FL Supreme Court Removes Religion-Pushing Judge From the Bench

Remember the judge in Florida who was selling books from her ministry to lawyers in her courtroom and a whole host of other improprieties, including erasing evidence? Well the Florida Supreme Court has now unanimously voted to remove her from the bench.

“We conclude that Judge Hawkins’ conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office, demonstrating present unfitness to hold office, and that removal is the only appropriate sanction,” Supreme Court justices wrote in their 36-page opinion released Thursday. “Based on the violations found by the Hearing Panel, which were supported by clear and convincing evidence, we conclude removal from the bench is the only appropriate sanction in this case.”

“It is our hope,” justices continued, “that this decision will serve as a reminder to judges of their continuing obligation to personally observe the high standards of conduct mandated by the Code of Judicial Conduct, and to conduct themselves in all things in a manner that will demonstrate candor and preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary.”

Six justices agreed with the decision, with Justice Peggy Quince recused from the case…

The JQC charged Hawkins in December 2012 and added new charges in June 2013, all related to her side ministry business. The charges fell under five broad categories: use of her office to promote a private business, failure to respect and comply with the law, failure to act in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary, failure to devote full attention to judicial office and lack of candor with the JQC.

The commission, which held a three-day hearing in the case in October, found her guilty of selling and offering to sell ministry products in the courthouse to lawyers and employees, promoting the sale of the products on her website that included photos of her in judicial robes and using her judicial assistant to promote the sale of ministry products.

The JQC also found her guilty of failing to comply with state tax laws when selling ministry products, misleading investigators, reading magazines during court proceedings and not devoting her full time for judicial duties.

During the panel’s investigation, Hawkins was reluctant to provide information including ministry financial data held on computers and flash drives.

Investigators determined that she deleted financial data the morning she was instructed to provide it under a subpoena. Hawkins ultimately produced her computers and other documents for inspection.

I can’t imagine how anyone could dispute that this is the right result.

"King David got his Hittite buddy's wife pregnant and then sent him out to be ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
""We’d better get back, ’cause it’ll be dark soon, and the ACLU mostly come at ..."

Local School Has Another Proselytizing Teacher
"I think it depends on how much they love their country."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"I'm sure there are some people in the Trump circle who are whispering "Jew boy" ..."

Looks Like Flynn Has Flipped on ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Sastra

    So, they took the judge off the bench because she was being a Christian, huh? Alas, the persecution just gets worse and worse.

  • themadtapper

    I can’t imagine how anyone could dispute that this is the right result.

    Ooh, ooh, I can! “They’re just persecuting her because of her ministry! It’s just another case of liberal activist judges trying to force Christianity out of our government! They’ll probably replace her with a lesbian who’ll let illegal aliens fraudulently vote themselves food stamps from the money that should be used to investigate BENGHAAAAAAZI!”

  • matty1

    It certainly seems the right result but I don’t actually have a problem with someone wanting a subpoena before letting their computer be searched. It seems the same principle as requiring the police to have a warrant.

  • grumpyoldfart

    I have a feeling that defendants whose lawyers paid the book/bribe probably got better results than did those whose lawyers refused to hand over the cash.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    I’ve already written up a pilot for it. Reverend Justice (“You can run, but you can’t hide from the Law. Also, Jesus.”).

  • eric

    @3: I think the ‘lack of candor’ and ‘misleading inviestigator’ charges probably stem from her erasing files, not from her insisting on a subpoena.

  • abb3w

    @3, matty1

    It certainly seems the right result but I don’t actually have a problem with someone wanting a subpoena before letting their computer be searched.

    Though I’m not a lawyer nor an ethics expert, I suspect it’s much the same reason as the disbarment of Bill Clinton. While an ordinary citizen has no legal obligation to be helpful, lawyers and especially judges have a “duty of candor” — which in part is to say, an obligation to forthrightly disclose evidence, even when it’s incriminating.

    As an additional technicality, my recollection is that it wasn’t her computer, but rather the court’s computer which was assigned for her official use.

    @6, eric

    I think the ‘lack of candor’ and ‘misleading inviestigator’ charges probably stem from her erasing files, not from her insisting on a subpoena.

    That definitely seems the far more egregious part of the offense against candor. Had she merely insisted on the subpoena on due process grounds, the court might have let it slide, or gone with the review board’s recommendation of a suspension.

  • anbheal

    @5 M.O. — Episode 1: “Eat Flaming Justice, Jewboy Tort Lawyer!!!”