EXPEDITED MOTION TO RECUSE Holly Marie Newman Derenthal aka Holly Derenthal

 

EXPEDITED MOTION TO RECUSE

 

 

1. Dear Holly Marie Newman Derenthal this motion will be filed in the multiple cases you are overseeing as record of your outrageous misconduct and illegal activity and also be served publicly and sent to many media Organizations and placed ALL OVER social media by many of us concerned about the danger my children are now in because of your illegal actions https://linktr.ee/victimofthesystemofwomen calling for your impeachment is a form of political speech and strongly protected by the first amendment and Public figures including judges such as yourself have a much higher burden of proof to have any claims against my speech and speech involving your disbarment and everything from here forward will be posted on all the public social media accounts me and my friends and family and online supporters are exposing the corruption with your courthouse, courtroom, yourself your honor, DCF, CPT, Helpnow Shelter, IFP corrupt attorneys Jennifer Jane Watson and Sara Vance and MANY MORE and any and all government agencies that are involved with the large group of compulsive lying FEMALES around my impeached as a witness for lying and committing perjury and admitting to committing perjury in front of a jury adult movie star drug addict prostitute illegal immigrant Thai wife and anyone and everyone supporting her and covering up her child abuse that happen to ALL BE FEMALES including the 14 that were in the courtroom at the last hearing while I was the only male other than the bailiff involved in the case in the courtroom on Thursday at the Kissimmee courthouse in Osceola county Florida where you railroaded me and my children violating our civil and constitutional rights. We are all calling publicly for your impeachment from the bench permanently amongst everyone else to be legally held accountable for their perjury, crimes and cover-ups including the suppression of the CTP [Child Protection Team] child forensic interview video tapes you have ordered that will show that every one of you are lying and covering up child abuse that you yourself ordered CTP to turn over those video tapes and then allowed them to violate your order and covered up the facts of the cover-up and suppressed the real evidence which where those video tapes and my countless witnesses and child consoler reports and much MUCH more which have now all been made public. All my witnesses will get their chance to speak now online as the videos of them also including Neighbors talking to the children uncovering abuse and neglect are being made public. From here forward my children’s abuse will be public with the public and media and social media heavily involved under my constitutional rights and there will be no more cover-ups that the public will not see. Corrupt individuals do not scare me. I am not asking I am demanding you step down as my judge on my cases making illegal rulings and illegal orders while being bias and you have a personal interest and long relationship with my wife’s corrupt attorneys Jennifer Jane Watson and Sara Vance while you keep violating me and my children’s civil and constitutional rights. Once you step down I will file motions to reconsider on all your illegal orders you made because of your bias and breaking the law refusing to step down and follow the law even after all the motions to recuse you had denied. The hearing and orders you are making are illegal and I will not give testimony further and I will plead the 5^th and state this is an illegal unconstitutional hearing if you continue to break the law and violate my rights. I will be forced to sue you in federal court for continuing to violate my constitutional rights if you do not step down and recuse yourself. I will be filing a 4^th JQC complaint and attaching this motion and your order immediately if you deny it. I am also getting the ACLU and countless other group’s involved and getting public funding to fight the corruption, crimes and wrong doing by everyone involved including yourself. You calling me a liar when in fact it is you and ALL the compulsive lying FEMALES around you AGAIN covering the mothers abuse of our children is disgusting. You even lied saying that cases in a judicial notice from when I was 18 years old 25 years ago and 15 years before I even met my wife had to do with me and my wife and our children and this case that you placed in the record for them is also outrageous misconduct colluding with the other side I will be overturning in a motion to strike once you get off my cases. You have violated your rules and laws as well making orders in an injunction case that you fraudulently dismissed having a hearing and presiding on while bias as well as made an “ORDER TO PICK UP MINOR CHILD” and “ORDER FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION “ in that case when that case had no jurisdiction because you illegally dismissed it while being bias and I was the petitioner AND the other side had no motions of file on the case asking for such action. You furthermore removed my children from their home with me and my two other children which are their brothers and sisters and removed them from the good and safe school they were in with their siblings and did not take the best interested of the children in mind disregarding all of judge Madrigals orders that he made back in November that clearly stated the mother was not to be allowed to have ANYONE but me or her or the daycare babysit the children and this order was made after I proved in court she was leaving the children in very unsafe environments in crack houses with drug addicts like Michelle Gilliam her best friend she calls mom across the street and her adult movie star fans and prosecution clients. As you disregaurded and order that she couldn’t make adult content while she had the children which was made after me and my lawyer proved that she was lying and not only still working in the adult industry but twerking in thongs on video and live stream for tips infront of the children and we played a video proving it in the courtroom. You have put my children in a very bad seriously dangerous environment when they were perfectly safe here with us and in school with us. You knew my wife has no car or license and has been caught countless times having her porn fans and prostitution clients and drug addicts transporting the children in their cars without car seats and doing drugs around the children. I have tons of videos weekly for over a year proving all these facts that the public will now see. You should be disbarred and impeached from the bench and I will not stop calling for justice for my children till you are removed and I am able to have a fair and nonbiased judge oversee my cases AND my motion for reconsideration and see those CTP tapes and hear my witnesses and see my evidence as allowed by law and I need to file immediately to get my children out of danger around their mother. You can try and cover whatever you want but now all the videos and hundreds more I have are being made public because of your actions and choices to cover up the mother’s abuse. You have given me no choice but to do this to protect my children. I have given USB sticks to others to make sure that if you try to silence me or falsely imprison me that the videos will still be made public as they are starting to be now. I have put your misconduct in a 3^rd JQC complaint in more detail in attachments below for your viewing which is also made public and sent to the media and social media. I have also read it on video and placed it online for other to copy and share and from here forward everything and anything to do with this mess you have caused will be read on video and shared all over including this motion. You have zero respect for a loving good caring father and zero concern for children’s safety and need to be disbarred. I do believe it is in fact you that needs a mental psychiatric evaluation and I will complete mine soon to prove that this illegal you made for me to complete one was just another one of the corrupt system and yourselves moves to try and discredit or put me down which will never work.

 

2. I ask that you expedite recusing yourself before my children get further seriously physically, sexually and mentally injured by the mother yet AGAIN and until you do I will spend all day and night working with the media and social media to have you impeached and disbarred as I have been since the hearing and already have a lot of supporters on my side and will gain more and more. Your breaking of the law and violating mine and my children’s civil and constitutional rights needs to stop immediately! The 5th amendment, 6th amendment,  14th amendment, and your Florida Cannons were put in place to protect me and my children and the public so follow them and respect your authority and remove yourself.

 

3. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/unbiased-judge
5. 4.5.7.7 Unbiased Judge
6. Fifth Amendment:
7. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
8. As noted, the provisions of the Bill of Rights now applicable to the states contain basic guarantees of a fair trial—right to counsel, right to speedy and public trial, right to be free from use of unlawfully seized evidence and unlawfully obtained confessions, and the like. But this does not exhaust the requirements of fairness. “Due process of law requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. . . . What is fair in one set of circumstances may be an act of tyranny in others.” 1 Conversely, “as applied to a criminal trial, denial of due process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. In order to declare a denial of it . . . [the Court] must find that the absence of that fairness fatally infected the trial; the acts complained of must be of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial.” 2
9. For instance, bias or prejudice either inherent in the structure of the trial system or as imposed by external events will deny one’s right to a fair trial. Thus, in Tumey v. Ohio3 it was held to violate due process for a judge to receive compensation out of the fines imposed on convicted defendants, and no compensation beyond his salary) “if he does not convict those who are brought before him.” Or, in other cases, the Court has found that contemptuous behavior in court may affect the impartiality of the presiding judge, so as to disqualify such judge from citing and sentencing the contemnors.4 Due process is also violated by the participation of a biased or otherwise partial juror, although there is no presumption that all jurors with a potential bias are in fact prejudiced.5
10. Footnotes
11. 1
12. Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 116, 117 (1934). See also Buchalter v. New York, 319 U.S. 427, 429 (1943).
13. 2
14. Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941).
15. 3
16. 273 U.S. 510, 520 (1927). See also Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972). But see Dugan v. Ohio, 277 U.S. 61 (1928). Similarly, in Rippo v. Baker, the Supreme Court vacated the Nevada Supreme Court’s denial of a convicted petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief based on the trial judge’s failure to recuse himself. 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017). During Rippo’s trial, the trial judge was the target of a federal bribery probe by the same district attorney’s office that was prosecuting Rippo. Rippo moved for the judge’s disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, arguing the “judge could not impartially adjudicate a case in which one of the parties was criminally investigating him.” at 906. After the judge was indicted on federal charges, a different judge subsequently assigned to the case denied Rippo’s motion for a new trial. In vacating the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, the Supreme Court noted that “[u]nder our precedents, the Due Process Clause may sometimes demand recusal even when a judge ‘ha[s] no actual bias.’ Recusal is required when, objectively speaking, the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Id. at 907 (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. LaVoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825 (1986); Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). Bias or prejudice of an appellate judge can also deprive a litigant of due process. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. LaVoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986) (failure of state supreme court judge with pecuniary interest—a pending suit on an indistinguishable claim—to recuse).
17. 4
18. Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 464 (1971) ( “it is generally wise where the marks of unseemly conduct have left personal stings [for a judge] to ask a fellow judge to take his place” ); Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 503 (1974) (where “marked personal feelings were present on both sides,” a different judge should preside over a contempt hearing). But see Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) ( “We cannot assume that judges are so irascible and sensitive that they cannot fairly and impartially deal with resistance to authority” ). In the context of alleged contempt before a judge acting as a one-man grand jury, the Court reversed criminal contempt convictions, saying: “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).
19. 5
20. Ordinarily the proper avenue of relief is a hearing at which the juror may be questioned and the defense afforded an opportunity to prove actual bias. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (juror had job application pending with prosecutor’s office during trial). See also Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (bribe offer to sitting juror); Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 167–72 (1950) (government employees on jury). But, a trial judge’s refusal to question potential jurors about the contents of news reports to which they had been exposed did not violate the defendant’s right to due process, it being sufficient that the judge on voir dire asked the jurors whether they could put aside what they had heard about the case, listen to the evidence with an open mind, and render an impartial verdict. Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991). Nor is it a denial of due process for the prosecution, after a finding of guilt, to call the jury’s attention to the defendant’s prior criminal record, if the jury has been given a sentencing function to increase the sentence which would otherwise be given under a recidivist statute. Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554 (1967). For discussion of the requirements of jury impartiality about capital punishment, see discussion under Sixth Amendment, supra.
21. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/fifth-amendment-due-process--unbiased-judge-and-impartial-jury.html

 

Fifth Amendment Due Process: Unbiased Judge and Impartial Jury

By FindLaw Staff | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq. | Last reviewed July 21, 2022

Many constitutional questions revolve around the way different parts of the Constitution interact with each other. For example, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by an "impartial jury," which is then considered part of the "due process" of law required by the Fifth Amendment.

This article provides a scholarly analysis of Fifth Amendment due process. If you or someone you know faces criminal charges, it's important to speak with an attorney to learn how to protect your constitutional rights.

What the Fifth Amendment Says

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

What It Means

United States Library of Congress, The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation

The provisions of the Bill of Rights now applicable to the states contain basic guarantees of a fair trial—right to counsel, right to speedy and public trial, right to be free from the use of unlawfully seized evidence and unlawfully obtained confessions, and the like. But this does not exhaust the requirements of fairness. As the Supreme Court stated in Snyder v. Massachusetts:

"Due process of law requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. . . . What is fair in one set of circumstances may be an act of tyranny in others."¹

However, the Court has also acknowledged that due process is especially important in criminal trials:

"[A]s applied to a criminal trial, denial of due process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. In order to declare a denial of it . . . [the Court] must find that the absence of that fairness fatally infected the trial; the acts complained of must be of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial."²

For instance, bias or prejudice either inherent in the structure of the trial system or as imposed by external events will deny one's right to a fair trial. Thus, in Tumey v. Ohio,³ it was held to violate due process for a judge to receive compensation out of the fines imposed on convicted defendants, and no compensation beyond his salary) if he does not convict those who are brought before him.

In other cases, the Court has found that contemptuous behavior in court may affect the impartiality of the presiding judge, so as to disqualify such judge from citing and sentencing the contemnors.⁴ Due process is also violated by the participation of a biased or otherwise partial juror, although there is no presumption that all jurors with a potential bias are in fact prejudiced.⁵

Impartial Jury

Public hostility toward a defendant that intimidates a jury is a classic due process violation.⁶ More recently, concern with the impact of prejudicial publicity upon jurors and potential jurors has caused the Court to instruct trial courts that they should be vigilant to guard against such prejudice and to curb both the publicity and the jury's exposure to it.⁷ For instance, the impact of televising trials on a jury has been a source of some concern.⁸

The fairness of a particular rule of procedure may also be the basis for due process claims, but such decisions must be based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding such procedures.⁹ For instance, a court may not restrict the basic due process right to testify in one's own defense by automatically excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony.¹⁰ Or, though a state may require a defendant to give pretrial notice of an intention to rely on an alibi defense and to furnish the names of supporting witnesses, due process requires reciprocal discovery in such circumstances, necessitating that the state give the defendant pretrial notice of its rebuttal evidence on the alibi issue.¹¹ Due process is also violated when the accused is compelled to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable prison clothes, because it may impair the presumption of innocence in the minds of the jurors.¹²

The use of visible physical restraints, such as shackles, leg irons, or belly chains, in front of a jury, has been held to raise due process concerns. In Deck v. Missouri,¹³ the Court noted a rule dating back to English common law against bringing a defendant to trial in irons, and a modern-day recognition that such measures should be used only in the presence of a special need.¹⁴ The Court found that the use of visible restraints during the guilt phase of a trial undermines the presumption of innocence, limits the ability of a defendant to consult with counsel, and affronts the dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings.¹⁵ Even where guilt has already been adjudicated, and a jury is considering the application of the death penalty, the latter two considerations would preclude the routine use of visible restraints. Only in special circumstances, such as where a judge has made particularized findings that security or flight risk requires it, can such restraints be used.

