VOLUSIA EXPOSED

We (VolusiaExposed.Com) would like to advise you of the judge's name - and of the alleged corruption reported - but per the rules of the Judicial Qualifications Commission and the Florida Constitution - we are apparently forbidden to even acknowledge the existence of the complaint. (the particulars of the complaint - the who, what, where & how)

(The above mentioned complaint is NOT regarding the alleged judicial misconduct of Judge Robin Lemonidis that transpired on March 27, 2017 - which is later discussed in this article)

We can tell you this - upon notice by the JQC - the judge DID correct his / her offending behavior. However, the JQC opted NOT to file FORMAL action against the judge - thereby insuring that the complaint never becomes a public record.

In short - if the Florida JQC opts not to file FORMAL charges against the offending judge - the complaint NEVER loses it's confidentiality status.

While we can somewhat appreciate the need for judicial complaints to remain "confidential" during the JQC investigative process - we (VolusiaExposed.Com) believe that upon completion of the investigation - the complaint against the judge should be open to public inspection - regardless if the JQC opts to file formal charges against the judge.

Further - and as noted in our OPEN LETTER (see scroll box to the right -->) to the Florida JQC - we have concerns that the JQC manipulates the complaint process by attaching perpetual confidentiality to viable allegations of judicial corruption - by simply opting not to file FORMAL charges - while steeling themselves (JQC) into a false sense of morality - that they took some type of informal corrective action against the offending judge.

It's our opinion that in many cases - the manipulative actions of the JQC is more contemptuous to the sanctity of the judiciary - then the original misconduct of the offending judge.

The JQC Responds To VolusiaExposed

Recently, Michael Schneider - Executive Director & General Counsel to the Florida JQC sent VolusiaExposed the following reponse to our open letter (see scroll box to the right -->)

Allow us to first focus on Mr. Schneider's statement that - "The judicial disciplinary process is not an appropriate vehicle to collaterally attack court proceeding with which one disagree. The Commission, as well as a judge, should not be influenced in its actions "by partisan interest, public clamor, or fear of criticism"".

In June 2014 - Brevard Judge John C. Murphy was alleged to have physically attacked a public defender during court proceedings. This incident was captured on courtroom video - and that video has been incorporated within this article (see upper right of this web page). Judge Murphy then immediately violated the United States Constitution by proceeding with the criminal defendants' court proceedings without their attorneys being present.

This incident - and the supportive video - cause MUCH public clamor and criticism worldwide. Eventually, the Florida JQC filed FORMAL CHARGES against Judge Murphy.

With the filing of FORMAL CHARGES - the JQC and Supreme Court case / records regarding Judge John C. Murphy became public record - and is currently available for review at this web link (Click Here).

A few months ago (Summer 2017) - one of our VolusiaExposed representatives engaged Alex Williams - the Assistant General Counsel to Florida's JQC in a telephone conversation regarding the functionality of the JQC. During this telephone conversation, Mr. Williams used the disciplinary action applied against Judge Murphy as his example of how the JQC effectively stamps out judicial corruption. Judge Murphy was removed from the bench by the Florida Supreme Court, but not per the recommendation of the JQC.

But here is the truth of the matter surrounding Judge Murphy. The JQC had ONLY recommended the following regarding Judge Murphy's misconduct - a public reprimand - 120 day suspension - paying a $50,000 fine - and continuing mental health therapy. Click here to read the JQC recommendation.

As per the linked Supreme Court decision - the Florida Supreme Court rejected the JQC recommendation - and removed Judge Murphy from the bench.

Therefore, absent the JQC filing of "formal charges" - thus opening the complaint to a review by the Florida Supreme Court - Judge John C. Murphy would most likely still be on the Brevard County bench.

According to a December 2015 report filed by the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA) to the Florida Legislature - the Florida Supreme Court rejected several of the JQC's disciplinary recommendations - mostly applying a more severe sanction than what was recommended by the JQC.

This OPPAGA report also indicates that the JQC receive approximately 600-700 judicial misconduct complaints a year - with ONLY about 4 to 9 of these complaints becoming FORMAL complaints filed by the JQC. Remember - without a complaint rising to the level of a "FORMAL COMPLAINT" - the complaint NEVERS loses it's "confidentiality" - thus never becoming a public record. The OPPAGA report also presented other criticisms / questions regarding the JQC process.

So - in any given year - somewhere near 600+ JQC complaints will NEVER become known to the public. Based solely on the decisions of a Judicial Qualifications Commission that the current Florida Supreme Court has on several occassions found to be too lenient. Think on that for a moment - and see if it keeps you up late at night.

Are VolusiaExposed.Com's
JQC Criticisms Fair?

In our OPEN LETTER to JQC Director Michael Schneider - we were very critical regarding our suspicions that the JQC has manipulated the JQC disciplinary process in order not to file "formal charges" against judges - thus avoiding a Supreme Court review of the alleged judicial misconduct.

We will NOW add these following suspicions - first, we highly suspect that complaints filed by judges and attorneys carry more weight with the JQC - than complaints filed by your average non-legal citizen(s). There is no way to confirm this suspicion - due to the confidentiality issues attached to the JQC investigative process - and how convenient is that to the administration of the JQC?

Second, regardless of Mr. Schneider's assurances - we HIGHLY suspect that the JQC are influenced by "partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism". Imagine this - lets say that Judge Murphy's video triade was never picked up by the local professional media - therefore - it (video triade) never came to the attention of the worldwide media. Do you imagine that the JQC would have filed "formal charges" against Judge Murphy? We submit the opinion that the trirade would have been handled "informally" and Judge Murphy would still be on the bench today.(The video of Judge Murphy's triade is available for review - see upper right of this web article)

In support of our opinion - we now offer for your review the March 27, 2017 video triade of Brevard County Judge Robin Lemonidis. This video triade NEVER was published by the professional media - never made the world wide media. Only a few small local web based media outlets published anything regarding this judicial triade. (The video of Judge Lemonidis' triade is available for review - see upper right of this web article)

Now - we challenge our readers to review Judge Lemonidis' judicial rant against a member of the public - and two of our representatives. Our representatives were merely taking press notes - something the Court administration had told us in advance that we could do. The United States Constitution instills everyone charged with a criminal offense - with the right to a public trial - and further grants our country with the well founded priniciple of the freedom of the press. Apparently, on that particular day - in that particular Brevard County courtroom - these constitutional principles did not exist ---- at least in the mind of Judge Robin Lemonidis.

When Judge Lemonidis was sworn in - she sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. So - the question may be just this simple - when a judge ignores constitutional principles - does that conduct equate to judicial misconduct? And shouldn't the public be notified?