Filing 10068919 Electronically Filed 02102014 091750 AM

RECEIVED 2102014 091843 John A Tomasino Clerk Supreme Court

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SC13-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

JUDGE WATSONS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MAYANNE DOWNS ESQ THE HONORABLE KERRY I EVANDER THE HONORABLE

ROBERT MORRIS AND MICHAEL NACHWALTER ESQ

Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission

Rules (FJQCR) Judge Laura M Watson files this Motion and Suggestion to

Disqualify the following Hearing Panel members Mayanne Downs (Downs)

Esq The Honorable Kerry I Evander (Evander) The Honorable Robert Morris

(Morris) and Michael Nachwalter (Nachwalter) Esq In support of this

motion Judge Watson has provided her own affidavit and affidavits of two

reputable citizens of the State of Florida not kin to the judge or the judges

attorney supporting in substance the facts in the motion as required by Rule 25

FJQCRi

At this point it is unclear if the JQC is operating under the Published 1998 Rules as reported in In re Rules of Fla Judicial Qualifications Commission 719 So2d 858 (Fla 1998) or the Unpublished JQC Rules which recently appeared on the JQC website and proposed at SC11-1897 In re Amendments to The Florida

1

i

Notwithstanding the demonstrably false allegations of conduct against

Judge Watson and Judge Watsons former law firm from over ten (10) years ago

that are contained in the Notice of Formal Charges a circuit court judge is a

constitutional officer duly elected with a property right in the office and entitled

to the constitutional guarantees of substantive and procedural due process and

equal treatment under the law pursuant to the state and federal constitutions

The Rules of the JQC provide for disqualification of a Hearing Panel

member whose impartiality may be questioned whenever a judge fears the judge

will not receive a fair hearing before the Hearing Panel against the judgeand the

facts stated as the basis for making the affidavit shall be supported in substance by

affidavit of at least two reputable citizens of the State of Florida not kin to the

judge or the judges attorney Rule 25(a) FJQCR Upon the filing of the

appropriate affidavits the motion will be granted

On February 7 2014 Judge Watson filed suit against Downs Evander

Morris and Nachwalter in both their official and individual capacities in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida case number 14shy

60306-CV-CookeTurnoff Because this suit seeks monetary damages against

them based upon their conduct and action in this JQC action they have both a

Judicial Qualifications Commission vs Rules which have not received a citation from the Southern Reporter

financial and personal interest in the outcome of the JQC Final Hearing In the

United States District Court case Judge Watson filed a Verified Complaint for

Declaratory Judgment Injunctive Relief and Damages and Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction and

Incorporated Memorandum of Law For purposes of this motion Judge Watson

adopts in its entirety these filings from the United States District Court Case

which are attached to Judge Watsons February 7 2014 Motion for an Injunction

or to Stay the Final Hearing filed in this case

Importantly in the District Court case Judge Watson seeks a declaration

that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter have acted without jurisdiction

andor that their actions violate the Procedural Due Process Clause and the

Substantive Due Process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US

Constitution and amongst other relief punitive damages against Downs Evander

Morris and Nachwalter for abuse of process

As detailed in the Verified Complaint the complainantwitness Larry

Stewart (Stewart) exchanged emails with Special Counsel Miles McGrane

(McGrane) which reveal that the JQC has been used for an illegal improper or

perverted use of process both in the Investigative Panel process and again in the

Hearing Panel process to attempt to recover Stewarts sought restitution against

3

Judge Watson personally for which he is not entitled under the law Legal malice

on the part of the named Defendants against Judge Watson is both presumed and

established because the JQCs processes have been used for an improper purpose

As a direct and proximate cause of Downs Evander Morris and

Nachwalters actions Judge Watson has suffered and will continue to suffer

irreparable harm Such harm includes the damage and continued damage to her

reputation and the imminent threat of loss of her constitutional property rights in

her judicial office Because of this District Court case Judge Watson fears that she

will not receive a fair hearing before Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter

because of their bias against Judge Watson and because they have a personal

andor financial interest in the outcome of this litigation For these reasons they

should be disqualified In the alternative Judge Watson requests that they

voluntarily recuse themselves

Disqualification is appropriate against Downs Evander Morris and

Nachwaiter because they have a financial andor personal interest in the

outcome of the case

The Supreme Court of the United States held that in determining whether a

judge has a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the case the test is

whether the [] situation is one which would offer a possible temptation to the

4

average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the

defendant or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice clear and true

between the state and the accused Ward v Viage of Monroevie 409 US 57

60 93 SCt 80 34 LED2d 267 (1972)2 citing Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510 47