Related Resources

• Can High Profile Defendants Get a Fair Trial?
• Rights of Persons Under the Fifth Amendment
• Rights of the Accused Under the Sixth Amendment

Footnotes

1. 291 U.S. 97, 116, 117 (1934). See also Buchalter v. New York, 319 U.S. 427, 429 (1943).
2. Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941).
3. 273 U.S. 510, 520 (1927). See also Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972). But see Dugan v. Ohio, 277 U.S. 61 (1928). Similarly, in Rippo v. Baker, the Supreme Court vacated the Nevada Supreme Court's denial of a convicted petitioner's application for post-conviction relief based on the trial judge's failure to recuse himself. 137 S. Ct. 905 (2017). During Rippo's trial, the trial judge was the target of a federal bribery probe by the same district attorney's office that was prosecuting Rippo. Rippo moved for the judge's disqualification under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, arguing the judge could not impartially adjudicate a case in which one of the parties was criminally investigating him. Id. at 906. After the judge was indicted on federal charges, a different judge subsequently assigned to the case denied Rippo's motion for a new trial. In vacating the Nevada Supreme Court's decision, the Supreme Court noted that [u]nder our precedents, the Due Process Clause may sometimes demand recusal even when a judge 'ha[s] no actual bias.' Recusal is required when, objectively speaking, the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable. Id. at 907 (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. LaVoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825 (1986); Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). Bias or prejudice of an appellate judge can also deprive a litigant of due process. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. LaVoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986) (failure of state supreme court judge with pecuniary interest—a pending suit on an indistinguishable claim—to recuse).
4. Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 464 (1971) (it is generally wise where the marks of unseemly conduct have left personal stings [for a judge] to ask a fellow judge to take his place); Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 503 (1974) (where marked personal feelings were present on both sides, a different judge should preside over a contempt hearing). But see Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (1964) (We cannot assume that judges are so irascible and sensitive that they cannot fairly and impartially deal with resistance to authority). In the context of alleged contempt before a judge acting as a one-man grand jury, the Court reversed criminal contempt convictions, saying: A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).
5. Ordinarily, the proper avenue of relief is a hearing at which the juror may be questioned and the defense afforded an opportunity to prove actual bias. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (juror had job application pending with prosecutor's office during trial). See also Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (bribe offer to sitting juror); Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 167–72 (1950) (government employees on a jury). But, a trial judge's refusal to question potential jurors about the contents of news reports to which they had been exposed did not violate the defendant's right to due process, it being sufficient that the judge on voir dire asked the jurors whether they could put aside what they had heard about the case, listen to the evidence with an open mind, and render an impartial verdict. Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991). Nor is it a denial of due process for the prosecution, after a finding of guilt, to call the jury's attention to the defendant's prior criminal record, if the jury has been given a sentencing function to increase the sentence which would otherwise be given under a recidivist statute. Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554 (1967). For discussion of the requirements of jury impartiality about capital punishment, see discussion under Sixth Amendment, supra.
6. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915); Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923).
7. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966); Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961); But see Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181 (1952); Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975).
8. Initially, the televising of certain trials was struck down on the grounds that the harmful potential effect on the jurors was substantial, that the testimony presented at trial may be distorted by the multifaceted influence of television upon the conduct of witnesses, that the judge's ability to preside over the trial and guarantee fairness is considerably encumbered to the possible detriment of fairness, and that the defendant is likely to be harassed by his television exposure. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965). Subsequently, however, in part because of improvements in technology which caused much less disruption of the trial process and in part because of the lack of empirical data showing that the mere presence of the broadcast media in the courtroom necessarily has an adverse effect on the process, the Court has held that due process does not altogether preclude the televising of state criminal trials. Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981). The decision was unanimous but Justices Stewart and White concurred on the basis that Estes had established a per se constitutional rule which had to be overruled, id. at 583, 586, contrary to the Court's position. Id. at 570–74.
9. For instance, the presumption of innocence has been central to a number of Supreme Court cases. Under some circumstances, it is a violation of due process and reversible error to fail to instruct the jury that the defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, although the burden on the defendant is heavy to show that an erroneous instruction or the failure to give a requested instruction tainted his conviction. Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (1978). However, an instruction on the presumption of innocence need not be given in every case. Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 (1979) (reiterating that the totality of the circumstances must be looked to in order to determine if failure to so instruct denied due process). The circumstances emphasized in Taylor included skeletal instructions on the burden of proof combined with the prosecutor's remarks in his opening and closing statements inviting the jury to consider the defendant's prior record and his indictment in the present case as indicating guilt. See also Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979) (instructing jury trying person charged with purposely or knowingly causing victim's death that law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts denied due process because the jury could have treated the presumption as conclusive or as shifting burden of persuasion and in either event state would not have carried its burden of proving guilt). See also Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141 (1973); Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154–55 (1977). For other cases applying Sandstrom, see Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985) (contradictory but ambiguous instruction not clearly explaining state's burden of persuasion on intent does not erase Sandstrom error in earlier part of charge); Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) (Sandstrom error can in some circumstances constitute harmless error under principles of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)); Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433 (2004) (state courts could assume that an erroneous jury instruction was not reasonably likely to have misled a jury where other instructions made correct standard clear). Similarly, improper arguments by a prosecutor do not necessarily constitute plain error, and a reviewing court may consider in the context of the entire record of the trial the trial court's failure to redress such error in the absence of contemporaneous objection. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985).
10. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987).
11. Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973).
12. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976). The convicted defendant was denied habeas relief, however, because of failure to object at trial. But cf. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (1986) (presence of uniformed state troopers serving as security guards in the courtroom was not the same sort of inherently prejudicial situation); Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006) (effect on defendant's fair-trial rights of private-actor courtroom conduct—in this case, members of victim's family wearing buttons with the victim's photograph—has never been addressed by the Supreme Court and therefore 18 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) precludes habeas relief; see Amendment 8, Limitations on Habeas Corpus Review of Capital Sentences).
13. 544 U.S. 622 (2005).
14. 544 U.S. at 626. In Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344 (1970), the Court stated, in dictum, that no person should be tried while shackled and gagged except as a last resort.
15. 544 U.S. at 630, 631 (internal quotation marks omitted).

 

22. I have sent a letters to Governor Ron Desantis and im now calling him out publicly as well and also attached this motion to is his letter to him below and I will be sending it to many more reaching out for help until the law is followed and I get a nonbias judge to judge and my 4 year old daughter and 5 year old sons future and safety in all my cases and my legal rights are restored under the US constitution.
    
23. I have filed this in my divorce case with the JQC complaint before I created the letter for Governor Ron Desantis but because of the misconduct STILL of your JA Ms. Felciano and refusing to respond confirming it has been forwarded to the judge like the last THREE JA’s for the last THREE judges on my case had no problem to do with both sides, I am now filing this here in this case as well in hopes that you will read and order on it. I need an order ASAP as this is a very important matter to do with keeping my children safe and I need a fair nonbias judge.
    
    
24. You have denied my last motion to recuse even though you were bias and took things a step further continuing your bias even further to a hearing and damaging my case and violating me and my children’s rights so I am expecting you to follow the law now and grant this motion and step down AFTER I HAVE NOW FILED AN OFFICIAL JQC COMPLAINT AND SENT A LETTER TO Governor Ron Desantis FOR ALL YOUR CLEAR BIAS AND MISCONDUCT OF TREATING ME UNFAIRLY IN THE COURTROOM and MUCH MORE and this is a very important matter that I would like dealt with ASAP without delay to ensure the safety of my children with a nonbias judge.
    
    
25. To add this, since my last motion there are several other issues that would clearly prove now you are and have been bias and will continue to be bias in my case violating my rights and the law including your unfair treatment of me in the courtroom and violating me and my children’s rights, your JA STILL ignoring my emails and voicemails and refusing to assist me with setting dates for any of my motions including emergency motions having to do with the safety of my 4 and 5 year old kids that have been ignored now for 2 weeks but meanwhile you and your JA always respond to the other side’s emails and assisting them with anything they need AND your clear violation of Florida statutes that you didn’t even let me speak of or argue in the courtroom from my laptop or and you didn’t even read inside my motions to do with not only possession of the family and children’s home but my motion to insert child consoler reports that was a motion that legally would have allowed me to insert the reports from a child’s consoler as lawyers do it this way all the time and you didn’t even read the Florida statue on it inside it either or let me speak a word about it in the courtroom. Your MOTION DENIED MOTION DENIED MOTION DENIED with no questions allowed to be asked is totally unfair and bias as you didn’t do that to the other side. You didn’t give me my right to present anything or argue anything and was rude and completely bias against me and my children and I will not accept being treated this way and have my rights violated without filing complaints and speaking up till you step down and recuse yourself.
    
    
26. I have filed an official JQC complaint against Holly n. Derenthal in exhibits and to the JQC and I will keep filing more and start writing letters to the Florida House of Representatives, Florida Senate, Governor Ron Desantis and Us congress and anyone and everyone that might be able to legally help me and my children to stay safe and get a fair nobias judge and FINALLY get justice.
    
    
27. Since I have filed an official JQC complaints against judge Holly n. Derenthal therefore it is impossible for judge Derenthal to follow the law to be unbias in my case after she sees this even if she choose to claim she is not bias.
    
    
28. During the first and second hearings you were not only rude, unfair and bias but also threatening. You threatened me with unfair custody orders in my divorce case if I lost the injunction and after talking to several lawyers you have committed a huge clear violation of the Florida cannons threatening me in such a way.
    
29. In the attached 1^st 36 page complaint to the JQC I go into grave detail about judge Holly n. Derenthal past and present relationship with the other sides lawyers and clear bias and violation of 6 of the 7 Canon’s judges are demanded to follow being a judge therefore I and we the people expect you to uphold your oath to the constitution and recuse yourself now without delay.

 

According to Congress, U.S. Supreme Court case law and Florida's canons of judicial ethics, a judge must bow out of hearing any case in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  

 

The Florida's Canons of Judicial Conduct say that

1. “"Impartiality" or "impartial" denotes absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against,
   particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintaining an open mind in
   considering issues that may come before the judge.”
2. A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in
   the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice,
   including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national
   origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit
   staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so. This
   section does not preclude the consideration of race, sex, religion, national origin,
   disability, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other similar factors when
   they are issues in the proceeding.
3. A judge shall diligently discharge the judge's administrative responsibilities without
   bias or prejudice and maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and
   should cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court
   
4. A judge shall require staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction
   and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and
   to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties.
5. A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's
   impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances
   where:
   (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or
   personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
6. Rule 2.330 (f), Fla. allows a party to seek disqualification of the assigned trial judge where the party feels he will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of a specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.

 

"The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law." 

The above is applicable to this court by application of Article VI of the United States Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976).

"State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law."

Also see RI Supreme Court Article VI and Canons 1, 2, and 3.B.6. [Replace with your local citations]

The above mentioned Judge has in the past deliberately violated other litigant's personal liberties and/or has wantonly refused to provide due process and equal protection to all litigants before the court or has behaved in a manner inconsistent with that which is needed for full, fair, impartial hearings.

The United States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who will always provide litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS. Therefore, Petitioner respectfully demands said judge recuse themselves in light of the evidence attached as Exhibits detailing prior unethical and/or illegal conduct or conduct which gives Petitioner good reason to believe the above Judge cannot hear the above case in a fair and impartial manner. Furthmore a official complaint has been filed with the JQC so it is impossible for your honor to be unbias.

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing will be furnished via
Florida Courts E-filing Portal and US mail to: Jennifer Watson on this _27th_ day of August, 2023.

 

Donald Seoane____________________________________________
I certify that a copy of this document was ( ) mailed ( ) faxed and mailed (*) e-mailed ( ) hand-
delivered to the person(s) listed below on {date} _______________.
Other party or his/her attorney:
Printed Name: Jennifer Watson _______________________
Address: Help Now of Osceola, Inc. 108 Church Street___________________
City, State, Zip: Suite 120 Kissimmee, FL 34741_________
Telephone Number: (407) 383- 5361__________________
Fax Number: ___________________________________
Designated E-mail Address(es): Jennifer Watson < jenniferw@helpnowshelter.org>
I understand that I am swearing or affirming under oath to the truthfulness of the claims made in this
motion and that the punishment for knowingly making a false statement includes fines and/or
imprisonment.
Dated: 8-27-23

1. Donald Seoane
   Signature of Party or his/her attorney
   Printed Name: Donald Seoane__________________
   Address: Please use email for service Travelingrvstyle@gmail.com
   City, State, Zip: _________________________________
   Telephone Number: _____________________________
   Fax Number: ___________________________________
   Designated E-mail Address(es): Travelingrvstyle@gmail.com
   
   

 

See Exhibits

Well to add to my last two JQC complaints, this makes the 3^rd now and this time Holly N. Derenthal has completely violated not only my rights but my children’s rights and removed my 4 year old daughter and 5 year old son from the safe environment and school with me and my 12 year old and Fiancé and their new born 3 month old baby brother where they were happy and healthly and judge Derenthal placed them with my drug addicted adult movie star prostitute from a whore house in Thailand wife that has no car, no license, no family in the USA or even friends other than her adult movie star fans and prostitution clients that is well documented with the courts that she not only brings the children around but let’s my daughter sleep in bed with them, transports them without car seats, leaves the children in the crackhouse across the street with her best friend drug addict and drug trafficker Michelle Gilliam and on and on and on.

Judge Holly Derenthal seriously overstepped her power and used her angry and clear bias and hatred towards me, against me to hurt my children after about 8 motions to recuse now showing her all my JQC complaints, letters to the governor, intent to sue her and her Judges assistant in federal court for violation of my constitutional rights and on and on and on.

After the mother was caught abusing our young children yet again and MALE judge Snure granted me an injunction on behalf of the children Holly then set the final injunction hearing for the temporary injunction I had against the mother on behalf of the children on a Friday afternoon right before the court closes and a weekend was coming not giving me enough time allowed to serve subpoenas properly through the Sherriff as they require 10 days and then ignored my motions to continue and played a dirty game colluding with DCF and other government officials to ruin me at this hearing including her friends which are my wifes corrupt lawyers that are well connected tax payer funded help now shelter IFP laywers Jennifer Jain Watson and Sara Vance. 

Judge Holly had ordered at the previous hearing that DCF and CPT be present at the hearing and that CPT is to turn over the child forensic interview video tapes and give them to me and have time to review them and prepair for my case. CTP violated the order and never turned over the tapes and even though I even filed separate subpoenas to 3 DCF employees and I served them and they got served they refused to come to court and no one from DCF was present in the courtroom. Holly denied all my motions to allow child hearsay base on a florida statue that allows it when a person has heard from a child about child abuse or neglect even though I have a child counselor that has been counseling the children for over a year now and has written 4 full reports on the abuse and even had to report it to DCF. Holly denied those reports to come into evidence, denied a motion also for her to testify, denied countless motions for others to testify including people I had outside the courtroom waiting to testify including even neighbors.  She then proceeds to have someone testify from CPT and what I believe was commit perjury and allowed them to testify child hearsay saying that our son never said mom was twerking naked making adult videos infront of the children and she was not abusing my daughter. I have on video not only a detective that was present at the childrens interviews after the interviews telling me what they uncovered which was just that of our son saying the “he said mom did shake her butt when she was naked and said she was making a video” when I said “he is terrified of mom and mom has told him he is going to be in big trouble” and she said : “ well when they asked him are you afraid of anybody he said he is afraid of mom and they said why and he said well like monster or scary movies or monster nightmares that’s what he said like a monster or a nightmare”: The video with hundreds more documenting the abuse and Holly N Darenthal’s unbelievable misconduct I am now placing all over the internet publicly and gaining a lot of public support and calling for her impeachment because she needs to be fired and not be able to do to other families what she has just done to mine. I am also calling for the investigation and disbarment of corrupt compulsive lying IFP Help Now Shetler well conntect lawyers Jennifer Jane Watson and Sara vance that I have a current lawsuit against personally for all their libel and lies and filling DCF reports with false allegations against me. Here is one of MANY videos on MANY sites that is getting public attention that judge Derenthal knew from my motions and I told her in the court I had and she not only refused to see it or place it into evidence but when I told her I believed the CPT witness was lying because I had video of the detective that was at the interview saying different and I wanted to see the CPT video tapes which she had ordered to prove they were lying AGAIN and covering for my wife’s abuse AGAIN she denied it even though she had already ordered them to turn over the video tapes a month ago.

https://www.tiktok.com/@victimofthesystemofwomen/video/7271261946274434350?lang=en

I will be getting a copy of the hearing and send it to you as well. Even though I did what any responsible father would do after getting a talking parents message claiming our son was over sexualized and pulling his penis out and humping the furniture knowing mom does this stuff infront of him and then I took him to see two child cousolers on video and after uncovering the mothers sexual abuse I then demanded a CTP forensic interview be done on the children then judge Derenthal turned it on me and accused me of the crazy off the wall insanity that I had made it all up and it was all a lie. Yea I guess my family, friends, neighbors, consolers and everyone else that judge Derenthal refused to hear is lying also. She also accused me of couching the children and read a bunch of lies, libel, slander and perjury that CPI Jessica Scott had put into a DCF report that the judge only knew about because I told her I was filing suit about it in one of my motions and the judge knew it was all lies I have already proved lies infront of judge Maderigal at a hearing in my divorce case. She then proceeded to read a motion to show cause because of Jessica’s lies that I had also mentioned in my motions but when I asked her to read the outcome of the hearing where judge Diego Madrigal at the hearing apologized and said he should have known better as he finds DCF to be a widely uncredible and unorganized organization and how he dismissed the contempt hearing and reset our motion that was first denied now to a hearing  judge Holly shut me down.  I mean seriously this narcissist man hating judge that cant admit she is wrong that was by the way colluding with 14 other females in the courtroom and I was the ONLY other male involved in the case other than the bailiff this is crazy she is allowed to be a judge. Take note all my motions, coplaints to JQC, the governor and more are exposing all the colluding corrupt compulsive lying FEMALES around my compulsive lying prostitute wife and remember Holly Derenthal is FEMALE.

