Filing 10074832 Electronically Filed 02102014 103612 AM

RECElVED 2102014 103844 John A Tomasino Clerk Supreme Court

BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION STATE OF FLORIDA

SCl3-1333 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE No 12-613

LAURA M WATSON

JUDGE WATSONS MOTION TO EXCLUDE ALL DEPOSITIONS TAKEN IN OTHER ACTIONS AND ALL AFFIDAVITS OR OTHER

DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PROPER AUTHENTICATION AND FOUNDATION PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

COMES NOW Judge Watson and pursuant to Rule 12(a) FRJQC and

moves this Honorable Commission for a ruling excluding all evidence of all

depositions or other testimony in a different proceeding as the Supreme Court has

found it unreliable and all affidavits or other documents without proper

authentication identification and foundation during the trial in that such evidence

does not rise to the standard of preciseness and does not permit cross examination

as required by the due process clause of the Florida and United States Constitution

and such evidence is unreliable and as grounds therefore states as follows

Throughout these proceedings Judge Watson has maintained her

innocence and argued that notwithstanding the demonstrably false allegations in

the Notice of Formal Charges valid concerns exist that go to the heart of

1

fundamental legal issues including but not limited to questions of jurisdiction

procedural and substantive due process rights equal protection etc with respect

to the JCQ pursuing charges from nine years past before Judge Watson ever

considered being a judge and while The Florida Bar had exclusive jurisdiction to

address this matter

The Florida rules of Evidence should be followed the Supreme court case

law which requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the testimony must be

precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts

in issue The Chair however has ruled that these standards nor the standards set

forth in the rules below must be met

Rule 14 requires [alt a hearing before the Hearing Panel legal evidence

only shall be received and oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or

affirmation Rule 14 FJQCR

Rule 15 requires [iln all hearings before the Hearing Panel a judge shall

have the right and reasonable opportunity to defend against the charges by the

introduction of evidence to be represented by attorney(s) and to examine and

cross-examine witnesses The judge shall also have the right to the issuance of

subpoenas for attendance of witnesses to testify or produce books papers and

other evidentiary matter Rule 15 FJQCR

The Chair has ruled that The Florida Rules of Evidence do not apply and

that hearsay is admissible Order on Pending Motions and Status Conference

November 20 2013 This order specifically provides that trial transcripts from ten

years past are admissible to supplant live testimony This is in direct contravention

of the Supreme Courts ruling in In re Amendments to the Fla Evid Code 782

So2d 339 (Fla 2000) wherein the Court declined to adopt a change to the

Evidence Code and permit evidence pursuant to Section 90803(22)

The provision in issue Section 90803(22) would have allowed for the

admission of former testimony in a different proceeding if the persons had

similar interests The significant concerns for not adopting the amendment

include such things as

(1) the amendment violates a defendants constitutional right to confront

adverse witnesses

(2) this expanded former-testimony hearsay exception would result in trial

by deposition thereby precluding the fact-finder from evaluating witness

credibility

(3) the amendment simply strips the section 90804(2) former-testimony

exception of its unavailability requirement thereby making the section 90804

exception obsolete

(4) the amendment is inconsistent with several rules of procedure thereby

causing confusion as to which rule should control and

(5) the expanded hearsay exception will shift expense burdens relating to the

introduction of evidence from the proponent of the testimony to the party against

whom the testimony is being offered who will have to call witnesses in order to

challenge the testimony d at 341

In our system of justice the standard or burden of proof in a particular

type of proceeding is based upon societys level of concern with the degree of

accuracy in the factual findings Because these proceedings are in the nature of

societys highest concern the Florida Supreme Court has required that the proof

be by clear and convincing evidence This standard means

[C]lear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence

requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the

testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be

lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue The evidence must be of

such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief

or conviction without hesitancy as to the truth of the allegations

sought to be established In re Henson 913 So2d 579 589 (Fla 2005)