S Ct 437 444-445 71 LEd 749 (1972) Accord Pinardi v State 718 So2d

242 244 (Fla 5th DCA 1998) The Court found that allowing a biased judge to

preside over the proceedings is a structural error ie a fundamental defect in the

trial and is a denial of due process Tumey at 445 The Unites States Supreme Court

made it clear that such unfairness cannot be corrected on appeal Ward at 84

There is an obvious tension between Judge Watson and the individuals she

sued Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter There is clearly and incentive to

rule one way or the other in an attempt to influence the outcome of this case and

thereby possibly limit their personal financial exposure in the United States District

Court case It is difficult to imagine a more pointed example of a situation wherein

the tribunal presiding over the Final Hearing has a more direct pecuniary andor

personal interest in the outcome of the case than the case at bar

2 The United States Supreme Court ruled that the mayor acting as a judge in those cases had a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case against the defendant because in Ward the revenue produced from the mayors court helped the municipality In Ward the Supreme Court applied these principles to ensure the neutrality of a quasi- judicial tribunal Id

WHEREFORE Judge Watson for the reasons set forth above respectfully

requests that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter be disqualified as they have

a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case are prejudice against Judge

Watson and because Judge Watson has a reasonable fear that she will not receive a

fair hearing before these individuals In the alternative Judge Watson requests that

Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter voluntarily recuse themselves

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17th JudiCial CirCuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatson l 7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcaranelawcom

lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel 2103 Country

Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134-2128 Miami Florida 333156 Ruben V

6

Notwithstanding the demonstrably false allegations of conduct against

Judge Watson and Judge Watsons former law firm from over ten (10) years ago

that are contained in the Notice of Formal Charges a circuit court judge is a

constitutional officer duly elected with a property right in the office and entitled

to the constitutional guarantees of substantive and procedural due process and

equal treatment under the law pursuant to the state and federal constitutions

The Rules of the JQC provide for disqualification of a Hearing Panel

member whose impartiality may be questioned whenever a judge fears the judge

will not receive a fair hearing before the Hearing Panel against the judgeand the

facts stated as the basis for making the affidavit shall be supported in substance by

affidavit of at least two reputable citizens of the State of Florida not kin to the

judge or the judges attorney Rule 25(a) FJQCR Upon the filing of the

appropriate affidavits the motion will be granted

On February 7 2014 Judge Watson filed suit against Downs Evander

Morris and Nachwalter in both their official and individual capacities in the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida case number 14shy

60306-CV-CookeTurnoff Because this suit seeks monetary damages against

them based upon their conduct and action in this JQC action they have both a

Judicial Qualifications Commission vs Rules which have not received a citation from the Southern Reporter

financial and personal interest in the outcome of the JQC Final Hearing In the

United States District Court case Judge Watson filed a Verified Complaint for

Declaratory Judgment Injunctive Relief and Damages and Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction and

Incorporated Memorandum of Law For purposes of this motion Judge Watson

adopts in its entirety these filings from the United States District Court Case

which are attached to Judge Watsons February 7 2014 Motion for an Injunction

or to Stay the Final Hearing filed in this case

Importantly in the District Court case Judge Watson seeks a declaration

that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter have acted without jurisdiction

andor that their actions violate the Procedural Due Process Clause and the

Substantive Due Process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US

Constitution and amongst other relief punitive damages against Downs Evander

Morris and Nachwalter for abuse of process

As detailed in the Verified Complaint the complainantwitness Larry

Stewart (Stewart) exchanged emails with Special Counsel Miles McGrane

(McGrane) which reveal that the JQC has been used for an illegal improper or

perverted use of process both in the Investigative Panel process and again in the