According to lawyers I have spoke to judge Derenthal also then over stepped her authority as this was a hearing where I was the petitioner and the other side didn’t request any of this she ordered below and she shouldnt have done it as she then orders me into a psychiatric evaluation and makes a pickup order for the mother to pick the kids up from school and then orders me to only have supervised visitation and makes an order for the mother to remove the kids from their school they go to with my full custody daughter which is their 12 year old sister and give wife full 100% power to do whatever she wants with the kids even though I argued that there was a current court order in place from judge Madrigal stating “The parties shall not to engage in producing any adult content during their time-sharing with the children.” Because we had played in the courtroom videos of my wife twerking in thongs online for money while she had the children and I complained to the previous judges about the children telling me she was doing these things in front of them which I also have tons of video of the children saying this stuff that I am releasing now online.  There was also an order that “The parties shall not leave the children with a third-party other than the day-care or day-

care teacher” because I had proved in court also that my wife has no car or license and was also leaving the children in the crackhouse with the crackhead drug trafficker Michelle Gilliam that has a long criminal arrest record for not only drugs but even child neglect across the street that is her best friend she calls mom and leaves the kids there and also leaving the kids to be baby sate by other druggies and her prostitution clients and adult movie fans. And even though I reminded Judge Derenthal about all this she didn’t care and threw out all of judge Madrigals orders. I even told her that when the kids get hurt because she has placed them in a VERY dangerous situation it would be on her hands but she didn’t care.  Also my wife is the one that is mentally unstable and was baker acted by police for attempted suicide and its all in the motions and petitions. The mother has made threats to kill the children and kill herself if she doesn’t get her way and it’s all in the petition. My daughter even testified in front a jury at the criminal case that my wife had me falsely arrested that I got all not guilty’s by the jury that my wife would physically abuse her and hurt herself going nuts and also smashing things and breaking plates and throwing knives almost hurting the children may times and would have to restrain her and I put the transcript from the trial in many motions and in the courtroom but Judge Derenthal denied to admit it or look at it.

Another thing Judge Derenthal did was lie in an argument with me where I stated facts that some previous cases that had NOTHING to do with my wife from when I was 18 years old over 25 years ago and 15 years before our marraige that her corrupt lawyers had put into a judicial notice to bias the court, Holly just keep reading the BS and placing on the record as reverent saying it was reverent. There were also cases in there from one of my well known nutbag online stalkers and her family that were never even served because I at the time didn’t even live in the USA and had not stepped foot here for ten years but Holly lied and said they had to do with  my wife and put them on recoord. DISGUSTING TO SAY THE LEAST!

So now even though the young children have been living here with us pretty much full time for around 6 months now and were in a great school with their older sister I have here now we don’t have them here at home and can’t even have contact with them or know how they are. I made a video about the matter which I will be making MANY more till Holly N Derenthal is held legally accountable and removed and my children are out of danger and back with us. This is sad and disgusting to say the least that this narcissist judge is allowed to even have the power to do this to families and ruin children’s lives and place kids in danger like this with no grounds.

Now I take you to my campaign to impeach Holly N Derenthal at https://linktr.ee/victimofthesystemofwomen which includes also links to a gofundme and also Petitions.

I also have SEVERAL other petitions to social media accounts and websites about impeaching Holly N. Derenthal and petitions to Governor Ron Desantis and making many more to have Judge Holly Derenthal removed from the bench all together.  Holly Derenthal broke the law having the last hearing and making orders in my cases and it needs to stop right now.

https://www.change.org/p/impeachment-of-judge-holly-n-derenthal-osceola-county-kissimmee-courthouse

 

PLEASE help me get a nonbias fair judge ASAP so I can at least file a motion to reconsider before I am forced to file an appeal that could take years and be VERY costly but must be done if justice is not served. Also note Holly is on my divorce case and she set an upcoming hearing for it where I am sure she is planning to try and barry me there also.

 

 

 

 

Judge Holly n. Derenthal has what I would seem to believe is a very close relationship with compulsive lying corrupt Helpnowshelter state and government funded IFP attorneys Sara Vance and Jennifer Watson that I just filed personal civil lawsuits against and it sure seems at this point Holly is assisting them in gaining a very unfair advantage as she keep violating me and my children’s civil rights and breaking her Florida cannons. I completely understand how court decisions, orders and appeals wotk but this is not a matter of that it’s the fact I have an inexperienced rouge judge that is breaking the law and violating my rights as well as the Florida Cannons. Just the fact alone that I have filed all this and she has read it and is staying on my case bias proves she is in the wrong.

 I have already filed one JQC complaint, a letter to Governor Ron Desantis and sent both Holly and her JA a intent to sue in federal court letter and also send them all in about 6 motions to recuse to date and showed them to her explaining to her I will not accept her bias and told her I would be also complaining to the Florida house of representatives, Florida senate, US congress and also going to the media and social media very soon if she does  not only stop violating my constitutional rights but violating 7 Florida Cannons and go ahead finally and recuse herself as she agreed to do when she is proven bias when she became a judge just a month ago. She at our last hearing was rude and would not let me exercise my rights to have an argument against anything and ended up throwing me out of the courtroom for respectfully asking why all her orders where not in the written orders I was handed which turned out days later to be correct and she should have listened to me instead of ejecting me from the courtroom. She threatened me and my other cases I have in front of her and more I detailed in my last complaint and will be getting the audio recordings along with much info from her JA's records and turn it over to you soon. Holly is clearly bias against me and hates my guts and very much likes the other sides attorneys which not only she works with everyday but she has a relationship with for many years now. Her JA is what I believe to be committing exparte and assisting the other side to get motions in front of the judge and ordered upon while her JA ignores ALL my phone calls and voicemals, [6 or 7 to date in over a month] and most of my emails remain ignored. Emergency motions to do with the safety, wellbeing and ability to parent and house my children I had set to emergency hearings dates in front of the last judge Michael Snure [before the other sides corrupt attorneys made him recuse himself] in my divorce case 2022 DR 002336 DC. Holly has now set a final hearing date on my injunction case that's on behalf of my children against the mother only 10 days out and set the order on a Friday afternoon right before the court closed on purpose to not give me the ten days the sheriff needs to serve my subpoenas on the people even after I not only in person told her I need time to do this at the last hearing but have told her this in several motions including a motion to continue. I will send you all the motions and case files soon along with the audio from all the hearings including the upcoming one. ALL my cases and motions are about the FACT my porn star prostitute wife a compulsive lying lie for Thai Buddha had me falsely arrested for Domestic Violence and she was impeached at my criminal trial for not only compulsively lying to the jury in court under oath on the stand but also admitting to committing perjury to get her injunction that stole my house and children.  ALL my motions and cases are attacks on all the man hating feminist WOMEN and FEMALES around her that ALL collect government and state checks from the FEMALES at Helpnowshelter, FEMALES at DCF, countless DV feminist womens rights advocate government funded FEMALE lawyers and on and on and on. Their are literally too many to count around her ALL female! The two previous MALE judges I had were completely fair and nonbias and a matter of fact ALL of my wifes lawyers filed motions to withdraw because I was on a win till they came into the courtroom sitting at the lawyers table intimidating judge Snure at his last hearing while not part of the case and caused him to recuse himself and walk out. Th level or dirty corruption while the Osceola county system is shocking and I am planning on writing a book and shooting a movie about it all and each person involved because my kids keep being put in danger as well as being abused by their mother because of the corruption from all these FEMALES! Holly Derenthal needs to step away from my case if she is going to upload the oath she signed up for when she took the bench to follow the US constitution and her Florida cannons and I am taking this as far as a Pro Se lawsuit soon to federal court if she does not step down. I just got my letter in the mail from Pacer to confirm my account and im learning to use it and file federal suits now. I will be filing ANOTHER motion to recuse after I file this JQC complaint and show it to Holly in the exhibits. Now the other side is even working with Holly to try and have me put in jail and silenced after they filed a bogus motion for contempt full of lies claiming I am lying when in fact that’s all they have done for over a year now and many have even committed perjury and my wife even admitted to committing perjury in front of a jury at my criminal trial and she was impeached as a witness. As far as I am concerned neither Holly N Derenthal or her JA Ms. Yazel Feliciano should be working in any capacity with the government or in power over the people if they continue to violate me and my children rights.

I  will not stop legally fighting for fairness and justice that I had with my previous two male judges, Judge Michael Snure and Diego Madrigal and at all my upcoming hearing I will have friends and family in the courtroom as well as witnesses and I am already in contact with the media. Please also be aware I have emailed and complained to the JA for Chief judge Lisa T. Munyon and after the first two replies back from her I sent in the full story with my complaint and since then 3 emails for a month now have been IGNORED since July 24^th 2023 and yesterday I sent in another detailing how this is another violation of my constitutional right being now ignored from the chief judges assistant! I am under the understanding that the Chief Judge has a responsibility to intervene and even possibly assign another judge in a situation like this.  Feel free to call me with any more info that is needed.

 

 

 

 

Notice of Intent to Sue Judge Holly N Derenthal and Yazel Feliciano in Federal Court – Violation of Civil and Constitutional Rights

Dear Judge Derenthal,

I hope this letter finds you in good health. I am writing to address a matter of utmost concern regarding the proceedings in my Florida civil divorce court case and injunction cases, over which you are presiding. It is with deep regret that I am compelled to take this formal step due to the critical nature of the violations I believe have taken place, jeopardizing my civil and constitutional rights.

Throughout the duration of my case, I have diligently filed four motions requesting your recusal, predicated upon substantial evidence of bias and apparent breaches of ethical standards, as well as multiple Florida cannons and judicial rules. These motions were carefully prepared and grounded in legal principles, reflecting my sincere desire for an impartial and fair adjudication of the matter at hand.

Regrettably, despite my best efforts to resolve this matter within the framework of established legal procedures, I have observed that you have chosen to remain as the presiding judge, even in the face of compelling evidence that raises concerns about your objectivity and impartiality. This course of action undermines the very essence of our legal system and places my fundamental rights at risk.

In addition to the motions for recusal, I have taken the extraordinary step of filing complaints with the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) to formally bring these issues to their attention. Furthermore, I have communicated my grievances to the office of the Governor, providing documentation that underscores the appearance of bias resulting from your actions. These measures were intended to serve as a testament to the severity of the situation and to catalyze a fair resolution. I have also just filed civil lawsuits against both IFP Lawyers Jennifer Watson and Sara Vance for all their countless lies, libel and slander of me, fraud and perjury and collusion with several others and you and your judges assistants relationship with them also is coming into play and is mentioned as a possible issue as they have a long history of colluding with others in government and private agencies against me to gain an unfair advantage which sure looks like the case going on currently again here.

In light of your continued refusal to step down from my case and the potential infringement on my civil and constitutional rights, I find myself with no alternative but to inform you of my intent to initiate legal proceedings against you in federal court. This decision has not been taken lightly, but it has become increasingly apparent that I must avail myself of every avenue available to protect my rights and restore faith in the integrity of the judicial process.

I also wish to bring to your attention my consideration of legal action against your judicial assistant, Yazel Feliciano also in response to alleged misconduct that has come to my attention and is ongoing. I am resolved to pursue justice at all levels and to hold all relevant parties legally accountable for any actions that may contribute to the erosion of my confidence in the legal process.

While I sincerely hope that a just resolution can be achieved without resorting to litigation, I am steadfast in my commitment to safeguard my rights and more importantly protect my young children's rights and rights to safety and the sanctity of the legal process. Please treat this letter as an official notice of my intent to sue you in federal court for the violation of my civil and constitutional rights within the coming days.

I kindly request your prompt response outlining your intentions moving forward. I remain open to any constructive steps that can help address the issues at hand and lead to a fair and equitable resolution.

Sincerely,

Donald Seoane

CC: JQC and Governor Ron Desantis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Governor Ron Desantis,

I am a HUGE supporter of you and Donald Trump both and I’m a born a raised Floridian and legal US citizen.

I am writing you this letter and will be forwarding it to MANY other people for help as I’m a very concerned loving father of FOUR young children. Because of my history as being very famous in the adult industry and a retired mainstream adult actor in thousands of straight movies I am being heavily discriminated against by WOMEN within the legal system. I could be a pastor now but in their eyes it doesn’t matter im a monster and the enemy. What I do or use to do within adult has NOTHING to do with my kids and shouldn’t ever and does not affect who I am as a loving care responsible father. My children are being physically and now sexual abused by the system and their mother and we are all being walked on by the corrupt system of mainly democrats aka DEMONRATS but mostly importantly they are ALL feminist man hating leftist WOMEN. Im writing this letter to also let you know I’m in need of a fair nonbias judge and tell you that you have appointed judge Holly N. Derenthal just a month ago that is not following her Oath to our US constitution or any of the rules judges need to follow including the Florida Cannons. 

Judge Derenthal works closely with several corrupt FEMALE attorneys including help now shelter’s IFP lawyer Jeniffer Watson and IFP Lawyer Sara Vance both far left man hating compulsive liars and judge Derenthal knows them very well in the Kissimmee Florida courthouse.

These lawyers are corrupt compulsive liars that commit perjury constantly and they just so happen to be provided to my illegal immigrant porn star prostitute wife I filed for divorce with that is a fake domestic violence victim that had me falsely arrested for DV and I got not guilty on all counts from a jury that deliberated in ten minutes even after my wife lied all day to the jury and not only was caught in countless lies but also admitted to committing perjury to even get her injunction and then was impeached as a witness. These corrupt lawyers have team up with DCF and the courts slandering, libeling me and committing perjury all over the place with my wife and proof is in all the UNFOUNDED DCF reports full of lies about me and my fiancé and new born and much more. There is a team of more than 15 of these compulsive lying WOMEN trying to bury me or falsely imprison me for over a year now and it’s not a coincidence that they are ALL female but 99% of them are far left extremist feminist man hating DEMOCRATS including one transsexual lawyer Emily Calvin with bright rainbow hair like a clown in the courtroom that is also married to a man with a beard that tweeted it took its shirt off and exposed it breast to the school children it teaches at the pre k school it works at in Gainesville which I even reported to the police and there is a case number on and reported to DCF which refused to investigate it. How these literal clowns are able to be allowed into our government and legal system is beyond me but these are the clown lawyers fighting me Pro Se and putting my children in danger that have already been seriously physically, mentally and sexual damaged now because of them that I’m trying to put a stop to now.

