| Crossing the Law: In a Judicial Race? |
|
|
| Wednesday, 16 August 2006 | |
|
When electing public officials to office, what do we, the voting public, have a right to expect from the candidates campaigning for those offices? First and foremost we expect honesty. Additionally, we expect the candidates to speak the truth and to play by the rules set forth in election law. Are we ever let down? Sure we are. But we shouldn't let these disappointments lower our expectations that these candidates will follow the law. And those expectations should be even more magnified when it is a lawyer who is running for a judicial seat, for it is lawyers that are supposed to have a much greater knowledge of the law than the average individual. Just this week the Jacksonville Fraternal Order of Police endorsed McCaulie. We wonder if there was any real investigation into matters such as this or if it was just a case of McCaulie being a little better networked with the boys in blue? We don't know that much about Wilenski right now, but we haven't been able to find an instance of him utilizing illegal contribution money to get himself elected. Our campaign contributions laws are in place for a reason. To produce a money trail and to prevent questionable behavior such as this. Again, it is all the more disturbing when it is a student of the law who is crossing the very laws that candidate purports he or she is running to uphold. |
August 17, 2006, 1:05 pm
Response
Cameron,
The problem I have with this is that Dan Wilensky (who I personally like and am considering voting for) always seems to be crying about the alleged misconduct of his opponents. He ended up suing Judge Gooding after losing to him in the last election (a lawsuit which I believe was dismissed) and now he is leveling charges against Teresa McCaulie. I think there are positive reasons why Wilensky should be elected and some reasons why McCaulie should not be (i.e. she has never been in private practice and her husband is a judge). The bottom line is it makes it looks like he always has sour grapes. Let me offer a bit of advice. Campaign on positives like Wilensky's ties to Jacksonville and his long experience in private practice and with mediation rather than trying to tear down his opponents. I think you will find this tactic far more helpful.
Gator
P.S. Do you also go by pluribus in the forums?
August 17, 2006, 1:28 pm
Mr. Wilensky did sue Judge Gooding, the case was dismissed and Mr. Wilensky paid Judge Gooding's legal fees.
Now Mr. Wilensky wants us all to believe that somehow, someway he is again being dealt a bad hand through no fault of his own. The truth is that when Mrs. McCaulie held the above mentioned event, according to the Florida Divison of Elections, she had more than enough to cover the event expenses.
Mr. Wilensky has hired a campaign consultant well known for his down and dirty smeer campaigns. It is a shame that he has chosen to do so and makes me question his judgement.
August 17, 2006, 1:33 pm
Set the record straight
Polzzter,
There is a clear difference, concerning the timing of PAYING FOR a campaign event and THE ACTUAL OCCURENCE of the event. The law states that the funds must be in the candidate's account at the TIME OF PURCHASE. This is where the law was broken. So, again, we have to ask, where did this money come from to pay for the kick-off party?
Riverside Gator,
Some good points you have made - and quite a few that I am not in a position to dispute. But what is a "pluribus" in the forums?
August 17, 2006, 1:38 pm
Please check your facts on this, it appears that you have your dates wrong.
August 17, 2006, 2:04 pm
Double-checked
Date of purchase is June 6, 2006. On this day, candidate Thereasa McCaulie had $1,500.00 in her campaign account. Also on this day, a vendor received a check for well over $3,000.00 for McCaulie's kick-off party. You seem somewhat knowledgeable about the situation. Do you have other facts? Please share if possible.
Go here for supporting documentation:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/CandHtml.exe?account=42679&elecid=20061107-GEN
August 17, 2006, 2:15 pm
another violation?
Actually Polzzter, I now wonder if there have been 2 violations of state election law. Upon more in-depth viewing of the link I posted a few minutes ago, I now see that under the "Expenditures" category on this site, the purchase in question is actually not even being reported by McCaulie. Again, do you have any further insight into the situation?
August 17, 2006, 4:10 pm
I think the event you are referring to was in mid July not June.
August 17, 2006, 4:54 pm
the facts...
Yeah, my last comment was supposed to read "July" instead of "June". Still, it doesn't matter if the event actually took place Thanksgiving Day, the following facts remain:
1) The kick-off event was paid for on July 6th.
2) The amount paid on July 6th well exceeded $3,000.
