Elements of Crime

[D.Dog]

Judge Gregory Holder


Gregory Holder was elected county judge in 1994. In 1996 Judge Holder was elected Circuit Judge for Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida. His latest assignment was in the family law division. Judge Holder has a reputation for speaking his mind and for being extremely open with the press. He has the attitude that the entire justice system belongs to the people, that there should be nothing to hide and that the public should know what is going on. Judge Holder refused to be drawn into "inside politics" by dishonest Hillsborough judges. Judge Holder was bent on rooting out and ridding the court system of corruption.

On July 26, 2000 Judge Holder left for Reserve Military Duty. Judge Holder claimed he publicized that he will be gone. On July 27, 2000 at 5:20 P.M. Judge Robert Bonanno a Hillsborough Circuit Court judge entered the office of Judge Gregory Holder and adjacent areas. It was alleged that the door to the office was locked and the same key opened Judge Holder’s office as Judge Bonanno’s. Judge Holder’s bailiff returned to the office to pick up some of her belongings when she discovered Judge Bonanno in Judge Holder’s office. Judge Holder kept news clippings and e-mail and other documentation on the activities in the courthouse in his office.

When Judge Holder returned he requested an investigation of this "break in". It was widely publicized by the news media and exploded into a scandal. The matter was taken up by the Florida Judicial Qualifications. A grand jury was also convened. Commencing on October 3, 2000 secret hearings were conducted. However, at a later date the transcript of the grand jury hearing was made public. The transcript contains interesting testimony, which offers some insight into what goes on in the courthouse, that is what should not.

Judge Holder testified on October 11, 2000 that he was suspicious of the illicit affair that the married Judge Bonanno had with the female deputy clerk in charge of the assignment of the cases in the clerk’s office. He questioned the assignment of cases of certain attorneys to Judge Bonanno. Judge Holder further stated that he was told by court personnel that that there were large sums of cash in a safe deposit box co-owned by another judge in the courthouse with a deputy sheriff, but did not know the source of that money. That he also heard that that judge was soliciting funds from lawyers for reelection of the County Sheriff, which was in violation of the Judicial Canons. Judge Holder was concerned, that because judges have tremendous authority and power over the lawyers that come before them, they can easily say to them:

"Look I want you to give a maximum contribution of $500 to the Sheriff’s re-election campaign’ yeah any lawyer that practices in front of me would probably say, ‘Yes, sir, Judge I will do that.’ Well, that is absolutely contrary to our Judicial Code, but more importantly, may constitute extortion or some other violation of Florida law……..

And I am absolutely offended at some the behavior that’s gone on in this courthouse for a long time…..We are paid to do a job. We’re paid a god salary. And I look at it as a higher calling. You know, some would say we have all this power. It’s not about power, and it shouldn’t be. It ought to be about doing the right thing, about, you know, exercising that discretion that has been given by the people. You know, we put our hand on a Bible when we’re sworn in and we swear, not affirm, we don’t affirm, we swear that we will uphold the laws of the State of Florida, the Constitution of the State of Florida and that we will serve the people that elect us or appoint us, people that pay our salaries. You know, and that’s what it ought to be about. And for some reason some of us in this courthouse have lost sight of that goal, that aspiration goal, I think we should have.

You know, my life has been a case study for the ethics courses that I teach over at the University of Phoenix because I have spoken out, I have bucked the system, I have gone public. And I’ll be honest with you, but for the media involvement about a year ago, I don’t think the JQC case with Judge Ed Ward would nave gone anywhere. It would have died. It would have been swept under the rug and he would still be a judge today. And he’d still be allowed to inflict the damage on the women that he inflicted for many years in this courthouse using that robe and that office to absolutely destroy these women.

Chief Judge Dennis Alvarez also testified before the grand jury on October 25, 2000. Judge Alvarez acknowledged, that among his duties as Chief Judge was to make sure that the judges are at work doing their jobs, watching their calendars. That he would try to sit down with the judges if he comes in late, and where a judge violated a law, a criminal violation, "my responsibility would go first to the State Attorney and/or the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s office." But, Judge Alvarez said he would meet with the judge to find out what the problem is. He would contact the JQC who would also try to sit down on a one and one basis with the judge. If it did not succeed then a Notice of Inquiry would be sent out by the JQC. When, Judge Alvarez was asked what was the general reputation of Judge Holder amongst the judiciary he made clear that he was not popular because

"He’s been perceived as a leak to the media. He likes the limelight. That’s – anytime Judge Holder’s seen talking to a reporter from the news media, a day or two later there will be a story in the newspaper. He would be quoted in matters that don’t have to do with his division or outside of his area as to which he’s assigned. But he’s – considered the leak of the courthouse."

