Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/98418560/COMPLAINT-FL-Justices-File-Stamp-Final-6-25-12
Timestamp: 2016-09-01 06:32:19
Document Index: 158564866

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 105', '§ 105', '§ 119', '§ 119']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more/IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA
BERNARD LONG and VERONICa L. "RON" FLORES Plaintiffs,
KENNETH DETZNER in his official capacity as Florida Secretary of State, R. FRED LEWIS, individually, BARBARA J. PARIENTE, individually, and PEGGY A. QUINCE, individually, Defendants. ------------------------~/
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, BERNARD LONG and VERONICO L. "RON" fLORES, sue Defendants, KENNETH DETZNER in his official capacity as Florida Secretary of State, R. FRED LEWIS, individually, BARBARA J. PARIENTE, individually, and PEGGY A. QUINCE, individually, for declaratory and injunctive relief and allege as follows: 1. This is a lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant
Kenneth Detzner from placing R. Fred Lewis, Barbara J. Pariente, and Peggy A. Quince (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Justices"), on the November 6,2012, ballot for merit retention election. As described in more detail below, the Justices failed to lawfully qualify for election during the statutory qualifying period, and they have otherwise failed to substantially comply with Florida election law governing candidate qualifying. The Justices' certifications and sworn qualifying oaths were prepared and filed by state employees during working hours in violation of Section 106.15(3), Florida Statutes, and the documents include incomplete and false responses in violation of Section 817.155, Florida Statutes and Section 837.06, Florida Statutes.
THE PARTIES 2. PlaintiffBemard Long is a resident of Lee County, Florida. PlaintiffVeronico L.
"Ron" Flores is a resident of Seminole County, Florida. 3. Defendant Kenneth Detzner ("Detzner") is the Florida Secretary of State. As the
head of the Florida Department of State, Defendant Detzner is responsible for certifying to the County Supervisors of Elections the names of candidates for merit retention election who have qualified for placement on the general election ballot. 4. Defendant R. Fred Lewis ("Lewis") is a resident of Leon County, Florida, and
holds the office of Justice of the Florida Supreme Court 5. Defendant Barbara J. Pariente ("Pariente"), is a resident of Palm Beach County,
Florida, and holds the office of Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. 6. Defendant Peggy A. Quince ("Quince"), is a resident of Leon County, Florida,
and holds the office of Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. JURISDICTION, 7. This Court has jurisdiction VENUE, AND STANDING over this matter pursuant to Article V, Section 5(b) of This Court has jurisdiction to
the Florida Constitution and Section 86,011, Florida Statutes.
grant injunctive relief pursuant to Article V, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution 26.012(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 1.610, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. 9. electors. THE FLORIDA MERIT RETENTION 10. ELECTION QUALIFYING
Venue is proper in Leon County pursuant to Section 47.011, Florida Statutes. Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as citizens, taxpayers, and Florida
PROCESS merit
Florida Supreme Court Justices are subject to a constitutionally-mandated
retention election every six years. Retention requires a majority vote. Fla. Const. Art. V, § 10. 2
Justices Lewis, Pariente, and Quince are each currently serving the final year of
their respective six year tenus, and therefore, the Justices are subject to merit retention election on November 6,2012, provided they qualify for placement on the ballot in the manner prescribed by law. Fla. Const. Art. V. § 10; Fla. Stat. § 105.031. 12. Pursuant to Section 105.031, Florida Statutes; the Justices were required to file with the Division of Elections no later
certain items (hereinafter; the "Campaign Documents")
than noon on Friday, April 20; 2012, to qualify for placement on the November ballot. 13. The Campaign Documents include, without limitation, a Judicial Loyalty Oath
and full and complete financial disclosures by each Justice. 14. The Code of Judicial Conduct further provides that Judges and Justices subject to campaign activity unless
merit retention election are prohibited from engaging in conventional
and until they draw active opposition and file a letter with the Florida Department of State; Division of Elections certifying that "the judge's candidacy has drawn active opposition."