Hearing Panel process to attempt to recover Stewarts sought restitution against

3

Judge Watson personally for which he is not entitled under the law Legal malice

on the part of the named Defendants against Judge Watson is both presumed and

established because the JQCs processes have been used for an improper purpose

As a direct and proximate cause of Downs Evander Morris and

Nachwalters actions Judge Watson has suffered and will continue to suffer

irreparable harm Such harm includes the damage and continued damage to her

reputation and the imminent threat of loss of her constitutional property rights in

her judicial office Because of this District Court case Judge Watson fears that she

will not receive a fair hearing before Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter

because of their bias against Judge Watson and because they have a personal

andor financial interest in the outcome of this litigation For these reasons they

should be disqualified In the alternative Judge Watson requests that they

voluntarily recuse themselves

Disqualification is appropriate against Downs Evander Morris and

Nachwaiter because they have a financial andor personal interest in the

outcome of the case

The Supreme Court of the United States held that in determining whether a

judge has a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the case the test is

whether the [] situation is one which would offer a possible temptation to the

4

average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the

defendant or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice clear and true

between the state and the accused Ward v Viage of Monroevie 409 US 57

60 93 SCt 80 34 LED2d 267 (1972)2 citing Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510 47

S Ct 437 444-445 71 LEd 749 (1972) Accord Pinardi v State 718 So2d

242 244 (Fla 5th DCA 1998) The Court found that allowing a biased judge to

preside over the proceedings is a structural error ie a fundamental defect in the

trial and is a denial of due process Tumey at 445 The Unites States Supreme Court

made it clear that such unfairness cannot be corrected on appeal Ward at 84

There is an obvious tension between Judge Watson and the individuals she

sued Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter There is clearly and incentive to

rule one way or the other in an attempt to influence the outcome of this case and

thereby possibly limit their personal financial exposure in the United States District

Court case It is difficult to imagine a more pointed example of a situation wherein

the tribunal presiding over the Final Hearing has a more direct pecuniary andor

personal interest in the outcome of the case than the case at bar

2 The United States Supreme Court ruled that the mayor acting as a judge in those cases had a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case against the defendant because in Ward the revenue produced from the mayors court helped the municipality In Ward the Supreme Court applied these principles to ensure the neutrality of a quasi- judicial tribunal Id

WHEREFORE Judge Watson for the reasons set forth above respectfully

requests that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter be disqualified as they have

a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case are prejudice against Judge

Watson and because Judge Watson has a reasonable fear that she will not receive a

fair hearing before these individuals In the alternative Judge Watson requests that

Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter voluntarily recuse themselves

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17th JudiCial CirCuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatson l 7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcaranelawcom

lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel 2103 Country

Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134-2128 Miami Florida 333156 Ruben V

6

financial and personal interest in the outcome of the JQC Final Hearing In the

United States District Court case Judge Watson filed a Verified Complaint for

Declaratory Judgment Injunctive Relief and Damages and Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction and

Incorporated Memorandum of Law For purposes of this motion Judge Watson

adopts in its entirety these filings from the United States District Court Case

which are attached to Judge Watsons February 7 2014 Motion for an Injunction

or to Stay the Final Hearing filed in this case

Importantly in the District Court case Judge Watson seeks a declaration

that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter have acted without jurisdiction

andor that their actions violate the Procedural Due Process Clause and the

Substantive Due Process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US

Constitution and amongst other relief punitive damages against Downs Evander

Morris and Nachwalter for abuse of process

As detailed in the Verified Complaint the complainantwitness Larry

Stewart (Stewart) exchanged emails with Special Counsel Miles McGrane

(McGrane) which reveal that the JQC has been used for an illegal improper or

perverted use of process both in the Investigative Panel process and again in the

Hearing Panel process to attempt to recover Stewarts sought restitution against

3

Judge Watson personally for which he is not entitled under the law Legal malice

on the part of the named Defendants against Judge Watson is both presumed and

established because the JQCs processes have been used for an improper purpose

As a direct and proximate cause of Downs Evander Morris and

Nachwalters actions Judge Watson has suffered and will continue to suffer

irreparable harm Such harm includes the damage and continued damage to her

reputation and the imminent threat of loss of her constitutional property rights in

her judicial office Because of this District Court case Judge Watson fears that she

will not receive a fair hearing before Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter

because of their bias against Judge Watson and because they have a personal

andor financial interest in the outcome of this litigation For these reasons they

should be disqualified In the alternative Judge Watson requests that they

voluntarily recuse themselves

Disqualification is appropriate against Downs Evander Morris and

Nachwaiter because they have a financial andor personal interest in the

outcome of the case

The Supreme Court of the United States held that in determining whether a

judge has a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the case the test is

whether the [] situation is one which would offer a possible temptation to the

4

average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the

defendant or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice clear and true

between the state and the accused Ward v Viage of Monroevie 409 US 57

60 93 SCt 80 34 LED2d 267 (1972)2 citing Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510 47

