Judicial Qualifications Commission Archives - SaintPetersBlog

Judicial ethics watchdog could suffer in fight for independent Florida courts

Is Florida’s judicial ethics commission about to become collateral damage in a battle over the independence of the courts?

House Speaker Richard Corcoran, the Land O’Lakes Republican, appears to have targeted the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) along with the courts themselves in his campaign to curb the independence of the judiciary.

The JQC and the Supreme Court had not concluded an ethics case against Circuit Judge Mark Hulsey III of Jacksonville when Corcoran scheduled an impeachment hearing a month ago. The judge resigned.

Such intervention in an ongoing JQC matter was an event with scant precedent. Since the agency was established in 1966, there have been only three instances among more than 200 known cases, and none was exactly comparable.

— In 1975, the House held impeachment hearings on three justices after the Supreme Court had rejected the JQC’s recommendation to remove two of them for ethical violations. Two of the three, Hal P. Dekle and David L. McCain, resigned.

— In 1978, the House impeached and the Senate removed Circuit Judge Samuel S. Smith of Lake City despite his attempt to resign after his federal conviction for conspiracy to sell 1,500 pounds of seized marijuana. Gov. Reubin Askew called for the impeachment to make sure that Smith could never hold office again or collect a pension.

— In 2003, legislators dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s reprimand of a Pinellas-Pasco circuit judge, as recommended by the JQC, threatened to impeach him and he resigned. The judge, Charles W. Cope, was accused of conduct unbecoming a judge for drunken behavior at an out-of-state conference.

The case against Hulsey, who was accused of racist and sexist comments from the bench, had not progressed nearly as far.

Asked for comment on that point, Corcoran’s spokesman, Fred Piccolo, said in an email:

“In this case, the JQC had all the information we had and still delayed. The Speaker believed taxpayers should not be paying a judge like Mr. Hulsey at all, let alone to not hear cases. The Speaker had every confidence that the Judge’s conduct warranted impeachment

” I can say with confidence that this Speaker will not hesitate to use impeachment to remove officers of the government who abuse their office.”

At that point, however, the JQC’s formal case against Hulsey was only five months old. According to the Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the average JQC proceeding takes 13 months from the receipt of a complaint to the filing of a disciplinary recommendation with the Supreme Court.

Last week, one of Corcoran’s House committees took on the court itself with criticism for a JQC case that has been awaiting the court’s decision for more than a year, an uncommonly long time. It consists primarily of alleged ethical violations as a lawyer and judicial candidate on the part of Circuit Judge Andrew Decker of Live Oak.

The Public Integrity and Ethics Committee gave no warning to Decker or his attorney, who knew nothing about the meeting until it had been held. The agenda noted only that there would be a report on an unspecified JQC case.

That was a far cry from fair. The chairman, Yahala Republican Larry Metz, was quoted as saying the judge wasn’t invited because “we’re not voting on anything.”

The JQC was created in 1966 to provide a more efficient alternative to impeachment for judges accused of misconduct. Two legislative impeachment efforts had failed.

Though the agency got off to a slow start, it turned aggressive under the chairmanship of Richard T. Earle Jr., a St. Petersburg attorney, who fearlessly pursued corruption on the Supreme Court itself.

Since inception, the JQC has now filed formal charges against more than 200 judges.

When it gets to that point, it rarely ends well for the judge. Of the 206 known cases, by my count, 77 — more than a third — ended with the judge off the bench: 19 removed for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, 25 resignations, 4 election defeats, 4 forsaken re-election campaigns, 21 enforced retirements for various disabilities, and 4 under threatened or actual impeachment.

Most of the rest were publicly reprimanded by the court, some also with fines and suspensions. The reprimands, almost always administered in person in public sessions of the court, are meant to be humbling, even humiliating, and the cases become everlasting records. Only seven cases have ever been formally dismissed. Four, including Decker’s, are pending.

So, from what we know, the JQC has been doing a good job — to hear some judges, too good a job.

It’s what we don’t know that may be a problem. The Constitution makes all JQC proceedings confidential until the agency files formal charges. That means no acknowledgment, much less an explanation, for any of the many complaints it dismisses.