As part of his testimony one the attorneys stated before the grand jury on October 25, 2000 that,

"I’ve probably been contacted by virtually everyone in this building about giving a campaign contribution. You know, I mean, many of these judges raise funds for the sake of basically driving away opposition……from the Clerk of Court right up to, you know most of the judges, yes. The judges are not permitted to solicit funds themselves. But, they have people raising funds for them."

He explained that committees are set up to raise funds and the lawyers contact other lawyers. That "by the time you get hit by all the candidates, you might be talking about a campaign cycle of where you’ve given away a fair amount of money".

On October 11, 2000 Judge Holder’s bailiff gave testimony to the grand jury describing the X rated activities going on in a judge’s courtroom adjacent to Judge Holder’s court. She stated she was told what happened in that judge’s court by his former girlfriend, who was a bailiff to another judge. The judge who was married, wanted to have a pole installed in his office so that this young woman, the bailiff, could dance on the pole like they do in a strip club. (Well, obviously this is the new version of the judicial poll.) The judge wanted the young woman to wear his robe with no clothes on underneath because he wanted her to feel the power that his robe had. The judge had a new sofa brought in purchased at public expense so that he could have his sexual pleasures on the sofa. She also traveled with him. He enjoyed wearing her T-back underwear. While Judge Holder was holding court this judge next door would be conducting his affair with his judicial assistant in the closet and so forth. This judge has since resigned.

Continued next reply

[D.Dog]

from previous

A sealed grand jury report, regarding Judge Bonanno was released by the grand jury, on June 19, 2001. The grand jury recommended, the resignation or removal of Judge Bonanno. The grand jury found that Judge Bonanno gave "conflicting answers" to the question of when or why he was in Judge Holder’s office. The jury also found that Judge Bonanno "lost the credibility necessary for a judge" by virtue of the "incredible and conflicting accounts he had given about the incident,’ but could not determine "whether his observation and memory are faulty or he is just plain lying…." The grand jury also cited "incontrovertible evidence" that Judge Bonanno carried on an illicit affair with a court clerk, on public time on public property. The two spent time together in Judge Bonanno’s offices, and even attended a judicial conference together in Ft. Lauderdale. The grand jury concluded that, "because of his lack of credibility and his conduct of his personal life he is no longer fit to be a judge".

The Judicial Qualification Commission took this as a mere recommendation over which they could pass their judgment. In a Report and Recommendation issued in September 2001 they made the finding that Judge Bonanno should not be removed but receive only a public reprimand from the Florida Supreme Court. The JQC whitewashed his illegal entry into Judge Holder’s office as not intentional and his illicit affair with the deputy clerk (the assignment clerk) as a private consensual affair and also disregarded other charges made against Judge Bonanno.

However, it did not end here because the matter was also taken up by the Florida Legislature. Rep. Larry Crow the chairman of the House Judicial Oversight Committee announced that his staff would conduct a preliminary review of the allegations against Judge Bonanno. House Speaker Tom Feeney, directed Crow’s committee to consider whether the Legislature should move ahead with impeachment against Bonanno. The hearings did get underway in Tampa. Judge Bonanno was summoned to appear to answer questions concerning his professional and personal life, the financing of a $450,000 house and accusations that he sealed cases and did favors for relatives and friends. On December 26, 2001 Judge Robert Bonanno resigned from the bench effective January 21, 2001, leaving these questions unanswered. The JQC treated the matter as moot. Chief Judge Alvarez retired at age of 56 during the summer of 2001.

Well, it would be expected that Judge Holder would receive appreciation and some form of recognition for ridding the courthouse of judges unfit to serve the public. But, the good ol’ boy’s club was obviously seeking to retaliate against Judge Holder and embarked to remove him from the bench.

On November 9, 2001 the Judicial Qualifications Commission at its meeting in Orlando, Florida instituted formal charges against Judge Holder which had nothing to do with his performance on the bench, for allegedly providing "false or misleading" information on a federal judgeship application. The JQC charged that the application was submitted by Judge Holder on or about May 2001 in which he was asked:

"Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, bar association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group. If so give particulars.''