S Ct 437 444-445 71 LEd 749 (1972) Accord Pinardi v State 718 So2d

242 244 (Fla 5th DCA 1998) The Court found that allowing a biased judge to

preside over the proceedings is a structural error ie a fundamental defect in the

trial and is a denial of due process Tumey at 445 The Unites States Supreme Court

made it clear that such unfairness cannot be corrected on appeal Ward at 84

There is an obvious tension between Judge Watson and the individuals she

sued Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter There is clearly and incentive to

rule one way or the other in an attempt to influence the outcome of this case and

thereby possibly limit their personal financial exposure in the United States District

Court case It is difficult to imagine a more pointed example of a situation wherein

the tribunal presiding over the Final Hearing has a more direct pecuniary andor

personal interest in the outcome of the case than the case at bar

2 The United States Supreme Court ruled that the mayor acting as a judge in those cases had a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case against the defendant because in Ward the revenue produced from the mayors court helped the municipality In Ward the Supreme Court applied these principles to ensure the neutrality of a quasi- judicial tribunal Id

WHEREFORE Judge Watson for the reasons set forth above respectfully

requests that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter be disqualified as they have

a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case are prejudice against Judge

Watson and because Judge Watson has a reasonable fear that she will not receive a

fair hearing before these individuals In the alternative Judge Watson requests that

Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter voluntarily recuse themselves

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17th JudiCial CirCuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatson l 7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcaranelawcom

lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel 2103 Country

Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134-2128 Miami Florida 333156 Ruben V

6

Judge Watson personally for which he is not entitled under the law Legal malice

on the part of the named Defendants against Judge Watson is both presumed and

established because the JQCs processes have been used for an improper purpose

As a direct and proximate cause of Downs Evander Morris and

Nachwalters actions Judge Watson has suffered and will continue to suffer

irreparable harm Such harm includes the damage and continued damage to her

reputation and the imminent threat of loss of her constitutional property rights in

her judicial office Because of this District Court case Judge Watson fears that she

will not receive a fair hearing before Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter

because of their bias against Judge Watson and because they have a personal

andor financial interest in the outcome of this litigation For these reasons they

should be disqualified In the alternative Judge Watson requests that they

voluntarily recuse themselves

Disqualification is appropriate against Downs Evander Morris and

Nachwaiter because they have a financial andor personal interest in the

outcome of the case

The Supreme Court of the United States held that in determining whether a

judge has a financial or personal interest in the outcome of the case the test is

whether the [] situation is one which would offer a possible temptation to the

4

average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the

defendant or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice clear and true

between the state and the accused Ward v Viage of Monroevie 409 US 57

60 93 SCt 80 34 LED2d 267 (1972)2 citing Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510 47

S Ct 437 444-445 71 LEd 749 (1972) Accord Pinardi v State 718 So2d

242 244 (Fla 5th DCA 1998) The Court found that allowing a biased judge to

preside over the proceedings is a structural error ie a fundamental defect in the

trial and is a denial of due process Tumey at 445 The Unites States Supreme Court

made it clear that such unfairness cannot be corrected on appeal Ward at 84

There is an obvious tension between Judge Watson and the individuals she

sued Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter There is clearly and incentive to

rule one way or the other in an attempt to influence the outcome of this case and

thereby possibly limit their personal financial exposure in the United States District

Court case It is difficult to imagine a more pointed example of a situation wherein

the tribunal presiding over the Final Hearing has a more direct pecuniary andor

personal interest in the outcome of the case than the case at bar

2 The United States Supreme Court ruled that the mayor acting as a judge in those cases had a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case against the defendant because in Ward the revenue produced from the mayors court helped the municipality In Ward the Supreme Court applied these principles to ensure the neutrality of a quasi- judicial tribunal Id