According to its most recent report, the JQC received nearly 800 complaints in fiscal 2015 and summarily dismissed about 570 of them. Only 10 proceeded to formal charges.

“A great majority of complaints,” the report said, are about nothing more than dissatisfaction with the outcomes of cases and “that is the province of the appellate courts.” The JQC’s constitutional jurisdiction is limited to conduct that “demonstrates a present unfitness to hold office.”

But as OPPAGA remarked in a January 2015 report, the confidentiality rule left it unable “to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Commission processes, as well as the consistency of its decisions and actions.

“The Commission documents we were unable to review included complaints screened out by staff, cases dismissed by the commission either summarily or after investigation, and letters of private admonishment. In addition … we were not permitted to attend investigative panel meetings,” the report said.

The case for confidentiality is this: Judges don’t deserve to be embarrassed by publicity about unfounded complaints.

But I don’t buy that. The facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. Judges should accept that as a consequence of public office.

When the Constitution Revision Commission meets, it should provide for eventual disclosure of every complaint to the JQC — not necessarily at the outset, but once it has been either dismissed or moved further along. That’s something that Corcoran’s nine appointees could insist upon without harming the courts.

The public’s trust is something to be earned, not assumed.

___

Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the Tampa Bay Times. He lives in Asheville, North Carolina.

House panel takes on impeachment power, local government ethics reforms

A new House panel on Tuesday moved two measures aimed at tightening ethics requirements at the local government level.

The Public Integrity and Ethics Commitee, chaired by Yalaha Republican Larry Metz, OK’d proposals (PCB PIE 17-03, PCB PIE 17-04) that would increase local officials’ financial disclosure, clamp down on potential conflicts of interest and create a Local Government Lobbyist Registration Trust Fund.

Moreover, the committee continues to show an interest in the House possibly exercising its constitutionally-granted impeachment power. Metz had revealed last month he was looking into articles of impeachment against a Jacksonville judge before he quit the bench.

His committee also on Tuesday heard a case study of a trial judge under investigation for three years for alleged attorney-ethical lapses before he became a judge. That’s despite a rule of judicial administration that encourages matters to be resolved within 180 days.

Some members expressed surprise that 3rd Circuit Judge Andrew Decker was still sitting on the bench with his ethics case pending. The Florida Supreme Court has had the case for 13 months without taking final action, records show.

Metz admitted, however, that the House can only act on “misdemeanors that occur in office,” not on earlier behavior.

One representative, Republican Randy Fine of Brevard County, was concerned Decker had not been made aware he was going to be used as an example.

“It does trouble me we don’t at least them know we’re going to be laying out all the bad things they’ve done,” he said. 

Metz said Decker has been investigated by the Judicial Qualifications Commission, specially charged to look into claims of judicial misconduct.

“Their scope is different than ours … (but) it’s our duty to shine light on this,” Metz said. “We’re sort of parallel-tracking it.”

The committee previously moved a bill to increase the ban on former lawmakers and statewide elected officers lobbying their colleagues after leaving office from two years to six years by way of a constitutional amendment.

Broward judge to be publicly reprimanded Feb. 7

The Florida Supreme Court on Monday “commanded” a Broward judge to come to Tallahassee Feb. 7 for a public reprimand.

Circuit Judge John Patrick Contini also must write a letter of apology, undergo judicial mentoring, complete a mental health program, and pay administrative costs, according to a court order.

He was brought up on judicial misconduct charges last year.

Contini was accused of sending a document on how to argue for lesser sentences to an assistant public defender without giving a copy to prosecutors. Contini himself is a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney.

When prosecutors sought to disqualify him from pending criminal cases because of an appearance of bias, he rejected the request and lashed out against them, making “disparaging, demeaning remarks,” an investigative report says.

They included his wanting to “spank” and “ream out” the lawyers who sought to disqualify him. Contini later admitted he “‘lost it’ in court, ‘overreacted,’ ‘personified incivility,’ and had ‘no excuse’ for his comments.”

A Judicial Qualifications Commission panel noted that “Contini was a new judge, who … made a series of significant missteps.” It also said he “immediately accepted responsibility for his conduct, expressed sincere remorse, and apologized.”