Canon 7.C.(2), Code of Judicial Conduct. See Florida Bar's "Judicial Merit Retention FAQ," attached hereto as Exhibit "A." THE JUSTICES VIOLATED SECTION 106.15(3), FLORIDA STATUTES, AND COULD NOT HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE MERIT RETENTION BALLOT WITHOUT VIOLATING THAT STATUTE 15. At approximately 10:00 a.m., on April 20, 2012, the Justices, along with the other The
sitting members ofthe Florida Supreme Court, began hearing oral arguments in a case.
Justices were apparently unaware that the law required them to file Judicial Loyalty Oaths and financial disclosure forms by the statutory deadline of noon, April 20, 2012. 16. The attorney for the Justices' merit retention campaigns was also oblivious to the
approaching deadline until he received a telephone call alerting him ofthe situation at approximately 10:06 a.m. on Apri120, 2012.
17. Administrator.
The Justices' campaign attorney subsequently contacted the State Courts The attorney requested that the Administrator assist the Justices' campaigns by
interrupting the Florida Supreme Court proceedings
in order to convene an "emergency"
campaign meeting in the Courthouse, for the purpose of preparing Campaign Documents to be executed by the Justices, while the ongoing proceedings were suspended.
See the Justices'
respective Campaign Documents, attached hereto as Exhibits "B," "C," and "D." 18. The State Courts Administrator directed the Clerk of the Supreme Court to notify requiring a recess of the court hearing. The
the Chief Justice of an unspecified "emergency"
Clerk obliged by passing a note to Chief Justice Canady. See Handwritten Note from Thomas D. Hall, attached hereto as Exhibit "E." 19. Just prior to 11 :00 a.m., the Chief Justice announced that the Court would take a
ten minute recess. 20. While the litigants, their attorneys, numerous State of Florida employees, and
others waited in the courtroom, the Justices prepared their Campaign Documents for more than an hour. 21. The delay caused by the Justices cost Florida taxpayers thousands of dollars in
additional legal fees for private outside counsel who were forced to wait while the Justices worked on their Campaign Documents. Upon information and belief, the Justices' campaigns
have not reimbursed the State of Florida or any private litigants for their costs and expenses caused by the delay. 22. Upon information and belief, three judicial employees ofthe State Court System
who also report directly to the Justices were directed by the Justices to assist in the preparation of the Campaign Documents, including notarizing signatures on some of the forms. See Article,
"Did Supreme Court Justices Break:State Law on Election Paperwork?" attached hereto as Exhibit "F." 23. Florida law and Supreme Court procedures do not permit members of the general
public to interrupt court proceedings for the purpose of using court system personnel to notarize personal or campaign materials. The Justices' use of court system personnel in this manner was unlawful. Fla. Stat. 106.15(3). 24. Upon information and belief, at least one Justice's required paperwork was filed
with the Division of Elections by a law clerk who is a state employee. Ex. F. 25. The Justices' Campaign Documents were prepared in violation of section 106.15;
Florida Statutes, which provides in relevant part that "[a J candidate may not, in the furtherance of his or her candidacy for nomination or election to public office in any election, use the services of any state; county, municipal; or district officer or employee during working hours." 26. Upon information and belief, but for the Justices' use of state employees' services
during working hours in furtherance of their campaigns by requiring the employees to notarize or file their Campaign Documents, Defendant Detzner would not have qualified them for placement on the merit retention ballot. THE JUSTICES VIOLATED SECTION 817.155, FLORIDA STATUTES AND COULD NOT HAVE QUALIFED FOR THE MERIT RETENTION BALLOT WITHOUT VIOLATING THAT STATUTE 27. Upon information and belief, the Justices' Campaign Documents contain false
and incomplete information including, without limitation; the following: (A) Justice Lewis's false statement of net worth on Financial
Disclosure Form 6 (Ex. B); (B) Justice Lewis's failure to report the value of certain assets on Financial Disclosure Form 6 (Ex. B);
Justice Quince's failure to report the value of gifts she accepted, which are subject to mandatory gift disclosure (Ex. D);
Justice Quince's failure to complete a section of the Judicial Loyalty Oath requiring the phonetic spelling of the candidate's name for use on the audio ballot for the hearing impaired (Ex. D); and,
Justice Quince's failure to provide her actual Voter ID Number on the Judicial Loyalty Oath form and listing an incorrect, unknown number instead. Ex. D.