WHEREFORE Judge Watson for the reasons set forth above respectfully

requests that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter be disqualified as they have

a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case are prejudice against Judge

Watson and because Judge Watson has a reasonable fear that she will not receive a

fair hearing before these individuals In the alternative Judge Watson requests that

Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter voluntarily recuse themselves

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17th JudiCial CirCuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatson l 7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcaranelawcom

lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel 2103 Country

Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134-2128 Miami Florida 333156 Ruben V

6

average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the

defendant or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice clear and true

between the state and the accused Ward v Viage of Monroevie 409 US 57

60 93 SCt 80 34 LED2d 267 (1972)2 citing Tumey v Ohio 273 US 510 47

S Ct 437 444-445 71 LEd 749 (1972) Accord Pinardi v State 718 So2d

242 244 (Fla 5th DCA 1998) The Court found that allowing a biased judge to

preside over the proceedings is a structural error ie a fundamental defect in the

trial and is a denial of due process Tumey at 445 The Unites States Supreme Court

made it clear that such unfairness cannot be corrected on appeal Ward at 84

There is an obvious tension between Judge Watson and the individuals she

sued Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter There is clearly and incentive to

rule one way or the other in an attempt to influence the outcome of this case and

thereby possibly limit their personal financial exposure in the United States District

Court case It is difficult to imagine a more pointed example of a situation wherein

the tribunal presiding over the Final Hearing has a more direct pecuniary andor

personal interest in the outcome of the case than the case at bar

2 The United States Supreme Court ruled that the mayor acting as a judge in those cases had a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case against the defendant because in Ward the revenue produced from the mayors court helped the municipality In Ward the Supreme Court applied these principles to ensure the neutrality of a quasi- judicial tribunal Id

WHEREFORE Judge Watson for the reasons set forth above respectfully

requests that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter be disqualified as they have

a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case are prejudice against Judge

Watson and because Judge Watson has a reasonable fear that she will not receive a

fair hearing before these individuals In the alternative Judge Watson requests that

Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter voluntarily recuse themselves

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17th JudiCial CirCuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatson l 7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcaranelawcom

lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel 2103 Country

Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134-2128 Miami Florida 333156 Ruben V

6

WHEREFORE Judge Watson for the reasons set forth above respectfully

requests that Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter be disqualified as they have

a direct pecuniary interest in the conclusion of the case are prejudice against Judge

Watson and because Judge Watson has a reasonable fear that she will not receive a

fair hearing before these individuals In the alternative Judge Watson requests that

Downs Evander Morris and Nachwalter voluntarily recuse themselves

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17th JudiCial CirCuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatson l 7thficourtsorg

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON Florida Bar No 476330

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

furnished by email to Miles A McGrane III Esq milesmcaranelawcom

lisamcaranelawcom The McGrane Law Firm Special Counsel 2103 Country

Club Prado Coral Gables Florida 33134-2128 Miami Florida 333156 Ruben V

6

Chavez Esq rchavezchavezpa Law Offices of Ruben V Chavez PA 9100 S

Dadeland Blvd Suite 1510 Miami Florida 33156-7816 Mayanne Downs Esg

mayannedownsgray-robinsoncom GrayRobinson PA 301 E Pine Street FLl4

Orlando FL 32801-2724 Lauri Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom

Counsel to the Hearing Panel of the JQC Ste 1612 9100 South Dadeland

Boulevard Miami Florida 333156 Michael L Schneider Esq

mschneiderfloridaiqccom General Counsel 1110 Thomasville Road

Tallahassee Florida 32303 The Honorable Robert Morris morrisrtlcourtsore

2d District Court of Appeal PO Box 327 Lakeland Florida 33802-0327

Michael Nachwalter Esq mnachwalterknpacom Kenny Nachwalter PA 201 S

Biscayne Blvd Miami Florida 33131-4332 Robert A Sweetapple

Pleadinassweetapplelawcom Co-counsel for Judge Watson 20 SE 3d Street

Boca Raton Florida 33432 this 10th day of February 2014

Pursuant to FJQCR Rule 10(b) a copy is furnished by email to The

Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkOf1courtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S

Beach Street Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

7