The Supreme Court, however, noted that his “conduct was as improper as it was rude.”

Though he’s practiced law for 31 years, Contini was only elected judge in 2014 and on the bench since January 2015, the report says. He was given a hefty docket of more than 1,000 cases.

jacksonville judge accused of calling female attorney “c-word” (no, not counselor)

A Jacksonville judge now faces judicial misconduct proceedings for reportedly making racially-biased and other derogatory comments off the bench, among other charges.

They include referring to a woman attorney by using a vulgar term for female genitalia.

The state’s Judicial Qualifications Commission filed its notice of formal charges against Circuit Judge Mark Hulsey III on Wednesday. The commission investigates misconduct accusations against judges; the Florida Supreme Court disciplines them.

Hulsey, son of the late Jacksonville legal legend Mark Hulsey Jr., also was charged with mistreating courthouse staff attorneys and his judicial assistant. In all, he faces 14 violations of Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

“You have been discourteous and condescending to your staff, you have expressed unnecessary criticism of staff attorneys, and in doing so, used language inappropriate for your judicial office,” the JQC’s filing says.

A group of Jacksonville pastors already has called for Hulsey to resign, referring to an alleged 2011 remark to a staff attorney that African-Americans “should go get back on a ship and go back to Africa.”

“You have also exploited your judicial assistant to the extent that she felt compelled to perform personal tasks, such as paying your personal bills, writing letters, and making personal phone calls on your behalf,” the filing says.

Moreover, after a training on post-conviction motions, he handed his instructional materials to the same assistant and told her to “read it and figure it out.”

Hulsey also is charged with overworking one staff attorney, who told her supervisor. That resulted in the circuit’s chief judge admonishing him to “stop overusing the staff attorneys.”

“It was this action that prompted you to refer to the staff attorney supervisor as a ‘bitch’ and ‘c–t’ in a conversation with a third party,” the JQC report says.

After the JQC started an investigation, he “confronted” his judicial assistant over “her apparent refusal to say what you wanted,” the report adds. “Your conduct represents an interference with the JQC’s inquiry process….”

Hulsey has 20 days to file a written response to the charges. Michael Tanner, Hulsey’s attorney, was not immediately available at his law office Wednesday morning.

Hulsey was in private practice before being elected to the circuit bench in 2010. He is up for re-election this year; circuit judges serve six-year terms. Among their many duties, circuit judges handle felonies, civil matters worth more than $15,000, juvenile and estate cases.

Hulsey’s father was the 1969-70 president of The Florida Bar and once served as chairman of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the same body now investigating his son and one the elder Hulsey “pushed to create while state bar president,” according to his 2011 Times-Union obituary.

Supreme Court could reprimand judge over “undignified conduct”

The Florida Supreme Court is signaling it agrees with the proposed punishment for a Broward judge.

A panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission had recommended a public reprimand, mentoring and stress management classes after Circuit Judge John Patrick Contini was brought up on judicial conduct charges last year.

The court issued an order to Contini on Monday “to show cause, on or before July 5, why the recommended action should not be granted.”

He was accused of sending a document on how to argue for lesser sentences to an assistant public defender without giving a copy to prosecutors. Contini himself is a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney.

When they sought to disqualify him from pending criminal cases because of an appearance of bias, he rejected the request and lashed out against them, making “disparaging, demeaning remarks,” a JQC report says.

Contini later admitted making an “improper communication,” and “exhibiting discourteous, impatient, undignified conduct.”

He only challenged “the propriety of his ruling on the State’s disqualification motion, and the appropriate discipline.”

Though he’s practiced law for 31 years, Contini was only elected judge in 2014 and on the bench since January 2015, the report says. He was assigned felony matters and given a hefty docket of more than 1,000 cases.

After the document incident, he brushed aside as “legally insufficient” a request to disqualify himself, the report says.

After his decision was appealed, Contini admitted he “‘lost it’ in court, ‘overreacted,’ ‘personified incivility,’ and had ‘no excuse’ for his comments.”

They included referring to a “disingenuous prosecutor” whom he believed compiled a list of cases from which he should be disqualified.

He further called the “absolutely fraudulent” list “unethical, it’s misleading, it’s disingenuous, it’s a fraud on the court, it’s a lie from the pit (of) hell.”