The Justices' certifications in their Campaign Documents of "active opposition" appear to be false, and therefore, the Justices' campaign activities are a direct violation of Canon 7.C. of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which all candidates for judicial office, including incumbents, are required to read and understand in order to qualify for placement on the ballot. Fla. Stat. § 105.031(5).
The Justices' Campaign Documents were prepared in violation of Section
817.155, Florida Statutes, which provides in relevant part that "[aJ person may not, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of State, knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal a material fact, make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, or make or use any false document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry." 29. Upon information and belief, but for the Justices' use of false and or incomplete
information to remit their Campaign Documents to the Secretary of State for qualifying,
Defendant Detzner would not have qualified them for placement on the merit retention election ballot. THE JUSTICES VIOLATED SECTION 837.06, FLORIDA STATUTES AND COULD NOT HA VB QUALIFIED FOR THE MERIT RETENTION BALLOT WITHOUT VIOLATING THAT STATUTE 30. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 27 through
29 above as if fully set forth herein. 31. The Justices' Campaign Documents were prepared in violation of Section 837.06,
Florida Statutes, which provides in relevant part that "[ w]hoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor 32. of the second degree ... " of his or her
Upon information and belief, but for the Justices' use of false and or incomplete
information to remit their Campaign Documents to the Secretary of State for qualifying, Defendant Detzner would not have qualified them for placement on the merit retention election ballot. THE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT RESPONDED VALID PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS 33. On June 5, 2012, Southeastern Legal Foundation, TO
Inc. ("SLF") submitted requests
for public records pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 119.07 to the Department of State, to Chief Justice Canady, and to Justices Lewis, Pariente, and Quince. See, electronic public records requests
dated June 5,2012, attached hereto as Exhibit "G." 34. The June 5 requests sought "any document, correspondence, memorandum, or
other writing identifying or alleging any individual or entity actively opposing the merit retention election of any Florida Supreme Court Justice" January 1, 2011, and June 6,2012. Ex. G. which was "created, sent, or received" between
On June 8,2012, SLF re-submitted the June 5 request to the Division of
Elections, a subdivision of the Department of State. See electronic public records request dated June 8, 2012, attached hereto as Exhibit "H." 36. On June 12,2012, SLF submitted a request for public records, pursuant to Fla.
Stat. § 119.07, to the Division of Elections seeking "any document, correspondence, memorandum, or other writing, whether in print or electronic form, which identifies, alleges, investigates, announces, or is otherwise relevant to the disqualification of any candidate far public office since 2002 due to deficiencies, mistakes, or omissions for which the Division of Elections declined to approve the candidacy." See electronic public records requests dated June 12,2012, attached hereto as Exhibit "(,, 37. Because the Defendants have not produced any information that could resolve the
question of the Justices' eligibility and qualification for placement on the 2012 merit retention ballot, there is doubt or uncertainty as to the propriety of Secretary Detzner's placement of the Justices on the ballot for merit retention election. Plaintiffs, as Florida taxpayers, citizens, and electors have a right to know whether the Justices should not have been qualified for placement on the merit retention ballot in November, and to seek a declaration that they are ineligible for the ballot if no documentation exists to establish that their candidacies are proper and lawful. ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 86. FLORIDA STATUTES 38. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
35 above as if fully set forth herein. 39. Section 817.561, Florida Statutes, provides that "the jurisdiction of courts of
equity within their respective judicial circuits to enjoin or obtain other equitable relief' is available under Chapter 817, Florida Statutes.