The Florida rules of Evidence should be followed the Supreme Court case law

which requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to which

the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the testimony must be precise

and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue

4

WHEREFORE the undersigned respectfully requests that all evidence

listed above be excluded as being unreliable and lacking any probative value

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 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

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

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

mavannedownsgray-robinsoncom GrayRobinson PA 301 E Pine Street FLl4

Orlando FL 32801-2724 Lauri Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom

fundamental legal issues including but not limited to questions of jurisdiction

procedural and substantive due process rights equal protection etc with respect

to the JCQ pursuing charges from nine years past before Judge Watson ever

considered being a judge and while The Florida Bar had exclusive jurisdiction to

address this matter

The Florida rules of Evidence should be followed the Supreme court case

law which requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the testimony must be

precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts

in issue The Chair however has ruled that these standards nor the standards set

forth in the rules below must be met

Rule 14 requires [alt a hearing before the Hearing Panel legal evidence

only shall be received and oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or

affirmation Rule 14 FJQCR

Rule 15 requires [iln all hearings before the Hearing Panel a judge shall

have the right and reasonable opportunity to defend against the charges by the

introduction of evidence to be represented by attorney(s) and to examine and

cross-examine witnesses The judge shall also have the right to the issuance of

subpoenas for attendance of witnesses to testify or produce books papers and

other evidentiary matter Rule 15 FJQCR

The Chair has ruled that The Florida Rules of Evidence do not apply and

that hearsay is admissible Order on Pending Motions and Status Conference

November 20 2013 This order specifically provides that trial transcripts from ten

years past are admissible to supplant live testimony This is in direct contravention

of the Supreme Courts ruling in In re Amendments to the Fla Evid Code 782

So2d 339 (Fla 2000) wherein the Court declined to adopt a change to the

Evidence Code and permit evidence pursuant to Section 90803(22)

The provision in issue Section 90803(22) would have allowed for the

admission of former testimony in a different proceeding if the persons had

similar interests The significant concerns for not adopting the amendment

include such things as

(1) the amendment violates a defendants constitutional right to confront

adverse witnesses

(2) this expanded former-testimony hearsay exception would result in trial

by deposition thereby precluding the fact-finder from evaluating witness

credibility

(3) the amendment simply strips the section 90804(2) former-testimony

exception of its unavailability requirement thereby making the section 90804

exception obsolete

(4) the amendment is inconsistent with several rules of procedure thereby

causing confusion as to which rule should control and

(5) the expanded hearsay exception will shift expense burdens relating to the

introduction of evidence from the proponent of the testimony to the party against

whom the testimony is being offered who will have to call witnesses in order to

challenge the testimony d at 341

In our system of justice the standard or burden of proof in a particular

type of proceeding is based upon societys level of concern with the degree of

accuracy in the factual findings Because these proceedings are in the nature of

societys highest concern the Florida Supreme Court has required that the proof

be by clear and convincing evidence This standard means

[C]lear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence

requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the

testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be

lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue The evidence must be of

such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief

or conviction without hesitancy as to the truth of the allegations

sought to be established In re Henson 913 So2d 579 589 (Fla 2005)

The Florida rules of Evidence should be followed the Supreme Court case law

which requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to which

the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the testimony must be precise

and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue

4

WHEREFORE the undersigned respectfully requests that all evidence

listed above be excluded as being unreliable and lacking any probative value

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 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

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

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

mavannedownsgray-robinsoncom GrayRobinson PA 301 E Pine Street FLl4

Orlando FL 32801-2724 Lauri Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom

November 20 2013 This order specifically provides that trial transcripts from ten

years past are admissible to supplant live testimony This is in direct contravention

of the Supreme Courts ruling in In re Amendments to the Fla Evid Code 782

So2d 339 (Fla 2000) wherein the Court declined to adopt a change to the

Evidence Code and permit evidence pursuant to Section 90803(22)