He was transferred to family court, where he remains.

The JQC panel noted that “Contini was a new judge, who … made a series of significant missteps.”

It also said he “immediately accepted responsibility for his conduct, expressed sincere remorse, and apologized.”

Martin Dyckman: Pam Bondi’s mess too pungent to ignore

Assume that Pam Bondi were a judge. That’s a dismal prospect but bear with it.

Assume further that she asked for a campaign contribution from a big shot businessman who was being sued in her court — and that after getting the money, she dismissed the case.

If she was a judge, instead of Florida’s attorney general, she could be kicked out of office simply for asking anyone for a campaign contribution, even without a pending case being involved.

The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct clearly bans personal solicitation by judges. Surprising many, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that rule last year.

With a case involved, she’d be an even bigger target for the Judicial Qualifications Commission and for impeachment — and perhaps also for a grand jury …

The Florida Attorney General is more than just another lawyer. If the odor reeking out of Bondi’s office means anything, it’s that the AG should have to follow the same ethical code that judges must.

The imaginary case I described is an analogy to Bondi’s conduct with respect to Donald Trump and the yuuuuge consumer scam known as Trump University.

Florida complaints against Trump University were pending in her office — the question is, how many — and the office supposedly was considering whether to join a New York Attorney General’s investigation, Bondi personally solicited a $25,000 campaign contribution from Trump. The eventual decision was to let her New York counterpart go it alone.

A committee backing Pam Bondi’s re-election received $25,000 from a Trump Foundation on Sept. 17, 2013, four days after it was announced that the office was considering whether to join the New York probe.

After the check came in, Bondi — or someone — decided against the investigation.

While her campaign mouthpiece admits she personally asked Trump for the money, he denies that she was aware that many Floridians had complained to her office about the so-called “university.”

If you have been following the news from San Diego, Trump University is a big, big deal. The documents unsealed in a lawsuit there depict it as a bait-and-switch racket. People flocking for advice from expert teachers supposedly chosen by the master himself were high-pressured to spend thousands more dollars on higher levels of questionably valued instruction.

The federal judge in the case, Gonzalo Curiel, is the one Trump has been attacking over his Mexican ancestry, with a venom that is repelling even supporters like House Speaker Paul Ryan.

As Sen. Lindsey Graham put it, there’s been nothing so outrageous since Joe McCarthy.

But I digress. The issue of the moment is Bondi.

As I said, she’s not just another lawyer. Her public duty is vastly greater than simply representing state agencies in court and fending off criminal appeals.

She also has an explicit responsibility to represent the public under Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices law, also known as the Little FTC Act. The law, proposed by Gov. Reubin Askew and passed over intense opposition in 1973, was one of the great reforms — and one of the few still standing — of what’s called the Golden Age of the Florida Legislature

What it says is that when the attorney general finds some business dealing down and dirty, he — or she — sues on the public’s behalf.

Bondi’s predecessors used the law to great effect.

A lawyer from Boston has filed complaints against Bondi with the Commission on Ethics, the Elections Commission and the Florida Bar. The Bar complaint may be the most significant. A lawyer owes an undivided loyalty to her client. If the public is considered her client, Bondi had no business accepting, let alone soliciting, a contribution from Trump.

But the Bar complaint is unlikely to go anywhere, at least not while Bondi remains in office. The Florida Supreme Court ruled long ago that the Bar, whose ultimate penalty is disbarment, cannot take action against a constitutional officer who must be a lawyer — judge or attorney general — to hold the office. It would amount to an impeachment proceeding, which is solely the business of the Legislature.

The House should be considering impeachment, right now. But don’t hold your breath. The prospect of that intensely politicized body targeting anyone from the majority party is remote at best.

For perspective, consider what happened in 1973 when the media caught the lieutenant governor, Tom Adams, using a state employee from the Commerce Department to run Adams’s private farm not far from Tallahassee.

Although he was a Democrat, the Democratic leaders of the House of Representatives went right after him with impeachment hearings. The money misspent at the farm wasn’t great, but the principle was, as the leaders saw it.