3) On July 6th, the campaign account of Terri McCaulie showed a balance of $1,500, therefore there is no way McCaulie could've covered this expense out of her campaign account.
4) Number 3 is illegal.
5) As of today, McCaulie is yet to report this expenditure accurately in her campaign finance reporting to the state.
6) Number 5 is illegal.
Do you dispute any of these facts?
August 17, 2006, 5:00 pm
Cameron,
Even assuming all of this is true, it looks like an honest (and trivial) mistake. I think attempting to create a tempest out of a teapot really makes your candidate look petty. Do you really think this will decide the election?
Gator
August 17, 2006, 6:17 pm
I agree with you Gator. These are the types of things you see from candidates that don't think they can win. After rereading the Times Union article about this race I can see why he would be so nervous. Wilensky was denied appointment to the bench by both Chiles and Bush. He then ran for office and was denied election by the voters. Then he sued his opponent and his case was dismissed with prejiduce by the judge who also ruled that he should pay the defendents legal fees.
Now he wants us to believe that he is a "changed man" and has the temprement to be a judge.
It's really quite sad when you stop to think about it. Sometimes its best to just accept your lot in life and move on.
August 17, 2006, 6:44 pm
Four years ago I supported Dan. It is because of silly little complaints like the one that Cameron is alleging that I am not this time.
He really does not have much of a campaign. All he has is the money his daddy left him and nothing else. All of the major organizations and players in this city are endorsing McCaulie. She is beating him at every turn and he should lose by a bigger margin than he did last time. I suppose he will find a reason to sue her also. Had he only hired a different person to run his race, people would have gotten behind him. Instead he brought in the same team that lost it for him the last time and therefore no one believes he can win.
August 17, 2006, 6:45 pm
Clarification...
For the record, we, as an organization do not endorse a candidate. I may individually. But if that is the case, it is my responsibility to state such. In this case, the fact is that I know very little (actually, nothing-save the information from the comments related to this article) about Wilensky. That being true, it would be quite difficult for me to back him over his opponent. For these reasons, I am not doing that.
And, RiversideGator. Is it really a trivial matter? Unaccounted for funds are financing part of a candidate's campaign for office and that is trivial? I believe much more trivial matters have been hinge points in legal cases.
All this aside, the point appears to be being missed. The point of the article is not "Vote for Wilensky, not McCaulie!" Rather, it is that our candidates for public office have a high responsibility to obey the laws of the campaign. When a candidate doesn't, no matter who it is, it would be irresponsible for us to not examine that.
Back to a personal note, regarding "just accept your lot in life" (forgetting who it may or may not relate to in the original comment by ClydeC).
----------------
"He failed in business in '31. He was defeated for state legislator in '32.He tried another business in '33. It failed. His fiancee died in '35. He had a nervous breakdown in '36. In '43 he ran for congress and was defeated. He tried again in '48 and was defeated again. He tried running for the Senate in '55. He lost. The next year he ran for Vice President and lost. In '59 he ran for the Senate again and was defeated. In 1860, the man who signed his name A. Lincoln, was elected the 16th President of the United States. The difference between history's boldest accomplishments and its most staggering failures is often, simply, the diligent will to persevere."
-----------------
August 17, 2006, 6:51 pm
What is your organization?
August 17, 2006, 7:52 pm
our organization...
Metro Jacksonville, Inc. You can check us out at www DOT metrojacksonville DOT com
August 18, 2006, 7:38 am
Daytona takes election law seriously
Daytona Mayor fined for violation...
jacksonvilleDOTcom/apnews/stories/081806/D8JIN7SO0.shtml
August 18, 2006, 2:33 pm
A good man harmed
I think the bigger issue is what happened to poor Judge David Gooding. I followed this case because I couldn't believe all this crap was going on in a judicial election. (Aren't these guys supposed to be boring?)
Wilensky isn't at fault... he was wronged, but so was Judge Gooding. Gooding was almost kicked off the bench. He is a good christian but he followed the wrong man. Bert Ralston's middle name should be dirty tricks. This guy almost ruined the Gooding name. (Did anyone know that Gooding's father was also a judge.) Anyway, Ralston should have been the one who was punished. He is the worst that political operatives have to offer. And check this out.. the chick running against Wilensky this time, hired Ralston. So it's dirty politics all the way around.