 

My wife is a Buddhist Thai from Thailand that believes she is to lie lie lie lie lie lie lie lie for Buddha and is a compulsive liar and I was married to her for over ten years and before that another Thai women for 3 years and lived in Thailand for 6 years consistently so I know the Thai  Buddhist culture VERY WELL. I got wife a visa and brought her to the United States so she could one day bring her 13 year old daughter here from her EX that she abandon so she could go work in a whore house in Thailand 6 hours away from her village and she has not seen her daughter in over ten years because she is a careless irresponsible mother. 

 

I had two kids with her after this but after I foolishly put the Florida titles for our mobile home with rented land in her name exclusively and had a realtor come out to tell us we could get 100k cash for it within a week then my wife on drugs with the crackheads across the street drummed up this plan to get me arrested and have me put in prison so they could sell the house and pocket the money and she could get on child support, alimony, welfare, EBT, food stamps and everything else the Neighbor is on that’s her best friend she calls mom. The crackhead friend she calls mom across the street Michelle Gilliam of 252 Windsor Dr Kissimmee has a long criminal history of drugs and even child neglect not only here in Osceola County but other states all around the USA. 

 

Anyways when I first opened my Divorce case I had a lawyer but now I am Prose. The first judge was the great judge Deigo Madrigal the third but they transferred him to another courthouse when I was starting to win all my cases and make a fool of my wife’s corrupt lawyers. The second judge an African American FEMALE domestic violence attorney and womens rights feminist activist judge named Christy Collins that was totally bias against me and violated all my rights and many of the Florida cannons and I had to file JQC complaints and motions to recuse and demand she step down. Then came the third judge which was Judge Michael Snure which like the first male judge was great and very fair and professional including his JA.  Judge Snure was what I believe3 to be threatened and intimidated off  the bench and forced to recuse himself by the corrupt FEMALE IFP attornies Jennifer Watson and Sara Vance when then showed up at my Emergency motion to suspend contact when the mother in my divorce case after being granted injunction on behalf of my 4 year old girl and 5 year old boy after myself has been documenting and the childs consoler and the CTP child protect team for Osceola county did a forensic style interview on all 3 older children and uncovered that the mother has not only been striking the children in the face but also twerking bucked naked in front of the children making porn videos and also allowing them to see her phone which is full of her porn that they have seen. So far the police and detectives have refuse to criminally charge her but judge Snure granted me a temporary injunction and I believe was going to grant me custody at my   Emergency motion to suspend contact in my divorce. So when judge Snure walked into the courtroom and seen all these DCF officer’s and police and so on that I had subpoenaed in the courtroom and the transsexual clown hair lawyer that I described in my motion would not only be there when he walked in but I also described that I would be ripping these peoples lies and perjury apart on the witness he then looked at Jennifer Watson and Sara Vance sitting at the lawyers table where they didn’t belong as they had filed months to withdraw months ago and he asked them why they where here. Lawyer Jennifer Watson flirtatiously said to Judge Snure that she was there as a friend of the court and judge Snure recused himself and the hearing never even got started. Now they knew that the only judge left to do these types of cases in the courthouse was judge Holly N. Derenthal which they know very well and have on their side. If you look at case number 2022 DR 2336 DC and case number 2023 DR 2668 DV and just as I suspected Since judge Derenthal has taken all my cases her JA has been totally rude and unresponsive playing games with me on email and refusing to answer questions about hearing dates and motions and so on.

Furthermore I filed TWO motions to recuse, one in my divorce case and one in the injunction case and judge Derenthal denied them and violated me and my childrens rights setting a hearing not giving me time to prepare and trying to dismiss the injunction on behalf of my 4 and 5 year old to the mother and proceeding to violate all my rights in the hearing and also not allow me to argue anything and improperly denied a bunch of my motions. She also did grant me a continance giving me still fully custody of the children but also broke a Florida statue reversing possession of the family home giving it back to the mother when it was ordered to me by judge Snure and this causes a situation where me and my children can become homeless at any time. Please see my JQC complaint at the end of this letter that details what she did at the hearing and note I have filed another Motion to Recuse in my divorce case and not sure what she is going to do as its been ignored for 3 days now AGAIN so today im writing this letter and attaching it in another motion to recuse in my DV case with the JQC complaint.

 

 

Now my wife has been doing SO MANY things putting the kids in danger since the start of this mess that I have been reporting on record to the courts, DCF, police and more that keeps getting covered up by all these WOMEN around her working in government but after threatening to drive the kids around news teams they then did CTP interviews and uncovered the abuse and that I was right. From ubers with no car seats to twerking in thongs on tiktok in front of the kids to letting our 3 year old daughter sleep in bed with her porn fans and prostitution clients to one of her porn fans that’s a Customs and Border Patrol police officer that has made threats of violence publicly on tikok to me from his marking account he now changed to “markking41_loves_nancy” and also been beating my children and sleeping in bed with my 3 year old daughter also and it’s all been documented in court motions, DCF complaints and police reports for a year now.

It’s not a coincidence that they are ALL WOMEN that are on my wife’s side and against me!

Note when I got the injunction for my children on behalf of my children against the mother I was told to reach out to Help Now and Help Now Shelter for help including free lawyers as I can’t afford one but guess what they can’t help me because they have a conflict of interest but get this, the help Now Lawyers that are Jennifer Watson and Sara Vance that been representing my wife and children in her injunction case AND in my divorce case [[According to helpnow they were not even allowed to interfere in my divorce case but they were lawyers of record and fighting at all the hearings ]] have now signed onto my wife’s side of MY and my children’s injunction case that’s on behalf of my children against the mother and those lawyers are now fighting me and my kids when they use to fight for my wife and kids. This is clearly some serious wrong stuff and deep corruption to say the least. Me and my kids get injunctions towards the mother and are told to reach out to Help Now and their lawyers and they in turn signup to fight against us on my wifes side against our kids! SERIOUSLY!  

 

I can go on for thousands of pages but I am going to stop here and just let you see the JQC complaint below and if you would please reach out to me with any assistance you might have. Note I am planning to involve hundreds if not thousands of people inside and outside government that can legally help me and my children and I will not stop till they are safe for good away from their abusive mother even though I have them full time right now. I would like the mother to only have supervised visitation AND I want our house back including my 12 year old full custody daughter’s bedroom, belongings and pets which judge Snure had ordered back to us and my new born baby until this bias judge broke laws, Florida statues and our rights and did a bias hearing knowing she was bias after denying my motion to recuse and then gave the possession of the house and pets back to the mother while a standing temporary injunction is in place that has been continued.  See Florida statue 741.30  (6) (e)

 

Thanks, Donald Seoane

See JQC complaint below:

 

 

Now here is the contents of my JQC complaint:

            I am filing this complaint with you The Judicial Qualifications Commission for my allegations of misconduct by judge Holly n. Derenthal in Osceola County that was just appointed a judge a month ago and respectfully ask that she be fully investigated and fully reprimanded to the full extent of the law since she has chosen to deny my two motions to recuse and violated my rights and my children’s rights having a hearing while being completely bias and proceeded to breaking 6 of the 7 Canon’s she is mandated by Code of Judicial Conduct For the State of Florida and the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

 

            Please understand I am a loving caring father of 4 children 4, 5, 12, years old and my 2 month old newborn baby and On 7/6/2023 Judge Holly n. Derenthal was assigned to take over my 3 very complex and complicated cases in my Divorce that I’m the petitioner Pro Se as well as an old fraudulent injunction case that my porn star prostitute druggie illegal immigrant child abuser wife got against me only because she had me falsely arrested for DV and has since then admitted in front of a jury that she lied and committed perjury to even get that injunction, and another recent injunction case I had granted on behalf of my children against the mother because she is abusing them and I got this granted from the wonderful judge Michael J Snure that was fully aware for several months all about the family situation and what was going on and he was on all my cases for several months until the corrupt man hating FEMALE lawyers from help Now Shelter did what I believe to be misconduct as well forcing him to step down and recuse himself so they could get their personal friend judge Holly Derenthal on the case and be bias against me and break the law and commit ex parte and violate my rights which is exactly what I believe has happened and why I’m filing this and will explain below.

 

 

I believe Judge Holly n. Derenthal has now violated almost every single Cannon of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida and I will prove it below and I believe is committing serious heavy Ex Parte with the other sides lawyers and MUCH more and I had filed 2 motions to recuse her before she has even did what she has now done in my in person hearing which is unbelievable.

 

I had filed in my divorce Case # 2022 DR 002336 DC on 7/11/2023 “MOTION TO RECUSE”

And Case# 2023 DR 002668 DV on 7/12/2023 a different separate “MOTION TO RECUSE”

detailing and proving their actions as the JA is not only completely ignoring me but she is NOT ignoring the other side and Judge Derenthal not only denied my motions to recuse but then she was totally unprofessional, unfair, bias and reset my very important hearing I needed time to prepare for which I also had filed a Emergency motions for a continuance on which she also ignored till the date of the hearing which she set a week sooner and at that in person hearing in a injunction case that Judge Snure had granted on behalf of my 4 and 5 year old to protect them from their abusive mother. Judge Derenthal at the hearing denied a bunch of my motions that are crucial to determining the facts of the case and to obtain evidence to prove my case and she was rude, disrespectful, threatening and violated all my rights and my childrens rights and wouldn’t allow me to have a fair hearing at all throughout the whole hearing which I will explain in more detail below. She even had the police throw me out of the hearing at the end when I asked about orders she had made verbally that were not in the paper orders the court gave me. She wrongfully overturned Judge Snures order that gave me full possession of me and the children’s home which was completely improper while a current active injunction was being continued but she would let me argue anything about law that I had waiting in several tabs on my laptop to present. 

 

Judge Holly n. Derenthal is not only what I believe to be a unfair bias completely rude disrespectful judge that shouldn’t have the power to be a judge as far as I’m concerned but she has a very long history online going back decades when she was a lawyer of the misconduct, illegal and just plain wrong things she is still doing now as a new judge today.   Someone posted on “August 16, 2015” on https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/32751-fl-holly-derenthal-1375140/reviews.html 

“Holly is careless she doesn't communicate well and is afraid to fight for you.

1.0 star
August 16, 2015

Holly doesn't reply to emails she doesn't keep you in the loop about your case until the day before the due date. If you hear from her it’s to ask for documents you gave her weeks ago. She charges for the same services over and over again. Holly is always scrambling at the last minute. She seems to be afraid of trial and scared to upset the opposing lawyer. I should have done my home work before I hired her. She has really bad reviews and a lack of experience. How can you be an attorney when you don't like conflict. Holly would always threatened to pull out if you asked her about the case - she would tell you "if your not happy you can get another lawyer" hmmm after you have taken thousands of dollars. What a great way to make money!!
DO NOT HIRE HOLLY !!!! “

 

Judge Derenthal has only been a judge 1 month and she is acting this way already and it’s only going to get worse as she seems to be on a power trip doing family law and it’s causing children and families to be put in danger like my young children.

 

I am Pro Se and being walked on very badly and illegally by Judge Derenthal and her JA Mrs. Feliciano and I also do believe they have been committing Ex Parte with the other side’s lawyers and know them personally. They have had many cases together and worked together in the past I have found in several previous court records.

 

Please note I am not filing all this because she is female and know that’s not grounds for recusal BUT just the fact she is female creates a HUGE bias because of all my verbal attacks on the large group of compulsive lying man hating extremist women’s rights activist FEAMLES in all my motions that are around my wife and those motions were intended for a male judge Snure at the time and many of these females that have committed tons of perjury even from DCF which I have proved over and over again and again. What Judge Derenthal has done with her JA and at my in person hearing is clear grounds for recusal and proof of her clear bias I will explain below.

 

 

               A Little background on me and these cases, the wonderful Judge Diego Madrigal III was on my cases at the start and was against me because he was reading all the LIES, LIBEL, SLANDER from DCF, Helpnowshelter, Floridalegal.org which are ALL a large group of man hating compulsive lying FEAMLES, I’m serious like 15 females to date that are far left extreme man hating WOMEN and Judge Madrigal saw it in time as I kept pointing it out and proving it in court and then he got on my side and then got transferred to a different court. Then they put a leftist African American female Judge Collins on my cases that also hated men and was totally bias against me and broke ALL the Cannons of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida at my hearing and I filed JQC complaints and motions to recuse and demanded she step down for her clear bias and she did, Then Judge Michael J. Snure came on the case and him and his JA were absolutely totally fair and respectful even though in the beginning there were some issue with his JA because of the other side AGAIN that I filed in a motion but that got resolved and she was then very fair and professional with me for several months. She always responded to email and phone calls and did her job perfectly. Judge Snure made many orders in all my cases and was very fair. Then two of the corrupt shady man hating leftist FEMALE lawyers from help now shelter that works every day at this courthouse named Jenifffer Watson and Sara Vance had filed motions to withdraw in my divorce case along with another wacko lawyer man hating bright purple haired man hating FEMALE lawyer named Bette Collazo all because I had a fair judge and they knew they were not going to win cause he was not going to break the law and cover for them like judge Collins tried to do. Note judge Collins also broke the law denying 14 of my motions on her way out the door when she knew she was bias and had read the JQC complaint and motion to recuse when I put it in a Emergency motion that she denied and told me to refile it as a nonemergency which I did and it was granted and she knew she was going to step down and when judge Snure got the case and I filed the motion to reconsider the 14 motions Collins denied improperly and illegally he said they would be reset to hearing after our September 27^th hearing which is now canceled because of his recusal and needs to also be reset with a ton of other hearings. Now they have put a transsexual lawyer named Emily Calvin on my divorce case with literal rainbow hair that’s married to a women with a beard she calls her husband, I’m not joking. THESE ARE ALL FACTS!

 

              After my prostitute porn star wife has been abusing our kids AGAIN and now twerking bucked naked in front of the children making porn videos in front of my 4 year old girl and 5 year old son and they even told the CPT team this then judge Snure granted me an injunction and full possession of the house. I then filed a “EMERGENCY MOTION TO TEMPORARY SUSPEND WIFES TIMESHARING AND GRANT HUSBAND MAJORITY TEMPORARY TIMESHARING AND SOLE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY “ and a swarm of other motions for witness testimony and subpoenas and all sorts and got granted an emergency hearing on Wednesday 07-05-2023 in my divorce case and when I walked in to make a complete mess and embarrass the entire corrupt systems lies, perjury, coverups and lies though witnesses I had subpoenaed that  were going to have to answer to their lies to the court on the witness stand from DCF to police and other DCF investigators that were witnesses of the abuse of my children that the CPT team uncovered that the entire court system and DCF and police have been trying to cover up for the mother for over a year now that took me threatening to take my children to news teams to get this CPT investigation done THEN judge Snure walked into the courtroom and saw lawyers Jennifer Watson and Sara Vance sitting at the lawyers table where they didn’t belong and asked Jennifer why she was at the lawyers table and she flirtatiously said she was just there as a friend of the court. I believe those two lawyers Sara Vance and Jennifer Watson came to this hearing and sat at the lawyers table after filing a motion to withdraw months ago knowing that they would scare judge Snure somehow into stepping down and canceling the hearing and recusing himself because that’s exactly what happened. Note they have has countless cases infront of Judge Snure also so then Judge Snure recused himself and all his hearing dates.  This was at my hearing on 07-05-2023 in case number 2022 DR 002336 DC.