It took intense lobbying by Askew to deflect the likely impeachment into an essentially meaningless vote of censure instead. He also canned Adams as commerce secretary and dropped him from his 1974 re-election ticket.

What Adams did was petty graft, but it was not such a fundamental betrayal of his office and his duties as it would be for an attorney general to nix a well-founded investigation in exchange for a campaign contribution.

I’m not saying that’s what she did. She denies it. However glaring the circumstantial evidence, it doesn’t prove there was a quid pro quo. It doesn’t prove what she knew about Trump University or when she knew it.

Those are, however, questions that beg to be pursued by people with the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence.

This latest mess in Bondi’s office is too pungent to be ignored.

___

Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the newspaper now known as the Tampa Bay Times. He lives in Asheville, North Carolina.

Judicial panel recommends judge’s suspension for impairment

A Florida judicial panel is recommending that a Miami-Dade County judge be suspended from the bench because of evidence she was impaired at a restaurant and at work.

The Judicial Qualifications Commission panel made the recommendation Monday pending the outcome of Judge Jacqueline Schwartz‘s case. The Florida Supreme Court must decide whether to approve the recommendation.

An investigation found that Schwartz appeared to be impaired on March 18 at a Coconut Grove restaurant, where witnesses said she berated waiters and called police “pigs.” The probe also found on March 28 Schwartz was impaired on the bench to the point where her bailiff had to drive her home.

Schwartz attributed her behavior to a new prescription medication, not alcohol.

Schwartz was previously suspended and fined $10,000 for swearing at a store clerk.

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.

Judge who took Rays tickets from law firm quits bench

The Bradenton trial judge who accepted baseball tickets from a law firm representing a woman whose personal injury case he was presiding over has resigned from the bench.

Lakin
Lakin

Circuit Judge John F. Lakin resigned Monday from the 12th Judicial Circuit. It serves DeSoto, Manatee and Sarasota counties. The news was first reported Thursday by Law360.

Lakin, elected in 2012, was facing a judicial conduct inquiry by the state’s Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), which said he demonstrated “a present unfitness to serve.” Because he quit, the state dismissed the case.

In an answer to the charges filed Feb. 5, Lakin admitted what he did, but apologized and said he “had no wrongful intent.”

“As a relatively new judge, he was not as familiar with the (rules of judicial conduct) as he could have been,” his answer said. Lakin is a former legal analyst for Court TV and MSNBC and a past “Florida Super Lawyer.”

He thought he would just list the tickets on his yearly financial disclosure form and “did not appreciate that his use of the tickets would adversely reflect on the judiciary and the administration of justice.”

The JQC said Lakin called the plaintiff’s law firm and asked for tickets for a Tampa Bay Rays and Boston Red Sox game a day after the verdict in the case. A jury had found Walmart not responsible for the woman’s injuries.

“Despite the fact that the case was not yet final, and you expected that there would be post-trial motions requiring your adjudication, you failed to advise Walmart’s counsel of your contact with the Plaintiff’s law firm,” the report said.

The lawyers later asked for the verdict to be set aside and for a new trial. Lakin considered the motion but did not immediately rule on it, according to the JQC report.

He did ask for and got more baseball tickets from the firm, it added. Afterward, Lakin set aside the jury’s verdict and granted a new trial.

“Your extraordinary action allowed the Plaintiff a second opportunity to seek damages from Walmart,” the JQC report said. “You have acknowledged that during your tenure on the bench you have never before overturned a jury verdict.”

In all, he asked for and got five tickets to four separate Major League Baseball games, “all while the case was pending, and without ever disclosing this fact to the counsel for Walmart,” the report said.

“The tickets you received were excellent seats, being located seven to eight rows back, between home plate and first base,” it added. “They each had a face value of approximately $100.”

Judicial conduct panel charges Bradenton judge over Rays baseball tickets

A Bradenton trial judge was charged Monday with accepting baseball tickets from a law firm representing a woman whose personal injury case he was presiding over.

Circuit Judge John F. Lakin was accused of violating the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct by the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC), which said he demonstrated “a present unfitness to serve.” The JQC investigates allegations of judicial misconduct.