Judge Holder answered "No". But, the JQC's investigative panel said Judge Holder

"met twice with the Chairman of the JQC to be admonished concerning your conduct as a result of complaints filed against you by the JQC. The answer was also false or misleading in view of complaints made against you to the chief judge of your circuit, of which you had been aware."

By the JQC’s own contentions for the most part the charges arose from Judge Holder’s communications with the media. Obviously, Judge Holder was to be penalized and stopped from public disclosure of the scandal at the courthouse. The JQC said that (1) on or about March 1998 Judge Holder was requested to come to the chambers of Chief Judge Alvarez. Also present in chambers were the JQC General Counsel and the JQC Chairman who it was claimed admonished Judge Holder for remarks he made to the press on an appellate decision reversing his decision. (2) That even before this meeting Judge Holder was cautioned by Chief Judge Alvarez about making public remarks concerning the Thirteenth Circuit judiciary; and (3) On or about February 9, 2001 Judge Holder was again confronted by the JQC Chairman and was advised of a complaint against him for throwing handcuffs on his desk in heated hearing in his courtroom, which one of the attorneys considered as threatening to him and his client. Based on these charges the JQC sought public reprimand and/or the removal of Judge Holder from the bench.

Judge Holder responded that, he had made a prior application for federal judgeship in January 4, 1999 and May 27, 2000, all of which were after that 1998 meeting in Judge Alvarez’ office and he gave the same answer to the same question in these applications, without resulting in any investigation by the JQC. Judge Holder said he didn't provide details of those discussions in his unsworn federal application because he believed those discussions were informal, did not result in formal charges and that he was specifically told that it was to be kept confidential and not to be disclosed to anyone. As to the incidence with the handcuffs Judge Holder explained it was a raucous family law hearing, one attorney calling the other a liar on which no charges were filed against him. However, that was to remain confidential as well. Judge Holder further said that he did not intend to make any misleading statements in his application for federal court judgeship, and he even signed a waiver as to all documents from any source as to his qualification for judicial office.


Ironically, while the objective of the JQC was to eliminate publicity, the Holder case generated wide media coverage and public outcry. (See, one of those news articles below) Judge Holder wanted to make all the records concerning the JQC proceedings in his case public but, the JQC opposed it. The JQC went to the extent of retaining noted attorney Barry Richard , (who represented President George W. Bush during the 2000 election recount) to make sure the records about Judge Holder would stay secret and to fight newspaper requests to inspect those records. This came at a time when the state House of Representatives was preparing for hearings on an amendment to the Florida Constitutional to make the JQC records public (which never came to pass).

The matter came to an end with a Stipulation entered into between Judge Holder and the JQC. Judge Holder was required to admit that regardless of what he believed the discussion with members of the JQC was whether informal and/or confidential his answer to the question on the application for federal judgeship "was incorrect given the Commission’s broad interpretation of this question." Judge Holder " was required to acknowledge that the Commission’s interpretation on that question was correct" and that "in hindsight, regrets his answer to the question" and that he "apologizes for his error to the Commission and the citizens of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida". On June 6, 2002 the Florida Supreme Court approved the Stipulation and dismissed the Notice of Formal Charges against Judge Holder.

New attacks were made against Judge Holder by the Judicial Qualifications Commission in July, 2003. Judge Holder was charged with plagiarizing a paper he submitted to the Air Force as a reservist. To see the formal charges by the Judicial Qualification Commission click on http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/p...qc/index.shtml

Judge Holder denied those charges. 38 witnesses are to testify for Judge Holder at a hearing to decide whether Holder should be suspended pending an investigation. A final evidentiary hearing was scheduled before the Judicial Qualifications Commission Hearing Panel on the Formal Charges for January 20, 2004 at the Hillsborough County Courthouse, Tampa Florida. The hearing panel is to consist of two judges, two lawyers and two lay members. That hearing has been continued. Judge Holder filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the matter was investigated by the Air Force and no wrongdoing was found by Judge Holder and so the charges which are based on the same occurrences by the JQC should be dismissed. The JQC in its response has rejected the determination by the Air Force saying that it was not upon evidence and testimony at a trial. The JQC denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to raise it based on evidence and argument at the final hearing on the charges. The matter has now been set for final hearing for June 14, 2004, but that hearing has been continued. A new date for the hearing before the JQC was set for September 20, 2004. However, that date was continued because of the hurricane. The trial is now rest June 6, pursuant to Report of the the state Judicial Qualifications Commission on the charge that Holder plagiarized a 1998 research paper as an officer in the Air Force Reserve.