand and/or the removal of
Judge Holder from the bench.
Judge Holder responded that, he had made a prior
application for federal judgeship in January 4, 1999 and May 27, 2000,
all of which were after that 1998 meeting in Judge Alvarez’ office and
he gave the same answer to the same question in these applications,
without resulting in any investigation by the JQC. Judge 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 Judge 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. Judge 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.
Ironically, while the objective of the JQC was to
eliminate publicity, the Holder case generated wide media coverage and
public outcry. (See, one of those news articles below) Judge Holder
wanted to make all the records concerning the JQC proceedings in his
case public but, the JQC opposed it. The JQC 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 Judge 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 JQC records public (which never
came to pass).
The matter came to an end with a Stipulation entered
into between Judge Holder and the JQC. Judge Holder was required to
admit that regardless of what he believed the discussion with members
of the JQC was whether informal and/or confidential his answer to the
question on the application for federal judgeship "was incorrect given
the Commission’s broad interpretation of this question." Judge Holder
" was required to acknowledge that the Commission’s 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 Judicial Circuit, State
of Florida". On June 6, 2002 the Florida Supreme Court approved the
Stipulation and dismissed the Notice of Formal Charges against Judge
Holder.
New attacks were made against Judge Holder by the Judicial
Qualifications Commission in July, 2003.
Judge Holder was charged with plagiarizing
a paper he submitted to the Air Force as a
reservist. To
see the formal charges by the Judicial Qualification
Commission click on
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/jqc/index.shtml
Judge Holder denied those charges. 38 witnesses are to testify
for Judge Holder at a hearing to decide whether Holder should be
suspended pending an investigation. A final evidentiary hearing was scheduled before
the Judicial Qualifications Commission Hearing Panel on the Formal
Charges for January 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. Judge Holder filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the matter was investigated by the Air Force and no
wrongdoing was found by Judge Holder and so the charges which are
based on the same occurrences by the JQC should be dismissed. The JQC in its response has rejected the determination by the
Air Force saying that it was not upon evidence and testimony at a
trial. The JQC 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 June
14, 2004, but that hearing has been continued. A new date for
the hearing before the JQC was set for September 20, 2004. However,
that date was continued because of the hurricane. The
trial is now rest June 6, pursuant to Report of the the state
Judicial 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 Judicial Clique
click here.
HOME