 

On 7/6/2023 Judge Holly n. Derenthal took all my cases and for over a week now her JA has completely ignored 6 voicemails to date and will not respond to countless emails and motions and request to reset my Emergency motions and so on AND instead of getting the court to see my motions including an Emergency motion for continuance what I believe to be the JA and other sides lawyers on the phone got the judge to push my injunction hearing a week sooner instead of even seeing my emergency motion for a continuance and to push it further out to give me time to prepare. I filed those 2 motions to recuse and she denied them and then I came to the final hearing for my injunction on behalf of my children where she had given me no time to prepare for that I had been granted by judge Snure on behalf of my two children case: 2023 DR 002668 DV on 7/13/2023 and was met with Judge Holly n. Derenthal that shouldn’t have took place till another week. Note the Emergency hearing in my divorce case from 9 days ago where Judge Snure had recused himself STILL has not been reset and Judge Derenthal and JA ignore everything about it not only in emails and phone calls but at the hearing when I brought it up she refused to address it and silenced me AGAIN.

 

So when I walk into the courtroom after she denied my two separate motions to recuse her in two separate cases, I am met with 6 armed police sheriff’s staring at me in the courtroom while I setup my laptop and papers at the lawyers table as I am Pro Se. 3 come sit right behind me to intimidate me the entire time with guns. I know this is not normal and I was very scared and clearly it was an intimidation tactic ordered by judge Derenthal and the team of man hating help now shelter far leftist corrupt lawyers that I believe are colluding with the judge and her JA and committing Ex Parte AGAIN and I have confirmed through court records they have had tons of cases with judge Derenthal previously as well.

 

So I’m thinking that the judge is going to walk in and just throw me in jail for something I did not even do and that’s why she has these 6 armed police eye balling me in the courtroom and intimidating me. So before the judge walks in 3 armed police come sit right behind me and the other 3 are scattered in the courtroom and when the judge comes in she proceeds to be totally rude not allowing me to talk at all or ask any questions and even when I start to raise my hand she tells me I better stop doing that as well. She then just starts reading the dockit denying my motions one by one which by the way she didn’t even read and I know this for a fact as she didn’t even know that the current custody plan ordered in our divorce was 50/50 which was clearly spoke about in my petition for injunction and motions everywhere. I TRIED to ask her twice if she even had read my motions and she refused to answer and just told me to be quiet and not ask questions bla bla bla bla. The bias I was afraid of that caused me to file the two Motions to recuse was confirmed 100% and now on full display and there was ZERO doubt in my mind if she was bias as clearly she hated me and was violating not only all my rights but my children rights that the injunction is on behalf of. 

 

She then even gets to a motion to strike that they filed against one of my motions that contained facts and evidence in exhibits and she granted their motion to strike it basically on the grounds that it told facts that didn’t want to hear and that she wanted to cover up for them. She wouldn’t allow me to say anything about it or argue legal facts or florida statues about it or anything. There was no discussion allowed about anything she was doing.

 

The whole time nothing bad that was factual about anyone on my wifes side and the FEMALES around her was allowed and nothing was to be questioned as to why. They did so many dirty things at this hearing including bring up a DCF dependency case that was closed over a year ago all so that the judge could read all the libel, lies and slander the WOMEN at DCF told about me and when I tried to mention that they committed perjury and I had subpenoed them last Wednesday to prove it to the court she silenced me again and kept reading the garbage of libel, slander and lies from DCF about me which was all unfounded and case closed and had been made up by my wifes compulsive lying lawyers. I literally had zero rights in this hearing even being a Pro Se litigant that should have had the same legal rights as a real lawyer.

 

Even when she was allowing my wife’s compulsive lying lawyer Jennifer Watson to sit there and slander, libel and attack me with lies and I finally said OBJECTION and the judge yelled at me and said I was out of order AGAIN and interrupting and then I said I am not even allowed to have a objection relevancy your honor and she got angry and yelled at me and said whats your objection and I said your honor I just said objection relevancy and she got so angry she just looked at her lawyer and told her to continue and never ever said overruled or sustained and acted like my relevancy objection never happened.

 

Another thing is she threatened me during the hearing and according to 2 lawyer friends of mine that is a serious violation of the courts rules and is judicial misconduct fir sure that the JQC must act on and I need to report. During the hearing she threated me that if I lost this case here in the injunction and there was not enough evidence that she was going to take serious consideration when it came time to make custody orders for my children in my divorce case that she was the judge on. I was shocked that she threatened me with this and now is trying to extort me and scare me. Clearly ANOTHER intimidation tactic!

 

There are a ton of things that happened that was clearly misconduct and proved bias and colluding with the other side that I am not remembering but here is more I do remember. By the way the hearing was audio recorded by the court and you should be able to get a copy.

 

Now my wife’s corrupt shady lawyers broke court rules, Florida Statues and Florida bar rules trying to bias the court against me filing a REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE and inside included several civil and criminal cases most of which were dropped going back 25 years ago when I was 18years old that had nothing to do with my wife or this case or any of our cases for that matter and I filed a motion to strike and my own separate REQUEST TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE and had emailed it to her JA and the judge refused to get mine or look at mine and when I objected to her even reading theirs and explained it was nothing to do with this case or my wife and it was an attempt to bias the court against me with irrelevant inadmissible evidence against me she just got more mad and refused to strike it and kept reading it and left it on the dockit and said she would read it later. This alone has completely violated my rights and my children’s rights and chance to get a fair and safe outcome for my children and is more prove of the shady stuff the other side is doing to bias the judge against me and the judge is allowing it and eating it like candy or cake. I will be filing a complaint with the Florida bar also on Jennifer Watson and Sara Vance and about 4 other FEMALE lawyers that were part of their lying group of females that have already withdrawn.

 

Another thing I remember I had detailed in several of my motions how my wife is a prostitute from Thailand and a porn star for ten years and has ZERO family or friends here other than her porn fans and prostitution clients and when the judge was talking about ordering supervised visitation for my wife and the issue came up the judge couldn’t believe my wife had no family or friends here and was shocked. More evidence that she didn’t read any of my motions and just wanted to be bias and hurt me and my children and case to get back at me for filing my motions to recuse and attacking females around her with facts how they have all lied, libeled, slandered me and committed tons of perjury for over a year now. Also when she was talking about my 3 separate “MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF CHILD PROTECTION TEAM RECORDS” she attacked me further blaming me for not trying to get them when in fact I did try to get them the day after emailing them and the following day after that their lawyer emailed me those motions to file, which I did and when I explained it the the judge she just got more and more enraged that a male Pro Se litigant was telling her that she was wrong and making her look bad. Then she said well I will only grant you a 1 week continuance or a short timeif I even do but my motion clearly stated it took 30 days which I pointed out to her and again she didn’t read those motions either and just got more bad.

 

She was completely unaware of what my case was even about or any of the facts about it and was only concerned in burying the male Pro Se litigant and protect my lying cheating thieving porn star prostitute wife and all the feminist around her that have lied for her and covered everything up even after I got all not guilty’s in front a jury deliberated within ten minutes after my wife was impeached as a witness for compulsive lying and admitting to perjury on the stand with her crocodile tears all day trying to have me put in prison for years.

 

Another thing one of the motions she denied to put the court on notice “EMERGENCY MOTION TO PUT COURT ON ALERT THEY ARE DEALING WITH A HARDCORE VIOLENT MENTALLY UNSTABLE RACIST TOMORROW AND EVIDENCE ATTACHED” that had tons of evidence not only to support my case by facts with video text transcripts not only from my wife but also my daughter from her testimony in the criminal trial and where my daughter details how my wife was physical abusing her and violent to herself and the other kids. Yea judge Derenthal said she didn’t need a motion to strike and that she was going to strike that one herself from the record. The amount of misconduct and covering up for my wife and her large team of feminist man hating lawyers and other women around her is disgusting and shocking.

 

Another thing is judge Derenthal accepted a motion to strike to cover up fellow colleague drug user transsexual lawyer Emily Calvin [that’s my wifes new lawyer in my divorce case] and her bearded transsexual wife that tweeted it exposed its boobs to its pre k students at the daycare it works at which I proved many screenshot’s proving this all around the net including its twitter account. It also tweeted about them hiding drugs for a photo op on Twitter and tweeted about their drug use.

 

 

Lastly I just remembered and realized while judge Derenthal verbally ordered that CPT turn over the video tapes from my children’s interviews for me to use as evidence at my next hearing its not in the written orders. Please note even being Pro Se I know how orders work being issued after the hearings and sometimes a judge will have a lawyer draft the orders for her to sing even weeks later but at the hearing she said she was making and singing all the orders for us to take with us and had us wait so I have emailed the JA which notoriously has ignored my emails and left them unanswered for going on 2 weeks now but lawyer Jeniffer Watson responded to my email she was attached to the JA so being that they are colluding maybe something will get to the judge through her JA because of the other side emailing the JA because I get ignored!

 

Here is the best part I forgot to mention that during the hearing I mentioned to the judge that we were already ordered to talk and talking parents app in another case and have been doing so for over a year and that it would be a good idea to continue this and she couldn’t dare listen to the male Pro Se litigant and to prove this she gave me another verbal reprimanding and said no but at the end of the hearing after the police gave me two orders and I was reading them and didn’t see anything about the CTP takes in them I asked the judge something about that and or something else then she gave me ANOTHER verbal beating and reprimanding and said the court hearing was over and not to ask any more questions. Then Jennifer Watson with her special privileges asked her why she couldnt order to have us talk on talking parent and the judge now all of a sudden agreed with her lawyer that was out of order and ordered the talking parent app to continue and clearly because it was not me or a man telling her what to do. This is sickening.  Then when I didn’t see the orders about the supervised visitation they ordered my wife to have in the order I tried to ask about it and the judge said in a nasty way to me something about the order and made a face gesture to the police to throw me out and they jumped and ran over to me like they were going to kick my butt and made me wait outside. JEEEEEE WELLLLL If she would have just stop being so disrespectful, rude and violating the Cannons and Code of Judicial Conduct For the State of Florida and just plain violating my civil and human rights then maybe I would have it in my order for the CPT tapes as she had verbally ordered in the courtroom. 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is my email to the JA and other lawyer on the other side Jennifer Watson the day after the hearing when I confirmed my suspicion before they threw me out of the courtroom for it that there is nothing in the orders about the CPT tapes:

 

Emails from 7/14/2023:

 

“Good afternoon,

Yesterday's judge Derenthal ordered that the CPT child protection team turn over the video tapes from all three children’s interviews to the court and both sides but I dont see it in any of the orders I have.

 

Can one of you confirm its missing in the orders or you have it? If you do have it please forward it to me? I need to give it to the CTP team lawyers ASAP.

 

Thanks, Donald Seoane

“

NOW HERE IS

 

Jennifer Watson response:

 

“Good afternoon,

I do not see it in the orders we received.

 

Ms. Felciano,

            Will the judge be issuing a separate order?

 

Best regards, 

 

Jennifer J. Watson

IFP Attorney

Help Now of Osceola, Inc.

108 Church Street

Kissimmee, FL 34741

407-383-5361

“

 

Funny thing is EVEN IF the JA does respond or do something about it at this point it just proves the clear bias as the JA has been ignoring me since 7/6/2023 a week and a half ago and all my emergency motions and request to reset the Emergency hearings for them that were set to be heard in front of judge Snure that got canceled when he recused himself.

 

 

I would be willing to bet this was no mistake and is another dirty tactic assisting the other side and her lawyers to give me less time AGAIN. It’s also no mistake that her JA has ignored the emails about this as well so far. This is some serious dirty corruption. 

 

 

I have the right through Florida laws, federal laws and Constitutional laws to a fair trial, A fair nonbias judge, A non-prejudice judge and judge Holly Derenthal should follow her oath to uphold the constitution of the united states and all the other laws and Cannons she agreed to follow and recuse herself once and for all. “One Constitutional right a defendant holds is that of a fair trial. Included with this right, is the right to have a judge with no actual bias against the defendant nor interest in the outcome of the defendant's case. A judge should never act as a defendant's proponent or opponent in any given case.”

 

After the filing of this I will attach it in another motion to recuse the judge which will further show clear bias after she reads this and there will be no way she can continue to claim she is not bias against me after she read this complaint to the JQC about her and her actions and if she does not step down I will file more and more JQC complaints and start writing letters to the Florida House of Representatives, Florida Senate, Governor Ron Desantis and Us congress and anyone and everyone that might be able to help me and my children stay safe and get a fair nobias judge and FINALLY get justice.

 

The abuse of my children and the coverups, libel, slander and perjury have to stop NOW. I am exploring going to the media again if need be but really don’t want to because I don’t want my children to read about all this when they get older. I will not stay silent though or run scared from these corrupt individuals in our corrupt system. Even if any of these corrupt individuals think they will silence me by having me falsely arrested or locked up like was done already before in an attempt to silence me for several years and when I got not guilty in front of the jury while they were trying to send me off to a prison for years and it failed! IT WILL NOT WORK! I will write books and letters from prison to protect my children if that what it takes till justice is served for my kids. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

 

After she recuses herself I will be filing motions for reconsideration on all her orders and appeals if need be as she has caused a mess that is completely unfair to me and my young children.

 

AGAIN Please understand I am a loving caring father of 4 children 4, 5, 12, years old and my 2 month old newborn baby, and I just want the covering up of my wifes abuse of our children to STOP and some justice for them which clearly judge Derenthal is covering up everything and not giving me any chance at all of having a fair nonbias chance to present my case fairly as she won’t even let me talk. It’s a complete joke. There were a ton of Florida statues I had open on my laptop to argue each point in each motion but I was not allowed to argue anything and just the fact the judge refused to answer if she read the contents of the motions when I asked her twice and instead told me I was not allowed to ask questions and clearly her being uninformed of the contents of my motions proved she didn’t even read them or their contents also which inside also stated Florida statues that support a granting of each motion says wonders of her bias. If this was a matter of just a unfair decision by the judge or the judge had made an illegal or wrong choice I would file just a motion to reconsider and if that doesn’t work an appeal but this is all the fault of the judge and her bias causing her misconduct and breaking all the rules, laws and Cannons she agreed to follow to be a judge and she needs to be removed!!!!!  Please see the audio tape from the hearing and you will see.

 

So after judge Derenthal and her JA have done everything that they have done above and have displayed clear bias and have refused to follow and uphold the laws and rules they are governed by and by the way anytime not only I tried to have a valid legal argument but also when I wanted to reach for my mouse to site a Florida statues off my laptop, I was silenced by the judge and not allowed to have a fair nobias hearing or legal argument and was met rude unfairness and being silenced even when I resorted to raising my hand like a child which the judge also stopped me from doing, I do believe this is a clear violation of the Cannons listed below which I believe  Holly N. Derenthal has violated 6 of the 7 Canon’s in total listed on your website that judges must follow.

 

Now here is the list of

 

Canon 1. A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Canon 1

A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity And Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

COMMENTARY

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

 

Canon 2. A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities

Canon 2

A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities

1. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
2. A judge shall not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testify voluntarily as a character witness.
3. A judge should not hold membership in an organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin. Membership in a fraternal, sororal, religious, or ethnic heritage organization shall not be deemed to be a violation of this provision.

COMMENTARY

Canon 2A. Irresponsible or improper conduct by judges erodes public confidence in the judiciary. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. Examples are the restrictions on judicial speech imposed by Sections 3B(9) and (10) that are indispensable to the maintenance of the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary.

The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules, or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances that a reasonable inquiry would disclose, a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.
See also Commentary under Section 2C.