August 20, 2006, 11:35 pm
"a political" the bigger issue is that Mr. Wilensky has been deemed unqualified to sit on the bench by two different Governors of this state and also by the voters.
He applied for a Duval County judgeship two separate times and was passed over for a more qualified candidate. He then applied for circuit appointment two times and again was passed over for a more qualified candidate. He then ran one of the vilest campaigns in the history of Jacksonville politics and lost to a more qualified candidate.
Five different times he has sought to become a judge and five different times he has been rejected. Some of his oldest friends and supporters are now discussing the desperation that is showing on his face as once again he appears to be setting upon a very negative and desperate course in his campaign.
After Wilensky lost four years ago, he sued Judge Gooding in civil court. The case was dismissed and Wilensky was ordered to pay Gooding's legal fees. Wilensky then sought relief through the Florida Supreme Court leveling 18 separate charges against Gooding. Sixteen of those charges, the ones relating to specific tactics used by Gooding (and presumably suggested by Ralston) were dismissed. Gooding was found to have violated two minor book keeping issues and paid a small fine. He was never in danger of being removed from the bench. Anyone who would suggest otherwise either does not understand the ruling or has an agenda fulfilled by spreading misinformation.
Mr. Wilensky has spent the past four years spreading his fantasy that he somehow would have won had Gooding not "smeared" him. The truth is quite the opposite. Mr. Wilensky attempted to fraudulently portray himself to the voters. When that fraud was exposed by, Wilensky cried foul. First to the voters and then in court. First the voters and then the courts deemed Gooding’s campaign messages to be both fair, but more importantly accurate.
Mr. Wilensky’s paid advisors are now trying to perpetuate those same tired myths that Wilensky would have won, had Gooding not hired such a mean campaign advisor. No one is fooled by this. In fact, every major organization that endorsed Wilensky four years ago is endorsing his current opponent.
Mr. Wilensky has hired the same campaign team that he had four years ago. This team has the reputation of running cookie cutter campaigns that are uninspiring and lack creativity. They tend to be lazy contentious and at least ten years behind the cutting edge of political tactics and strategy. When their same old cookie cutter campaigns begin to lose they resort to nasty whisper campaigns and flat out distortion in an attempt to win.
This is the same team that after Wilensky lost, blamed the loss on his mental instability rather than their own incompetence and laziness. They have a reputation for over charging for mediocre work.
They are the same people that most likely are clogging this and other boards trying to trash their competition instead of doing what they should to win the campaigns they are involved in.
August 20, 2006, 11:41 pm
Some things
Let's see. Wilensky sued before the election even happened. It was for libel and slander.
Wilensky probably didnt get appointed because he probably didnt know people who have dinner with the governor.
And his opponent last time got more than a slap on the wrist, which really was probably the fault of the person who ran the campaign. As for groups endorsing Wilensky's opponent now... isn't he facing someone who's husband is a judge. Doesn't that reek of politics. Trying to make the husband happy by supporting the wife?
August 21, 2006, 7:27 am
Nice try. Wilensky filed a law suit four days before election day, had a press conference announcing the lawsuit and then failed to show up at his own press conference, chosing instead to hide behind his attorneys and his daughter. This tactic was characterized in the media as a "stunt." He withdrew the same lawsuit the day after he lost the election.
He filed a second lawsuit the day Gooding was sworn in as judge, a rather petulent act if there ever was one. This lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and Wilensky paid Gooding's legal fees.
He was not appointed four different times by two different Governors (one from each party by the way) because he lacks any real, relevent experience in the courtroom. It was not about dinner dates or thank you cards, just experience. He then claimed he was not appointed because he was not "politically connected."
Goodings admonishment was just that. A monentary fine with a promise to never do it again.
Your argument that groups not endorsing Wilensky is all political is silly. Four years ago, Wilensky told anyone that would listen that these endorsements were the most important part of his campaign. He put leaders from these groups in his television, radio and print advertising as a way to try and convince voters that he was qualified to serve. Now when these groups, the one's that know him the best, reject him for a more qualified candidate, your team screams "Oh no! There's politics in a campaign!"
Silly beyond explanation.
August 21, 2006, 9:28 am
LegalGuy is correct. Those that practice law in a courtroom understand that Mr. Wilensky was never and still is not fully conversent in the rules that govern the process of a trial.