Lakin called Kallins, Little & Delgado, the plaintiff’s law firm, and asked for tickets for a Tampa Bay Rays and Boston Red Sox game a day after the verdict in the case, the JQC report said. A jury had found Walmart not responsible for the woman’s injuries.

“Despite the fact that the case was not yet final, and you expected that there would be post-trial motions requiring your adjudication, you failed to advise Walmart’s counsel of your contact with the Plaintiff’s law firm,” the report said.

The lawyers later asked for the verdict to be set aside and for a new trial. Lakin considered the motion but did not immediately rule on it, according to the report.

He did ask for and got more baseball tickets from the firm, it added. Afterward, Lakin set aside the jury’s verdict and granted a new trial.

“Your extraordinary action allowed the Plaintiff a second opportunity to seek damages from Walmart,” the JQC report said. “You have acknowledged that during your tenure on the bench you have never before overturned a jury verdict.”

He was elected in 2012 to the 12th Judicial Circuit that serves DeSoto, Manatee and Sarasota counties.

“In total, you requested and received five tickets to four separate Major League Baseball games from the Plaintiff’s attorneys, all while the case was pending, and without ever disclosing this fact to the counsel for Walmart,” the report said.

“The tickets you received were excellent seats, being located seven to eight rows back, between home plate and first base,” it added. “They each had a face value of approximately $100.”

Lakin, a former legal analyst for Court TV and MSNBC and a past “Florida Super Lawyer,” has not yet responded to the report, court dockets show.

Judicial campaign conduct forums scheduled May 6-7

When it comes to elections, judgeships are never “politics as usual.” Thanks to a special set of ethics rules called Canon 7 of Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct, candidates for judicial office must abide by the strictest standards imposed in any type of election.

As candidates are reminded by Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince, “Public respect and confidence are so essential to a judge’s role that they are woven into the selection of judges through the electoral process. The Florida Supreme Court has adopted rules that govern judicial elections and prohibit conduct that would undercut public confidence in our justice system. Together with the Judicial Qualifications Commission and The Florida Bar, we vigorously enforce these rules.”

The standards governing judicial elections will be explained to candidates, campaign managers, the news media, and others in a series of forums designed to raise awareness of Canon 7. The forums are being organized by the Florida Supreme Court and The Florida Bar Board of Governors in conjunction with the Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee and the state’s trial court chief judges. The ninety-minute forums are scheduled at 1:00 p.m. local time (with four exceptions noted below), Thursday and Friday, May 6 – 7, in all circuits in which there will be contested judicial elections. Forums in the First, Third, and Fifteenth Circuits are scheduled for 1:30 p.m. local time. The forum in the Eighth Circuit is scheduled for 9 a.m. local time.

Chief judges will open the forums with brief remarks stressing the nonpartisan character of judicial races, then present a videotaped introduction by the Chief Justice. Representatives of The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors will speak briefly regarding the Bar’s role in judicial elections. Florida’s Division of Elections has prepared helpful information about Florida’s election laws which will also be presented. Members of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee will then provide a summary review of Canon 7, call attention to informational resources, and further impress upon candidates, campaign staff, and others in the community the seriousness with which the Supreme Court views any abuse of the election process.

The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is charged with rendering advisory opinions interpreting the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct to specific circumstances confronting or affecting judges and judicial candidates. The committee’s elections booklet, “An Aid to Understanding Canon 7,” will be distributed at all forums, first to candidates and campaign managers, then to others as available. An online version of the Canon 7 booklet may be accessed on the Supreme Court’s website at www.floridasupremecourt.org, by first selecting Public Information, then, under Court Documents, scrolling down to Judicial Conduct.

All judicial candidates, including those who may anticipate running for potential new judgeships, and their campaign managers are encouraged to attend the forums in their respective circuits. Invitations have also been extended to local bar association presidents, state and county political party chairs, and the media. All forums are open to the public.

Sixth –Pasco and Pinellas Counties
Thursday, May 6
Criminal Justice Center
First Floor Conference Room
14250 49th Street North

Thirteenth –Hillsborough County
Friday, May 7
Edgecomb Courthouse
800 E. Twiggs Street
Judicial Conference Room, 6th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Clearwater, FL

Show Buttons
Hide Buttons