Canon 2B. Maintaining the prestige of judicial office is essential to a system of government in which the judiciary functions independently of the executive and legislative branches. Respect for the judicial office facilitates the orderly conduct of legitimate judicial functions. Judges should distinguish between proper and improper use of the prestige of office in all of their activities. For example, it would be improper for a judge to allude to his or her judgeship to gain a personal advantage such as deferential treatment when stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense. Similarly, judicial letterhead must not be used for conducting a judge's personal business, although a judge may use judicial letterhead to write character reference letters when such letters are otherwise permitted under this Code.

A judge must avoid lending the prestige of judicial office for the advancement of the private interests of others. For example, a judge must not use the judge's judicial position to gain advantage in a civil suit involving a member of the judge's family. In contracts for publication of a judge's writings, a judge should retain control over the advertising to avoid exploitation of the judge's office. As to the acceptance of awards, see Section 5D(5) and Commentary.

Although a judge should be sensitive to possible abuse of the prestige of office, a judge may, based on the judge's personal knowledge, serve as a reference or provide a letter of recommendation. However, a judge must not initiate the communication of information to a sentencing judge or a probation or corrections officer but may provide to such persons information for the record in response to a formal request.

Judges may participate in the process of judicial selection by cooperating with appointing authorities and screening committees seeking names for consideration, and by responding to official inquiries concerning a person being considered for a judgeship. See also Canon 7 regarding use of a judge's name in political activities.
A judge must not testify voluntarily as a character witness because to do so may lend the prestige of the judicial office in support of the party for whom the judge testifies. Moreover, when a judge testifies as a witness, a lawyer who regularly appears before the judge may be placed in the awkward position of cross-examining the judge. A judge may, however, testify when properly summoned. Except in unusual circumstances where the demands of justice require, a judge should discourage a party from requiring the judge to testify as a character witness.

Canon 2C. Florida Canon 2C is derived from a recommendation by the American Bar Association and from the United States Senate Committee Resolution, 101st Congress, Second Session, as adopted by the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on August 2, 1990.

Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge's impartiality is impaired. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization's current membership rolls but rather depends on the history of the organization's selection of members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. See New York State Club Ass'n Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 101 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S.Ct. 1940, 95 L.Ed.2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984). Other relevant factors include the size and nature of the organization and the diversity of persons in the locale who might reasonably be considered potential members. Thus the mere absence of diverse membership does not by itself demonstrate a violation unless reasonable persons with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would expect that the membership would be diverse in the absence of invidious discrimination. Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.

This Canon is not intended to prohibit membership in religious and ethnic clubs, such as Knights of Columbus, Masons, B'nai B'rith, and Sons of Italy; civic organizations, such as Rotary, Kiwanis, and The Junior League; young people's organizations, such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boy's Clubs, and Girl's Clubs; and charitable organizations, such as United Way and Red Cross.

Although Section 2C relates only to membership in organizations that invidiously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin, a judge's membership in an organization that engages in any discriminatory membership practices prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction also violates Canon 2 and Section 2A and gives the appearance of impropriety. In addition, it would be a violation of Canon 2 and Section 2A for a judge to arrange a meeting at a club that the judge knows practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin in its membership or other policies, or for the judge to regularly use such a club. Moreover, public manifestation by a judge of the judge's knowing approval of invidious discrimination on any basis gives the appearance of impropriety under Canon 2 and diminishes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Section 2A.

When a person who is a judge on the date this Code becomes effective learns that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination that would preclude membership under Section 2C or under Canon 2 and Section 2A, the judge is permitted, in lieu of resigning, to make immediate efforts to have the organization discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices, but is required to suspend participation in any other activities of the organization. If the organization fails to discontinue its invidiously discriminatory practices as promptly as possible (and in all events within a year of the judge's first learning of the practices), the judge is required to resign immediately from the organization 

 

Canon 3. A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

Canon 3

A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

1. Judicial Duties in General.

The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the specific standards set forth in the following sections apply.

1. Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required.

(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

(3) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so. This section does not preclude the consideration of race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other similar factors when they are issues in the proceeding.

(6) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words, gestures, or other conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status, against parties, witnesses, counsel, or others. This Section 3B(6) does not preclude legitimate advocacy when race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other similar factors are issues in the proceeding.

(7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding except that:

(a) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications for scheduling, administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the merits are authorized, provided:

(i) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication, and

(ii) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity to respond.

(b) A judge may obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge if the judge gives notice to the parties of the person consulted and the substance of the advice and affords the parties reasonable opportunity to respond.

(c) A judge may consult with other judges or with court personnel whose function is to aid the judge in carrying out the judge's adjudicative responsibilities.

(d) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to mediate or settle matters pending before the judge.

(e) A judge may initiate or consider any ex parte communications when expressly authorized by law to do so.

(8) A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly.

(9) A judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. The judge shall require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This Section does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court. This Section does not apply to proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.

(10) A judge shall not, with respect to parties or classes of parties, cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office.

(11) A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding, but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the community.

(12) A judge shall not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity.

1. Administrative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge shall diligently discharge the judge's administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice and maintain professional competence in judicial administration, and should cooperate with other judges and court officials in the administration of court business.

(2) A judge shall require staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity and diligence that apply to the judge and to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice in the performance of their official duties.

(3) A judge with supervisory authority for the judicial performance of other judges shall take reasonable measures to assure the prompt disposition of matters before them and the proper performance of their other judicial responsibilities.

(4) A judge shall not make unnecessary appointments. A judge shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit. A judge shall avoid nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered.

1. Disciplinary Responsibilities.

(1) 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.

(2) A judge who receives information or has actual knowledge that substantial likelihood exists that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar shall take appropriate action.

(3) Acts of a judge, in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities, required or permitted by Sections 3D(1) and 3D(2) are part of a judge's judicial duties and shall be absolutely privileged, and no civil action predicated thereon may be instituted against the judge.

1. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as a lawyer or was the lower court judge in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge has been a material witness concerning it;

(c) the judge knows that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse, parent, or child wherever residing, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any other more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;

(d) the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii) is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) is known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;

(iv) is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding;

(e) the judge's spouse or a person within the third degree of relationship to the judge participated as a lower court judge in a decision to be reviewed by the judge.

(f) the judge, while a judge or a candidate for judicial office, has made a public statement that commits, or appears to commit, the judge with respect to:

(i) parties or classes of parties in the proceeding;

(ii) an issue in the proceeding; or

(iii) the controversy in the proceeding.

(2) A judge should keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the economic interests of the judge's spouse and minor children residing in the judge's household.

1. Remittal of Disqualification.

A judge disqualified by the terms of Section 3E may disclose on the record the basis of the judge's disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, out of the presence of the judge, whether to waive disqualification. If following disclosure of any basis for disqualification other than personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, the parties and lawyers, without participation by the judge, all agree the judge should not be disqualified, and the judge is then willing to participate, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

COMMENTARY

Canon 3B(4). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and business-like while being patient and deliberate.

Canon 3B(5). A judge must refrain from speech, gestures or other conduct that could reasonably be perceived as sexual harassment and must require the same standard of conduct of others subject to the judge's direction and control.
A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.

Canon 3B(7). The proscription against communications concerning a proceeding includes communications from lawyers, law teachers, and other persons who are not participants in the proceeding, except to the limited extent permitted.

To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge.

Whenever presence of a party or notice to a party is required by Section 3B(7), it is the party's lawyer, or if the party is unrepresented, the party who is to be present or to whom notice is to be given.

An appropriate and often desirable procedure for a court to obtain the advice of a disinterested expert on legal issues is to invite the expert to file a brief as amicus curiae.

Certain ex parte communication is approved by Section 3B(7) to facilitate scheduling and other administrative purposes and to accommodate emergencies. In general, however, a judge must discourage ex parte communication and allow it only if all the criteria stated in Section 3B(7) are clearly met. A judge must disclose to all parties all ex parte communications described in Sections 3B(7)(a) and 3B(7)(b) regarding a proceeding pending or impending before the judge.
A judge must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented.

A judge may request a party to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, so long as the other parties are apprised of the request and are given an opportunity to respond to the proposed findings and conclusions.

A judge must make reasonable efforts, including the provision of appropriate supervision, to ensure that Section 3B(7) is not violated through law clerks or other personnel on the judge's staff.

If communication between the trial judge and the appellate court with respect to a proceeding is permitted, a copy of any written communication or the substance of any oral communication should be provided to all parties.

Canon 3B(8). In disposing of matters promptly, efficiently, and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. Containing costs while preserving fundamental rights of parties also protects the interests of witnesses and the general public. A judge should monitor and supervise cases so as to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs. A judge should encourage and seek to facilitate settlement, but parties should not feel coerced into surrendering the right to have their controversy resolved by the courts.

Prompt disposition of the court's business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to insist that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end.

Canon 3B(9) and 3B(10). Sections 3B(9) and (10) restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary. A pending proceeding is one that has begun but not yet reached final disposition. An impending proceeding is one that is anticipated but not yet begun. The requirement that judges abstain from public comment regarding a pending or impending proceeding continues during any appellate process and until final disposition. Sections 3B(9) and (10) do not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity, but in cases such as a writ of mandamus where the judge is a litigant in an official capacity, the judge must not comment publicly. The conduct of lawyers relating to trial publicity is governed by Rule 4-3.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

Canon 3B(10). Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may imply a judicial expectation in future cases and may impair a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case.

Canon 3C(4). Appointees of a judge include assigned counsel, officials such as referees, commissioners, special magistrates, receivers, mediators, arbitrators, and guardians and personnel such as clerks, secretaries, and bailiffs. Consent by the parties to an appointment or an award of compensation does not relieve the judge of the obligation prescribed by Section 3C(4). See also Fla.Stat. § 112.3135 (1991).

Canon 3D. Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer who has committed the violation, other direct action if available, or reporting the violation to the appropriate authority or other agency. If the conduct is minor, the Canon allows a judge to address the problem solely by direct communication with the offender. A judge having knowledge, however, that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question as to that other judge's fitness for office or has knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, is required under this Canon to inform the appropriate authority. While worded differently, this Code provision has the identical purpose as the related Model Code provisions.

Canon 3E(1). Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that law firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.

A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification. The fact that the judge conveys this information does not automatically require the judge to be disqualified upon a request by either party, but the issue should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, if a lawyer or party has previously filed a complaint against the judge with the Judicial Qualifications Commission, that the fact does not automatically require disqualification of the judge. Such disqualification should be on a case-by-case basis.

By decisional law, the rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. For example, a judge might be required to participate in judicial review of a judicial salary statute, or might be the only judge available in a matter requiring immediate judicial action, such as a hearing on probable cause or a temporary restraining order. In the latter case, the judge must disclose on the record the basis for possible disqualification and use reasonable efforts to transfer the matter to another judge as soon as practicable.

Canon 3E(1)(b). A lawyer in a government agency does not ordinarily have an association with other lawyers employed by that agency within the meaning of Section 3E(1)(b); a judge formerly employed by a government agency, however, should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding if the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such association.

Canon 3E(1)(d). The fact that a lawyer in a proceeding is affiliated with a law firm with which a relative of the judge is affiliated does not of itself disqualify the judge. Under appropriate circumstances, the fact that "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" under Section 3E(1), or that the relative is known by the judge to have an interest in the law firm that could be "substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding" under Section 3E(1)(d)(iii) may require the judge's disqualification.

Canon 3E(1)(e). It is not uncommon for a judge's spouse or a person within the third degree of relationship to a judge to also serve as a judge in either the trial or appellate courts. However, where a judge exercises appellate authority over another judge, and that other judge is either a spouse or a relationship within the third degree, then this Code requires disqualification of the judge that is exercising appellate authority. This Code, under these circumstances, precludes the appellate judge from participating in the review of the spouse's or relation's case.

Canon 3F. A remittal procedure provides the parties an opportunity to proceed without delay if they wish to waive the disqualification. To assure that consideration of the question of remittal is made independently of the judge, a judge must not solicit, seek, or hear comment on possible remittal or waiver of the disqualification unless the lawyers jointly propose remittal after consultation as provided in the rule. A party may act through counsel if counsel represents on the record that the party has been consulted and consents. As a practical matter, a judge may wish to have all parties and their lawyers sign the remittal agreement.

 

Canon 4. A Judge Is Encouraged to Engage in Activities to Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice

Canon 4

Updated 9/10/2008

A Judge Is Encouraged to Engage in Activities to Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice

1. A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s quasi-judicial activities so that they do not:
   (1)  cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge;
   (2)  undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality;
   (3)  demean the judicial office; 
   (4)  interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties;
   (5)  lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; or
   (6)  appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.
2. A judge is encouraged to speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other quasi-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and the role of the judiciary as an independent branch within our system of government, subject to the requirements of this Code.
3. A judge shall not appear at a public hearing before, or otherwise consult with, an executive or legislative body or official except on matters concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice or except when acting pro se in a matter involving the judge or the judge's interests.
4. A judge is encouraged to serve as a member, officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor of an organization or governmental entity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice, subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of this Code.

(1) A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor if it is likely that the organization

(a) will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or

(b) will be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.

(2) A judge as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor, or as a member or otherwise:

(a) may assist such an organization in planning fund-raising and may participate in the management and investment of the organization's funds, but shall not personally or directly participate in the solicitation of funds, except that a judge may solicit funds from other judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority;

(b)  may appear or speak at, receive an award or other recognition at, be featured on the program of, and permit the judge’s title to be used in conjunction with an event of such an organization or entity, but if the event serves a fund-raising purpose, the judge may participate only if the event concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and the funds raised will be used for a law related purpose(s);

(c) may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting organizations on projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice;

(d) shall not personally or directly participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive;

(e) shall not make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other resources for fund-raising purposes, except for incidental use for activities that concern the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, subject to the requirements of this Code.

COMMENTARY

Canon 4A. A judge is encouraged to participate in activities designed to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. In doing so, however, it must be understood that expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge's judicial activities, may cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge and may undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Expressions which may do so include jokes or other remarks demeaning individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. See Canon 2C and accompanying Commentary.

Canon 4B. This canon was clarified in order to encourage judges to engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. As a judicial officer and person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including, but not limited to, the improvement of the role of the judiciary as an independent branch of government, the revision of substantive and procedural law, the improvement of criminal and juvenile justice, and the improvement of justice in the areas of civil, criminal, family, domestic violence, juvenile delinquency, juvenile dependency, probate and motor vehicle law. To the extent that time permits, a judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association, judicial conference or other organization dedicated to the improvement of the law. Support of pro bono legal services by members of the bench is an activity that relates to improvement of the administration of justice. Accordingly, a judge may engage in activities intended to encourage attorneys to perform pro bono services, including, but not limited to: participating in events to recognize attorneys who do pro bono work, establishing general procedural or scheduling accommodations for pro bono attorneys as feasible, and acting in an advisory capacity to pro bono programs. Judges are encouraged to participate in efforts to promote the fair administration of justice, the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the legal profession, which may include the expression of opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges in other countries.

The phrase "subject to the requirements of this Code" is included to remind judges that the use of permissive language in various sections of the Code does not relieve a judge from the other requirements of the Code that apply to the specific conduct.

Canon 4C. See Canon 2B regarding the obligation to avoid improper influence.

Canon 4D(1). The changing nature of some organizations and of their relationship to the law makes it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if it is proper for the judge to continue the affiliation. For example, the boards of some legal aid organizations now make policy decisions that may have political significance or imply commitment to causes that may come before the courts for adjudication.