He is a fine mediator. But there is a distinct diference between the skills needed to mediate a divorce and those needed to over see a trial. Especially when someones life could hang in the balance as the result of precedural decisions made by the presiding judge.
Wilensky is a pleasant enough fellow. Being pleassnt is quite helpful when you are trying to help a couple settle contentious issues as they disolve a marriage. Being pleasant is not enough to qualify you to serve as a judge. Real courtroom experience is what we should demand from our judicial candidates. Both Governors Chiles and Bush understood this when they were making their appointments and that is why they chose someone other than Wilensky.
August 23, 2006, 1:47 pm
David Gooding - Fact
Here is the actual public repremand by the Chief Judge of Florida's Supreme Court. Anyone calling this a slap on the wrist doesn't value personal integrity:
THESE CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS ILLUSTRATE THE POTEN TIAL PITFALLS OF OUR SYS TEM OF CONTESTED ELECTIONS FOR POSITIONS IN OUR T RIAL COURTS. WE WILL N EVER K NO W WH ETHER YOUR ELECTION VIOL ATIONS CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF YOUR CAMPAIGN TO BE COME A JUDGE , BUT THE FACT THAT YOU COMMITTED ELECTION VIOLATIONS WHILE CAMPAIGNINGTO BECOME A JUDGE , IS MISCONDUCT THAT THIS COURT DOES NO T AND WILL NOT TOLERATE. AN ELECTION FOR A JUDG ESHIP IS NOT JUST LI KE AN ORDINARY ELECTION IN SO MA NY WA YS. AND, OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW THE ENDS CAN NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS , AND THIS IS ESPECIALLY SO WHEN LAWYERS SEEK TO BE ELECTED TO THE POSITION OF JUDGE. UNFORTUNATE LY, THE V ERY PRACTICE OF ELECTING JUDGES HAS THE POTENTIAL TO UNDERMINE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE IMPA RTIAL JUDICIARY . YET IN THIS STATE , WE P RIDEOURSELVES ON BEING A BLE TO MAINTAIN A SYSTEM OF ELECTED AND APPOINTED JUDGES, TRIAL JUDGES, WHILE STILL DEMANDING THAT THOSE W HOSEEK ELECTION FOR JUDGES CONDUCT THEMSELVES WITH DIGNITY AND RE SPECT FOR THE POSITION THEY ARE SE EKING . AT THE VERY L EAST , WE MUST EXPECT AND DE MAND S T RICT ADHERENCE TO THE ELECTION STATUTES AND RE QUIRE JUD GETO SAY VIOLATE THESE STATUTES TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR MISC ONDUCT . THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SY STEM REQUIRES AN INDEPENDENT , IMPARTIAL AND COMPETENT JUDICIARY TO UP HOLD THE RULE OF LAW. THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE PUBLIC'S TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY, ARE OBLIGATIONS OF ALL JUDGES , WHE THER ELECTED OR PO INTED . AND THAT IS WHY CANON ONE, THE VERY FIRST CODE OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT, REQUI RES JUDGES TO UPHOLD THE HI GHEST STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, SO THAT THE INTEGRITY AND IND EPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY MAY BE PRESERVED, AND CANON TWO REQUIRES JUDGES, B OTH T O RESPECT AND COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND TO ACT A T ALL TIMES IN A MANNER THAT PRO MOTES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY. YOU VIOLATED BO TH OF THESE CANONS. OF COURSE, WHEN A JUDGE, THROUGH HIS MISCONDUCT , VIOLATES THAT TRUST , HE OR SHE IS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SUFFERS THE CONSEQUENCES . THE EN TIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS HARMED BY THE BRE ACH . ALTHOUGH THE HARM CAUSED BY YOUR MISCONDUCT CAN NOT BE UNDONE , AND THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION HAS NOT RECOMMENDED YOUR REMOVAL , WE HO PE THAT , THROUGH THIS PUBLIC PROCEEDING, WHICH IS BROADCAST LIVE AND ON THE INTERNET, WE CAN AS SURE THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE , THAT THIS COURT TA KES THE MISCONDUCT OF JUDGES PARTICULARLY MISCONDUCT RELATED TO ELECTION VIOLATIONS , VERY SERIOUSLY . JUDGE GOODING, TO YOUR CREDIT, YOU HAVE, BOTH , ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCE PTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS MISCONDUCT, AND YOU HAVE EXPRESSED RE GRET FOR YOUR ACTIONS. WE EXPECT THAT, IN THE FUTURE, THAT YOU WILL GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO YOUR ETHIC AMAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS A -- ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS A JUDGE AND THE NEGA TIVE IMPACT YOUR ACTIONS HAVE HAD , NOT ONLY ON YOU BUT O N THE JUDICIARY AS A WHO LE. FURTHER, WE AD VISE YOU T O REMEMBER THAT THIS COURT WILL TREAT A SECOND ETHICAL BREACH FAR MORE SEVERELY . JUDGE GOODING , YOUR PUBLIC REPRIMAND IS NOW CONCLUDED, AND YOU MAY LEAVE.