The Justices failed to substantially comply with Florida law in their attempt to
qualify for election. The Justices' multiple failures to comply with Florida law governing the candidate qualifying process include, without limitation, the following: (1) the Justices' violation of section 106.15, Florida Statutes by using the services of court system employees during working hours in furtherance of their campaigns and candidacies; (2) the Justices' violation of 817.155, Florida Statutes, and 837.06, Florida Statutes, by making false representations to the Secretary of State in their Campaign Documents; (3) the Justices' failure to make full and complete financial disclosure as required by Article II, Section 8 of the Florida Constitution; and (4) the Justices' omissions and use of false information <ontheir Judicial Qualifying Oaths. 41. Despite the Justices' failure to comply with Florida law, the Florida Department
of State, Division of Elections, website indicates that the Justices have properly qualified for placement on the ballot for merit retention election. Therefore, Plaintiffs, as Florida taxpayers, citizens, and electors have a bona fide, actual, present, and practical need for a declaration that the Justices are not eligible for placement on the merit retention ballot in November. In this regard, there is doubt or uncertainty as to the existence of some right, status, immunity, power, or privilege with respect to placement of the Justices on the ballot for merit retention election. 42. It is adverse and antagonistic to the interests of the Plaintiffs and the public to
allow the Justices to violate Florida law in furtherance of their campaigns and still be placed on the merit retention ballot. 43. The Plaintiffs' interests are all before the Court by proper process, and the relief
sought is not merely a request for legal advice. ACTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 44. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through
32 as if fully set forth herein. 9
Section 817.561, Florida Statutes, provides that "the jurisdiction
equity within their respective judicial circuits to enj oin or obtain other equitable relief' is available under Chapter 817, Florida Statutes. 46. There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs will succeed on their claim for actions of the Justices violate the Florida
judgment declaring that the above-described
Constitution, Florida Statutes, and the Code of Judicial Conduct. 47. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendant Detzner will permit the Justices to
remain on the ballot for merit retention election, despite their unlawful actions. 48. By issuing the requested injunction, the Court will be serving the public interest
by protecting the citizens and taxpayers of Florida from the injustice of unqualified candidates for merit retention election on the November ballot. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
(a) Enter an Order declaring that R. Fred Lewis, Barbara J. Pariente, and Peggy A. Quince failed to qualify for merit retention election and are not eligible for placement on the 2012 general election ballot; (b) Enter an Order declaring that Defendant Detzner's identification ofR.
Fred Lewis, Barbara J. Pariente, and Peggy A. Quince on the Division of Elections website as qualified candidates is unconstitutional and
unlawful pursuant to one or more of the following: Fla. Const. Art. V. Section 10; Section 105.031, Florida Statutes; Section 106.15, Florida Statutes; Section 817.155, Florida Statutes; and, Section 837.06,
Florida Statutes; (c) Enter an Order declaring Defendant Detzner's imminently pending
actions in placing R. Fred Lewis, Barbara J. Pariente, and Peggy A. 10
Quince on the ballot, Pariente, and Peggy
or in certifying
R. Fred Lewis, Barbara
A. Quince as qualified for placement on the ballot
and unlawful pursuant to one or more of the
would be unconstitutional following provisions: Florida Statutes;
Fla. Canst. Art. V. Section 10; Section 105.031, 106.15, Florida Statutes; Section 817.155,
Florida Statutes; and, Section 837.06, Florida Statutes; (d) Enjoin Defendant Detzner, and all persons and entities acting under his direction or in concert with him, from certifying
way that R. Fred Lewis, Barbara J. Pariente, and Peggy A. Quince are qualified for placement ballot; and (e) Order such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted this"t on the 2012 general election merit retention
S"day
Eric S. Haug ~ Florida State Bar. No. 850713 ERIC S. HAUG LAW & CONSULTING, Post Office Box 12031 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2031 Telephone No.: (850) 583-1480 Facsimile No.: OF COUNSEL TO: SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, INC. (850) 297-0300
2255 Sewell Mill Road, Suite 320 Marietta, Georgia 30062 Telephone No.: (770) 977 - 2131 Facsimile No.: (770) 977 - 2134
COMPLAINT - FL Justices File Stamp Final 6-25-12 by Michael James51 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionSuit to keep FL Supreme Court Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente, and Peggy Quince off the Nov ballotSuit to keep FL Supreme Court Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente, and Peggy Quince off the Nov ballotInterests: Types, Research, LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less