The provision in issue Section 90803(22) would have allowed for the

admission of former testimony in a different proceeding if the persons had

similar interests The significant concerns for not adopting the amendment

include such things as

(1) the amendment violates a defendants constitutional right to confront

adverse witnesses

(2) this expanded former-testimony hearsay exception would result in trial

by deposition thereby precluding the fact-finder from evaluating witness

credibility

(3) the amendment simply strips the section 90804(2) former-testimony

exception of its unavailability requirement thereby making the section 90804

exception obsolete

(4) the amendment is inconsistent with several rules of procedure thereby

causing confusion as to which rule should control and

(5) the expanded hearsay exception will shift expense burdens relating to the

introduction of evidence from the proponent of the testimony to the party against

whom the testimony is being offered who will have to call witnesses in order to

challenge the testimony d at 341

In our system of justice the standard or burden of proof in a particular

type of proceeding is based upon societys level of concern with the degree of

accuracy in the factual findings Because these proceedings are in the nature of

societys highest concern the Florida Supreme Court has required that the proof

be by clear and convincing evidence This standard means

[C]lear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence

requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the

testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be

lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue The evidence must be of

such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief

or conviction without hesitancy as to the truth of the allegations

sought to be established In re Henson 913 So2d 579 589 (Fla 2005)

The Florida rules of Evidence should be followed the Supreme Court case law

which requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to which

the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the testimony must be precise

and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue

4

WHEREFORE the undersigned respectfully requests that all evidence

listed above be excluded as being unreliable and lacking any probative value

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 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

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

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

mavannedownsgray-robinsoncom GrayRobinson PA 301 E Pine Street FLl4

Orlando FL 32801-2724 Lauri Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom

(5) the expanded hearsay exception will shift expense burdens relating to the

introduction of evidence from the proponent of the testimony to the party against

whom the testimony is being offered who will have to call witnesses in order to

challenge the testimony d at 341

In our system of justice the standard or burden of proof in a particular

type of proceeding is based upon societys level of concern with the degree of

accuracy in the factual findings Because these proceedings are in the nature of

societys highest concern the Florida Supreme Court has required that the proof

be by clear and convincing evidence This standard means

[C]lear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence

requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to

which the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the

testimony must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be

lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue The evidence must be of

such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief

or conviction without hesitancy as to the truth of the allegations

sought to be established In re Henson 913 So2d 579 589 (Fla 2005)

The Florida rules of Evidence should be followed the Supreme Court case law

which requires that the evidence must be found to be credible the facts to which

the witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered the testimony must be precise

and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue

4

WHEREFORE the undersigned respectfully requests that all evidence

listed above be excluded as being unreliable and lacking any probative value

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 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

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

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

mavannedownsgray-robinsoncom GrayRobinson PA 301 E Pine Street FLl4

Orlando FL 32801-2724 Lauri Waldman Ross Esq RossGirtenLaurilawcom

WHEREFORE the undersigned respectfully requests that all evidence

listed above be excluded as being unreliable and lacking any probative value

Respectfully submitted

The Honorable Laura M Watson Circuit Judge 17 Judicial Circuit Room 1005B 201 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Tel (954) 831-6907 jwatsonl 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

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

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

mavannedownsgray-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 morrisraacuteincourtsoru

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

Michael Nachwalter Esq mnachwalterffknpacom Kenny Nachwalter PA 201 S

Biscayne Blvd Miami Florida 33131-4332 Robert A Sweetapple

Pleadinassweetapplelawcom Co-counsel for Judge Watson 20 SE 3 Street

Boca Raton Florida 33432 and hand delivered to Harry R Duncanson and Jerome

S Osteryoung PhD this 10th day of February 2014

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

Honorable Kerry I Evander evanderkncourtsorg Chair of the JQC 300 S

Beach Street Daytona Beach FL 32114

s Laura M Watson LAURA M WATSON

6