see: http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/transcript/04-133.htm
August 23, 2006, 2:08 pm
So HAS Judge Gooding "given serious" to his ethical responsibilities?
Now that he's on the bench, can we just chalk up his election indescretion to an oversealous political advisor, or does he suffer some moral mality?
Quote from Financial News and Daily Record, "Since Gooding took the bench in 2003, he has effectively cut through much of the red tape that bogged down the adoption process and has seen a 300- to 400-percent increase in the finalization of local adoptions."
How has he been so successful? He has limited representation of parents whose rights are being terminated to two court appointed attorneys who have each make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in appointment fees. these two court appointed attorneys rarely win. Gooding refuses to open up the appointments to many other qualified attorneys wanting to repesent indigent clients.
BUT, what do we do with all those children who beome parent-less in this efficient judicial machine? How about paying the same lawyer that LOST the parent's rights to handle the adoption of the newly created orphan? Yep, that's a fact. Where is the incentive to successfully defeat the claims of DCF if the lawyer makes more money IF HE LOSES? This is the most bastardized injustice ever witnessed. Gooding has personally presided over hundreds of adoptions where the conflict of interest is obvious, and he knows it.
The scuttlebutt is that there is currently an ongoing investigation in the clerks office, but the results will probably be quietly swept under the judicial robe.
THAT is why he is "the adoption judge."
August 24, 2006, 10:10 pm
Thank you for posting that Jax_LawGuy, it certainly puts truth to the lie that Gooding "was almost kicked off the bench" as a political has been arguing.
In the last half of your post the Supremes state, "THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION HAS NOT RECOMMENDED YOUR REMOVAL." For those on this board that are not familiar with the process, the JQC makes a recomendation and the Fl Supreme Court acts upon those recomendations either affirming or not. Secondly it is important to read through to the end where the Supremes state, "YOUR PUBLIC REPRIMAND IS NOW CONCLUDED." Not, "we almost threw you off the bench", not "damn you ran a nasty campaign and should be ashamed of yourself." Merely, "Were done, go home."
Perhaps a bit of perspective is necessary here. The Florida Supreme Court did remove someone from the bench recently, I've provided a link, http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/search.shtml , to anyone interested in seeing what it takes to be removed from the bench in this state. For those that take the time to read the ruling on Renke they will see that what Gooding did hardly came close.
As an interesting side note, in the election cycle in which Gooding was elected eight other candidates who were elected judge committed the same errors that Gooding did. One can assume that their defeated opponents were much more gracious than Mr. Wilensky was as no complaints were filed.
August 24, 2006, 10:32 pm
Actually Factmaster we cannot chalk it up to an overzealous campaign advisor as consultants rarely if ever keep the books. As stated before, Goodings mistake was a bookeeping error not anything to do with the messaging he laid out during his campaign.
August 24, 2006, 10:49 pm
Here is what the St. Pete Times had to say about the Renke decision, note that he is the first judge ever removed SOLEY for campaign violations.
"......Among the "flagrant misrepresentations" of the campaign, the court said: a brochure that falsely portrayed Renke as an incumbent judge with the slogan "a Judge With Our Values," and Renke's claim that he had "almost eight years of experience handling complex civil trials in many areas" when the court found he had "little or no actual" courtroom experience.
"In essence, Judge Renke and his cohorts created a fictitious candidate, funded his candidacy in violation of Florida's election laws and successfully perpetrated a fraud on the electorate in securing the candidate's election," the court said May 25.