Canon 4D(2). A judge may solicit membership or endorse or encourage membership efforts for an organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice as long as the solicitation cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive. Personal or direct solicitation of funds for an organization and personal or direct solicitation of memberships involve the danger that the person solicited will feel obligated to respond favorably to the solicitor if the solicitor is in a position of influence or control. A judge must not engage in direct, individual solicitation of funds or memberships in person, in writing or by telephone except in the following cases: 1) a judge may solicit for funds or memberships other judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority, 2) a judge may solicit other persons for membership in the organizations described above if neither those persons nor persons with whom they are affiliated are likely ever to appear before the court on which the judge serves and 3) a judge who is an officer of such an organization may send a general membership solicitation mailing over the judge's signature.

A judge may be a speaker or guest of honor at an organization’s fund-raising event if the event concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, and the judge does not engage in the direct solicitation of funds.  However, judges may not participate in or allow their titles to be used in connection with fund-raising activities on behalf of an organization engaging in advocacy if such participation would cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.

Use of an organization letterhead for fund-raising or membership solicitation does not violate Canon 4D(2) provided the letterhead lists only the judge's name and office or other position in the organization, and, if comparable designations are listed for other persons, the judge's judicial designation. In addition, a judge must also make reasonable efforts to ensure that the judge's staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control do not solicit funds on the judge's behalf for any purpose, charitable or otherwise.

 

Canon 5. A Judge Shall Regulate Extrajudicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of Conflict With Judicial Duties

Canon 5

Revised 05/21/2021

A JUDGE SHALL REGULATE EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES
A.      Extrajudicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not:
(1)     cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge;
(2)     undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality;
(3)     demean the judicial office;
(4)     interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties;
(5)     lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; or
(6)     appear to a reasonable person to be coercive.
B.       Avocational Activities. A judge is encouraged to speak, write, lecture, teach and participate in other extrajudicial activities concerning non-legal subjects, subject to the requirements of this Code.
C.      Governmental, Civic or Charitable Activities.
(1)     A judge shall not appear at a public hearing before, or otherwise consult with, an executive or legislative body or official except on matters concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice or except when acting pro se in a matter involving the judge or the judge’s interests.
(2)     A judge shall not accept appointment to a governmental committee or commission or other governmental position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, the judicial branch, or the administration of justice. A judge may, however, represent a country, state or locality on ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational or cultural activities.
(3)     A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, sororal or civic organization not conducted for profit, subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of this Code.
(a)      A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor if it is likely that the organization
(i)      will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or
(ii)     will be engaged frequently in adversary proceedings in the court of which the judge is a member or in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court of which the judge is a member.
(b)     A judge as an officer, director, trustee or non-legal advisor, or as a member or otherwise:
(i)      may assist such an organization in planning fund-raising and may participate in the management and investment of the organization’s funds, but shall not personally or directly participate in the solicitation of funds, except that a judge may solicit funds from other judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority;
(ii)     shall not personally or directly participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive;
(iii)    shall not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for fund-raising or membership solicitation.
D.      Financial Activities.
(1)     A judge shall not engage in financial and business dealings that
(a)      may reasonably be perceived to exploit the judge’s judicial position, or
(b)     involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with those lawyers or other persons likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.
(2)     A judge may, subject to the requirements of this Code, hold and manage investments of the judge and members of the judge’s family, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity.
(3)     A judge shall not serve as an officer, director, manager, general partner, advisor or employee of any business entity except that a judge may, subject to the requirements of this Code, manage and participate in:
(a)      a business closely held by the judge or members of the judge’s family, or
(b)     a business entity primarily engaged in investment of the financial resources of the judge or members of the judge’s family.
(4)     A judge shall manage the judge’s investments and other financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which the judge is disqualified. As soon as the judge can do so without serious financial detriment, the judge shall divest himself or herself of investments and other financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.
(5)     A judge shall not accept, and shall urge members of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household not to accept, a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except for:
(a)      a gift incident to a public testimonial, books, tapes and other resource materials supplied by publishers on a complimentary basis for official use, or an invitation to the judge and the judge’s spouse or guest to attend a bar-related function or an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice, including attending, without charge, a bar-related lunch, dinner, or social event; and if the value of attending an individual function or event exceeds $100, the judge shall report it under Canon 6B(2);
(b)     a gift, award or benefit incident to the business, profession or other separate activity of a spouse or other family member of a judge residing in the judge’s household, including gifts, awards and benefits for the use of both the spouse or other family member and the judge (as spouse or family member), provided the gift, award or benefit could not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties;
(c)      ordinary social hospitality;
(d)     a gift from a relative or friend, for a special occasion, such as a wedding, anniversary or birthday, if the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship;
(e)      a gift, bequest, favor or loan from a relative or close personal friend whose appearance or interest in a case would in any event require disqualification under Canon 3E;
(f)      a loan from a lending institution in its regular course of business on the same terms generally available to persons who are not judges;
(g)     a scholarship or fellowship awarded on the same terms and based on the same criteria applied to other applicants; or
(h)     any other gift, bequest, favor or loan, only if the donor is not a party or other person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge; and, if its value, or the aggregate value in a calendar year of such gifts, bequests, favors, or loans from a single source, exceeds $100.00, the judge reports it in the same manner as the judge reports gifts under Canon 6B(2)
E.       Fiduciary Activities.
(1)     A judge shall not serve as executor, administrator or other personal representative, trustee, guardian, attorney in fact or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust or person of a member of the judge’s family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
(2)     A judge shall not serve as a fiduciary if it is likely that the judge as a fiduciary will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge, or if the estate, trust or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings in the court on which the judge serves or one under its appellate jurisdiction.
(3)     The same restrictions on financial activities that apply to a judge personally also apply to the judge while acting in a fiduciary capacity.
F.       Service as Arbitrator or Mediator.
(1)     A judge shall not act as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions in a private capacity unless expressly authorized by law or Court rule. A judge may, however, take the necessary educational and training courses required to be a qualified and certified arbitrator or mediator, and may fulfill the requirements of observing and conducting actual arbitration or mediation proceedings as part of the certification process, provided such program does not, in any way, interfere with the performance of the judge’s judicial duties.
(2)     A senior judge may serve as a mediator in a case in a circuit in which the senior judge is presiding over criminal cases or in a circuit in which the senior judge is not presiding as a judge, or in both, only if the senior judge is certified pursuant to rule 10.100, Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. Such senior judge may be associated with entities that are solely engaged in offering mediation or other alternative dispute resolution services but that are not otherwise engaged in the practice of law. However, such senior judge may not advertise, solicit business, associate with a law firm, or participate in any other activity that directly or indirectly promotes his or her mediation, arbitration, or voluntary trial resolution services and shall not permit an entity with which the senior judge associates to do so. A senior judge shall not serve as a mediator, arbitrator, or voluntary trial resolution judge in any case in a circuit in which the judge is currently presiding over civil cases as a senior judge. A senior judge who provides mediation, arbitration, or voluntary trial resolution services may preside over criminal cases in circuits in which the judge provides such dispute-resolution services. A senior judge who provides mediation, arbitration, or voluntary trial resolution services may also preside over civil and criminal cases in circuits in which the judge does not provide such dispute-resolution services.  A senior judge shall disclose if the judge is being utilized or has been utilized as a mediator, arbitrator, or voluntary trial resolution judge by any party, attorney, or law firm involved in the case pending before the senior judge. Absent express consent of all parties, a senior judge is prohibited from presiding over any case involving any party, attorney, or law firm that is utilizing or has utilized the judge as a mediator, arbitrator, or voluntary trial resolution judge within the previous three years. A senior judge shall disclose any negotiations or agreements for the provision of services as a mediator, arbitrator, or voluntary trial resolution judge between the senior judge and any parties or counsel to the case.
G.      Practice of Law. A judge shall not practice law. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a judge may act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judge’s family.
[Amended Jan. 10, 2002 (816 So. 2d 1084 ); Feb. 20, 2003 (840 So. 2d 1023 ); Nov. 3, 2005, effective Jan. 1, 2006 (915 So. 2d 145 ); 983 So. 2d 550 ); June 19, 2014 (141 So. 3d 1172); July 7, 2016, effective Oct. 1, 2016 (194 So. 3d 1015); May 18, 2017, effective Jan. 1, 2017 (218 So. 3d 432); In re Amendments to the Code of Judicial Conduct, No. SC21-737 (Fla. May 21, 2021).]

COMMENTARY

Canon 5A. Complete separation of a judge from extra-judicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the community in which the judge lives. For that reason, judges are encouraged to participate in extrajudicial community activities.

Expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge’s judicial activities, may cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge and may undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Expressions which may do so include jokes or other remarks demeaning individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. See Canon 2C and accompanying Commentary.

Canon 5B. In this and other sections of Canon 5, the phrase “subject to the requirements of this Code” is used, notably in connection with a judge’s governmental, civic or charitable activities. This phrase is included to remind judges that the use of permissive language in various sections of the Code does not relieve a judge from the other requirements of the Code that apply to the specific conduct.
Canon 5C(1). See Canon 2B regarding the obligation to avoid improper influence.

Canon 5C(2). Canon 5C(2) prohibits a judge from accepting any governmental position except one relating to the law, legal system or administration of justice as authorized by Canon 4D. The appropriateness of accepting extrajudicial assignments must be assessed in light of the demands on judicial resources created by crowded dockets and the need to protect the courts from involvement in extrajudicial matters that may prove to be controversial. Judges should not accept governmental appointments that are likely to interfere with the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary.

Canon 5C(2) does not govern a judge’s service in a nongovernmental position. See Canon 5C(3) permitting service by a judge with educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, sororal or civic organizations not conducted for profit. For example, service on the board of a public educational institution, unless it were a law school, would be prohibited under Canon 5C(2), but service on the board of a public law school or any private educational institution would generally be permitted under Canon 5C(3).
Canon 5C(3). Canon 5C(3) does not apply to a judge’s service in a governmental position unconnected with the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice; see Canon 5C(2).

See Commentary to Canon 5B regarding use of the phrase “subject to the following limitations and the other requirements of this Code.” As an example of the meaning of the phrase, a judge permitted by Canon 5C(3) to serve on the board of a fraternal institution may be prohibited from such service by Canons 2C or 5A if the institution practices invidious discrimination or if service on the board otherwise casts reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge.

Service by a judge on behalf of a civic or charitable organization may be governed by other provisions of Canon 5 in addition to Canon 5C. For example, Canon 5G prohibits a judge from serving as a legal advisor to a civic or charitable organization.

Canon 5C(3)(a). The changing nature of some organizations and of their relationship to the law makes it necessary for a judge to regularly reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated in order to determine if it is proper for the judge to continue the affiliation. For example, in many jurisdictions charitable hospitals are now more frequently in court than in the past.

Canon 5C(3)(b). A judge may solicit membership or endorse or encourage membership efforts for a nonprofit educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, sororal or civic organization as long as the solicitation cannot reasonably be perceived as coercive and is not essentially a fund-raising mechanism. Personal or direct solicitation of funds for an organization and personal or direct solicitation of memberships similarly involve the danger that the person solicited will feel obligated to respond favorably to the solicitor if the solicitor is in a position of influence or control. A judge must not engage in direct, individual solicitation of funds or memberships in person, in writing or by telephone except in the following cases: 1) a judge may solicit for funds or memberships other judges over whom the judge does not exercise supervisory or appellate authority, 2) a judge may solicit other persons for membership in the organizations described above if neither those persons nor persons with whom they are affiliated are likely ever to appear before the court on which the judge serves and 3) a judge who is an officer of such an organization may send a general membership solicitation mailing over the judge’s signature.

Mere attendance at an event, whether or not the event serves a fund-raising purpose, does not constitute a violation of Canon 5C(3)(b). It is also generally permissible for a judge to pass a collection plate at a place of worship or for a judge to serve as an usher or food server or preparer, or to perform similar subsidiary and unadvertised functions at fund-raising events sponsored by educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organizations, so long as they do not entail direct or personal solicitation. However, a judge may not be a speaker, guest of honor, or otherwise be featured at an organization’s fund-raising event, unless the event concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice as authorized by Canon 4D(2)(b).
Use of an organization letterhead for fund-raising or membership solicitation does not violate Canon 5C(3)(b) provided the letterhead lists only the judge’s name and office or other position in the organization, and, if comparable designations are listed for other persons, the judge’s judicial designation. In addition, a judge must also make reasonable efforts to ensure that the judge’s staff, court officials and others subject to the judge’s direction and control do not solicit funds on the judge’s behalf for any purpose, charitable or otherwise.

Canon 5D(1). When a judge acquires in a judicial capacity information, such as material contained in filings with the court, that is not yet generally known, the judge must not use the information for private gain. See Canon 2B; see also Canon 3B(11).

A judge must avoid financial and business dealings that involve the judge in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with persons likely to come either before the judge personally or before other judges on the judge’s court. In addition, a judge should discourage members of the judge’s family from engaging in dealings that would reasonably appear to exploit the judge’s judicial position. This rule is necessary to avoid creating an appearance of exploitation of office or favoritism and to minimize the potential for disqualification. With respect to affiliation of relatives of the judge with law firms appearing before the judge, see Commentary to Canon 3E(1) relating to disqualification.

Participation by a judge in financial and business dealings is subject to the general prohibitions in Canon 5A against activities that tend to reflect adversely on impartiality, demean the judicial office, or interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. Such participation is also subject to the general prohibition in Canon 2 against activities involving impropriety or the appearance of impropriety and the prohibition in Canon 2B against the misuse of the prestige of judicial office. In addition, a judge must maintain high standards of conduct in all of the judge’s activities, as set forth in Canon 1. See Commentary for Canon 5B regarding use of the phrase “subject to the requirements of this Code.”
Canon 5D(2). This Canon provides that, subject to the requirements of this Code, a judge may hold and manage investments owned solely by the judge, investments owned solely by a member or members of the judge’s family, and investments owned jointly by the judge and members of the judge’s family.
Canon 5D(3). Subject to the requirements of this Code, a judge may participate in a business that is closely held either by the judge alone, by members of the judge’s family, or by the judge and members of the judge’s family.

Although participation by a judge in a closely-held family business might otherwise be permitted by Canon 5D(3), a judge may be prohibited from participation by other provisions of this Code when, for example, the business entity frequently appears before the judge’s court or the participation requires significant time away from judicial duties. Similarly, a judge must avoid participating in a closely-held family business if the judge’s participation would involve misuse of the prestige of judicial office.

Canon 5D(5). Canon 5D(5) does not apply to contributions to a judge’s campaign for judicial office, a matter governed by Canon 7 .

Because a gift, bequest, favor or loan to a member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household might be viewed as intended to influence the judge, a judge must inform those family members of the relevant ethical constraints upon the judge in this regard and discourage those family members from violating them.

A judge cannot, however, reasonably be expected to know or control all of the financial or business activities of all family members residing in the judge’s household.
Canon 5D(5)(a). Acceptance of an invitation to a law-related function is governed by Canon 5D(5)(a); acceptance of an invitation paid for by an individual lawyer or group of lawyers is governed by Canon 5D(5)(h).