"I'm sure it's terrible for him," Tozian said. But "Knowing it's coming and it happening are two different things. I'm sure he's tremendously disappointed."
Renke drew his annual $139,497 salary while his last-ditch appeal was before the court. He was removed from the state payroll at midnight Monday.
He is the 16th judge removed from the Florida bench since 1970. He is the first jurist removed solely for campaign violations. Renke also was ordered to pay $8,209.68 for document costs from his prosecution.
The Judicial Qualifications Commission, which investigated and prosecuted Renke, only wanted him fined, suspended and reprimanded. The Florida Supreme Court went beyond that, and JQC executive director Brooke Kennerly said that should send a clear message to judicial candidates this election season.
"I think the court is saying that these cases have to be above and beyond," she said. "You can't skirt the law. The canons are the canons. You have to abide by them.
"Hopefully this will help this upcoming election."
After reading this it is clear that a political and the rest have a vested interest in making the Wilensky loss look like something other than the ineptitude of his advisors and the lack of qualifications of Mr. Wilensky.
August 26, 2006, 4:06 pm
Look at today's candidates...not the past
It is nice to talk about the past, hind sight is 20/20 and blah blah blah. We have an election coming up in just about 2 weeks. There is at least one candidate that has a history which the public MUST know! All of the information provided herein has been provided to the Florida Times Union who, for whatever reason, has not chosen to use it when writing about the election. Further, ALL of the following infomation IS public record at the Duval County Clerk of the Court's office or website.
A candidate for the County Judge's race in Duval County, Seat 17, Kevin Shaun Sanders, has more experience in the courtroom then the other 3 candidates....but it ain't the kind of experience we want as a judge!
1. Kevin Sanders has been arrested (judgment and sentence public record, Duval County case number 1994-2814 CF which runs concurrent with case number 93-10955 CF- those are felony case numbers which were reduced to a misdemeanor when entered a plea of Nolo Contendre).
2. Kevin Sanders has a $4,351.40 Tax Lien imposed against him dated July 1, 2006 for failure to pay Unemployment Taxes from 2001 through 2006 (the tax is about $100.00 per quarter but the interest and penalties have added up).
3. Kevin Sanders has sued numerous clients and received money judgments for amounts as little as $300.00. He has even garnished bank accounts of the debtors' children grabbing less then $15.00 from the children's accounts. (See Final Judgment of Garnishment, case number 94-01708-SP division B, Duval County)
4. Kevin Sanders has been PERSONALLY found by the Honorable Charles O. Mitchell to (a) not act in good faith; (b) unreasonably delayed preceedings; (c) acting in his own interest IN SPITE of his client's interest (all to get money for himself); and (d) committed unauthorized acts. Kevin Sanders, personally and through his corporation, was ordered to pay attorney's fees to the opposing party. (See Order Awarding Attorney's Fees, case number 00-2210 CA, division CV-F, Duval County).
5. Kevin Sanders sued a woman (presumably a woman he once resided with although that is only based on the context of the order and not a known fact) to get back personal belongings including but NOT limited to pearls, earrings, a ceiling fan, under garment, sleepware and Epping Forest Yacht Club parking sticker (see Final Judgment, case number 90-10277 CA Division K, Duval County). He then took the same lady back to court to get more items back from her and a money judgment against her in an additional amount of $9,196.00 (he already had a judgment against her for more than $20,000.00 in the prior judgment) AND to get an order that said, and I quote directly from the order that is public record "The Defendant (that is the lady) shall not oppose the sealing of the records regarding the charges Defendant (the lady) filed against the Plaintiff (that is Sanders) with the Sheriff's Department and the State Attorney's Office." The last part of this sentence was stricken from the order which read "and the Plaintiff (that is Sanders) shall be able to move the Court at anytime to have these records sealed and expunged." Please note--- this 1990 case number was PRIOR to the two criminal case numbers I provided above.
Ooooo, there is more. Much more. It will take you hours to look over all of the PUBLIC RECORDS regarding Kevin Schaun Saunders. Look for yourself. Be informed. Tell everyone you know. Is this really the "experience" you want on the bench making decisions about your life or the life of your family?
What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
- Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
- Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
- Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
>> Register now <<