The attendance, without charge, of a bar-related lunch, dinner, or social event such as a reception or Law Day event does not have to be reported under Canon 6B(2), as long as the actual value of attending the individual function or event does not exceed $100, despite the fact that the aggregate value of attending such functions or events given by the same bar association or other entity in the same calendar year exceeds $100. This differs from Rule 3.15 of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2011), which requires the reporting of such attendance if the value of attending such functions or events alone or in the aggregate from the same source in the same calendar year exceeds a specified amount.

A judge may accept a public testimonial or a gift incident thereto only if the donor organization is not an organization whose members comprise or frequently represent the same side in litigation, and the testimonial and gift are otherwise in compliance with other provisions of this Code. See Canons 5A(1) and 2B.

Canon 5D(5)(d). A gift to a judge, or to a member of the judge’s family living in the judge’s household, that is excessive in value raises questions about the judge’s impartiality and the integrity of the judicial office and might require disqualification of the judge where disqualification would not otherwise be required. See, however, Canon 5D(5)(e).

Canon 5D(5)(h). Canon 5D(5)(h) prohibits judges from accepting gifts, favors, bequests or loans from lawyers or their firms if they have come or are likely to come before the judge; it also prohibits gifts, favors, bequests or loans from clients of lawyers or their firms when the clients’ interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.

Canon 5E(3). The restrictions imposed by this Canon may conflict with the judge’s obligation as a fiduciary. For example, a judge should resign as trustee if detriment to the trust would result from divestiture of holdings the retention of which would place the judge in violation of Canon 5D(4).

Canon 5F(1). Canon 5F(1) does not prohibit a judge from participating in arbitration, mediation or settlement conferences performed as part of judicial duties. An active judge may take the necessary educational and training programs to be certified or qualified as a mediator or arbitrator, but this shall not be a part of the judge’s judicial duties. While such a course will allow a judge to have a better understanding of the arbitration and mediation process, the certification and qualification of a judge as a mediator or arbitrator is primarily for the judge’s personal benefit. While actually participating in the mediation and arbitration training activities, care must be taken in the selection of both cases and locations so as to guarantee that there is no interference or conflict between the training and the judge’s judicial responsibilities. Indeed, the training should be conducted in such a manner as to avoid the involvement of persons likely to appear before the judge in legal proceedings.

Canon 5F(2). The purpose of the admonitions in this canon is to ensure that the impartiality of a senior judge is not subject to question. Although a senior judge may act as a mediator, arbitrator, or voluntary trial resolution judge in a circuit in which the judge is presiding over criminal cases or in a circuit in which the judge is not presiding as a senior judge, or in both, attention must be given to relationships with lawyers and law firms which may require disclosure or disqualification. These provisions are intended to prohibit a senior judge from soliciting lawyers to use the senior judge’s mediation services when those lawyers are or may be before the judge in proceedings where the senior judge is acting in a judicial capacity and to require a senior judge to ensure that entities with which the senior judge associates as a mediator abide by the same prohibitions on advertising or promoting the senior judge’s mediation service as are imposed on the senior judge.

Canon 5G. This prohibition refers to the practice of law in a representative capacity and not in a pro se capacity. A judge may act for himself or herself in all legal matters, including matters involving litigation and matters involving appearances before or other dealings with legislative and other governmental bodies. However, in so doing, a judge must not abuse the prestige of office to advance the interests of the judge or the judge’s family. See Canon 2B.

The Code allows a judge to give legal advice to and draft legal documents for members of the judge’s family, so long as the judge receives no compensation. A judge must not, however, act as an advocate or negotiator for a member of the judge’s family in a legal matter.

[Commentary amended Feb. 20, 2003 (840 So. 2d 1023 ); Nov. 3, 2005, effective Jan. 1, 2006 (915 So. 2d 145 ); May 22, 2008 (983 So. 2d 550 ); June 19, 2014 (141 So. 3d 1172); July 7, 2016, effective Oct. 1, 2016 (194 So. 3d 1015) ; May 18, 2017, effective Jan. 1, 2017 (__ So. 3d __).]

 

Canon 6. Fiscal Matters of a Judge Shall be Conducted in a Manner That Does Not Give the Appearance of Influence or Impropriety; etc.

Code of Judicial Conduct

Canon 6

Revised 05/10/2018

Fiscal Matters of a Judge Shall be Conducted in a Manner That Does Not Give the Appearance of Influence or Impropriety; a Judge Shall Regularly File Public Reports as Required by Article II, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, and Shall Publicly Report Gifts, Expense Reimbursements and Payments, and Waivers of Fees or Charges; Additional Financial Information Shall be Filed With the Judicial Qualifications Commission to Ensure Full Financial Disclosure

2. Compensation for Quasi-Judicial and Extrajudicial Services and Reimbursement or Payment of Expenses, and Waiver of Fees or Charges.
   A judge may accept compensation, reimbursement, or direct payment of expenses, and a waiver or partial waiver of fees or charges for registration, tuition, and similar items associated with the judge’s participation in quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities permitted by this Code, if the source of such payments, or waiver does not give the appearance of influencing the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, subject to the following restrictions:
   (1)     Compensation. Compensation shall not exceed a reasonable amount nor shall it exceed what a person who is not a judge would receive for the same activity. Compensation is reportable as income under Canon 6B(1).
   (2)     Honoraria and Speaking Fees. A judge may accept honoraria and speaking fees that are reasonable and commensurate with the task performed. Honoraria and speaking fees are reportable as income under Canon 6B(1).
   (3)     Reimbursement or Payment of Expenses, and Waiver of Fees or Charges. Expense reimbursement shall be limited to the actual cost of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the judge and, where appropriate to the occasion, to the judge’s spouse. Any payment in excess of such an amount is compensation and is reportable as income under Canon 6B(1). Reimbursement or direct payment of expenses, and waiver or partial waiver of fees or charges for the judge or the judge’s spouse or guest, from sources other than the state or a judicial branch entity as defined in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(b)(2), the amount of which alone or in the aggregate with other reimbursements, payments, or waivers received from the same source in the same calendar year exceeds $100, shall be reported under Canon 6B(2).
   B.       Public Financial Reporting.
   (1)     Income and Assets. A judge shall file such public report as may be required by law for all public officials to comply fully with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida . The form for public financial disclosure shall be that recommended or adopted by the Florida Commission on Ethics for use by all public officials. The form shall be filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics on the date prescribed by law, and a copy shall be filed simultaneously with the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
   (2)     Gifts, Reimbursements or Payments of Expenses, and Waivers of Fees or Charges. A judge shall file a public report of all gifts required to be disclosed under Canons 5D(5)(a) and 5D(5)(h) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and of all reimbursements or direct payments of expenses, and waivers of fees or charges required to be disclosed under Canon 6A(3). The report of gifts, expense reimbursements or direct payments, and waivers received in the preceding calendar year shall be filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics on or before July 1 of each year. Disclosure shall be made using Form 6A in the commentary below. A copy shall be filed simultaneously with the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
   (3)     Disclosure of Financial Interests Upon Leaving Office. A judge shall file a final disclosure statement within 60 days after leaving office, which report shall cover the period between January 1 of the year in which the judge leaves office and his or her last day of office, unless, within the 60-day period, the judge takes another public position requiring financial disclosure under Article II, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida , or is otherwise required to file full and public disclosure for the final disclosure period. The form for disclosure of financial interests upon leaving office shall be that recommended or adopted by the Florida Commission on Ethics for use by all public officials. The form shall be filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics and a copy shall be filed simultaneously with the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
   C.      Confidential Financial Reporting to the Judicial Qualifications Commission.
   To ensure that complete financial information is available for all judicial officers, there shall be filed with the Judicial Qualifications Commission on or before July 1 of each year, if not already included in the public report to be filed under Canon 6B(1) and (2), a verified list of the names of the corporations and other business entities in which the judge has a financial interest as of December 31 of the preceding year, which shall be transmitted in a separate sealed envelope, placed by the Commission in safekeeping, and not be opened or the contents thereof disclosed except in the manner hereinafter provided.
   At any time during or after the pendency of a cause, any party may request information as to whether the most recent list filed by the judge or judges before whom the cause is or was pending contains the name of any specific person or corporation or other business entity which is a party to the cause or which has a substantial direct or indirect financial interest in its outcome. Neither the making of the request nor the contents thereof shall be revealed by the chair to any judge or other person except at the instance of the individual making the request. If the request meets the requirements hereinabove set forth, the chair shall render a prompt answer thereto and thereupon return the report to safekeeping for retention in accordance with the provisions hereinabove stated. All such requests shall be verified and transmitted to the chair of the Commission on forms to be approved by it.
   D.      Limitation of Disclosure.
   Disclosure of a judge’s income, debts, investments or other assets is required only to the extent provided in this Canon and in Sections 3E and 3F, or as otherwise required by law.
   [Amended Jan. 10, 2002 (816 So. 2d 1084); May 18, 2017, effective Jan. 1, 2017 (218 So. 3d 432); May 10, 2018 (242 So. 3d 319).]

COMMENTARY

Canon 6A. See Section 5D(5)(a)–(h) regarding reporting of gifts, bequests and loans.

The Code does not prohibit a judge from accepting honoraria or speaking fees provided that the compensation is reasonable and commensurate with the task performed. A judge should ensure, however, that no conflicts are created by the arrangement. Judges must not appear to trade on the judicial position for personal advantage. Nor should a judge spend significant time away from court duties to meet speaking or writing commitments for compensation. In addition, the source of the payment must not raise any question of undue influence or the judge’s ability or willingness to be impartial.

Canon 6A(3) requires a judge to report expense reimbursements or payments, and fee waivers from sources other than the state or a judicial branch entity, when the amount received alone or combined with other reimbursements, payments, or waivers received from the same source in the same calendar year exceeds $100. Cf. Model Code of Jud. Conduct rs. 3.14(A), 3.15(A)(3) (Am. Bar Ass’n 2011) (requiring the reporting of expense reimbursements and fee waivers from “sources other than the judge’s employing entity,” when the individual or combined amount received from the same source in a calendar year exceeds a specified amount). The Canon 6A(3) reporting requirement is similar to the reporting requirement for expense reimbursements and waivers in Rule 3.15(A)(3) of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2011), in that reimbursements, payments, and waivers must be reported if the amount of reimbursement, payment, or waiver, alone or in the aggregate with other reimbursements, payments, or waivers received from the same source in the same calendar year, exceeds the specified amount of $100. However, unlike the model rule, the amount of a reportable reimbursement, payment, or waiver does not have to be reported on Form 6A. Unlike gifts, the amount of which must be reported on that form, only the dates, location, and purpose of the event or activity for which expenses, fees, or charges were reimbursed, paid, or waived must be reported.

Canons 6B and 6C. Subparagraph A prescribes guidelines for additional compensation, reimbursements, or direct payments of expenses, and waivers of fees or charges accepted by a judge.
Subparagraphs B and C prescribe the three types of financial disclosure reports required of each judicial officer.The filing of the disclosure reports required under Canon 6B is the only public disclosure of financial interests, compensation, gifts, expense reimbursements, or other benefits that a judge is required to make under this Code or the Florida Constitution. By filing the required disclosure reports, a judge fulfills all the expectations of conduct, and ethical and constitutional requirements related to such disclosure.

The first disclosure report is the Ethics Commission’s constitutionally required form pursuant to Article II, Section 8, of the Constitution. It must be filed each year as prescribed by law. The financial reporting period is for the previous calendar year. A final disclosure statement generally is required when a judge leaves office. The filing of the income tax return is a permissible alternative.

The second is a report of gifts, reimbursements or direct payments of expenses, and waivers of fees or charges accepted during the preceding calendar year to be filed publicly with the Florida Commission on Ethics. The gifts to be reported are in accordance with Canons 5D(5)(a) and 5D(5)(h). The expense reimbursements and payments, and waivers to be reported are in accordance with Canon 6A(3). This reporting is in lieu of that prescribed by statute as stated in the Supreme Court’s opinion rendered inIn re Code of Judicial Conduct, 281 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1973) . The form for this report is as follows:

Form 6A. Disclosure of Gifts, Expense Reimbursements or Payments, and Waivers of Fees and Charges

All judicial officers must file with the Florida Commission on Ethics a list of all reportable gifts accepted, and reimbursements or direct payments of expenses, and waivers of fees or charges accepted from sources other than the state or a judicial branch entity as defined in Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(b)(2), during the preceding calendar year as provided in Canons 5D(5)(a) and 5D(5)(h), Canon 6A(3), and Canon 6B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, by date received, description (including dates, location, and purpose of event or activity for which expenses, fees, or charges were reimbursed, paid, or waived), source’s name, and amount for gifts only.

Name: __________________                                                  
Work Telephone: __________                                
Work Address: ____________                                   
Judicial Office Held: ___________________                            

1. Please identify all reportable gifts you received during the preceding calendar year, as required by Canons 5D(5)(a), 5D(5)(h), and 6B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

DATE	DESCRIPTION	SOURCE	AMOUNT

 □ Check here if continued on separate sheet

2. Please identify all reportable reimbursements or direct payments of expenses, and waivers of fees or charges you received during the preceding calendar year, as required by Canons 6A(3) and 6B(2) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

DATE	DESCRIPTION (Include dates, location, and purpose of event or activity for which expenses, fees, or charges were reimbursed, paid, or waived)	SOURCE

 □ Check here if continued on separate sheet

OATH
State of Florida
County of_______________________                        
I,_______________, the public official filing this disclosure statement, being first duly sworn, do depose on oath and say that the facts set forth in the above statement are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.                                                                                          

____________________________
(Signature of Reporting Official)

______________________________                                                                                        
(Signature of Officer Authorized to Administer Oaths)

My Commission expires ___________________. 

                              
Sworn to and subscribed before me this _____________ day of _____________________ 20_____.

COMMENTARY [cont’d]
The third financial disclosure report is prescribed in subparagraph C. This provision ensures that there will be complete financial information for all judicial officers available with the Judicial Qualifications Commission by requiring that full disclosure be filed confidentially with the Judicial Qualifications Commission in the event the limited disclosure alternative is selected under the provisions of Article II, Section 8.

The amendment to this Canon requires in 6B(2) a separate gift report to be filed with the Florida Commission on Ethics on or before July 1 of each year. The form to be used for that report is included in the commentary to Canon 6. It should be noted that Canon 5, as it presently exists, restricts and prohibits the acceptance of certain gifts. This provision is not applicable to other public officials.

With reference to financial disclosure if the judge chooses the limited disclosure alternative available under the provision of Article II, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, without the inclusion of the judge’s Federal Income Tax Return, then the judge must file with the Commission a list of the names of corporations or other business entities in which the judge has a financial interest even though the amount is less than $1,000. This information remains confidential until a request is made by a party to a cause before the judge. This latter provision continues to ensure that complete financial information for all judicial officers is available with the Judicial Qualifications Commission and that parties who are concerned about a judge’s possible financial interest have a means of obtaining that information as it pertains to a particular cause before the judge.

Canon 6D. Section 3E requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge has an economic interest. See “economic interest” as explained in the Definitions Section. Canon 5D requires a judge to refrain from engaging in business and from financial activities that might interfere with the impartial performance of judicial duties; Section 6B requires a judge to report all compensation the judge received for activities outside judicial office. A judge has the rights of any other citizen, including the right to privacy of the judge’s financial affairs, except to the extent that limitations established by law are required to safeguard the proper performance of the judge’s duties.

[Commentary amended Jan. 10, 2002 (816 So. 2d 1084); May 18, 2017 effective Jan. 1, 2017 (218 So. 3d 432); May 10, 2018 (242 So. 3d 319).]