Samantha Ward and Al Suarez ties to MURDER
It just gets better and better.
Despite all those great jobs as judges and shit and being married and all the insurance fraud and throwing fund-raisers for dicky greco ....
Samantha DOES NOT PAY HER BILLS.
Doc Type
Book
Page
Legal
Instrument #
1
To
WARD SAMANTHA
HALL JON
12/2/2010
LIEN
20228
1024
2010406388
2
From
WARD SAMANTHA
FIRST INDIANA BANK NA
2/21/2006
MORTGAGE
16138
504
PT S26 T27 R17
2006088074
3
From
WARD SAMANTHA
NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORP
5/26/2005
MORTGAGE
15050
1713
PT S26 T27 R17
2005227054
4
From
WARD SAMANTHA
SUAREZ AL N
5/26/2005
DEED
15050
1711
PT S26 T27 R17
2005227053
5
To
WARD SAMANTHA
SUAREZ AL N
5/26/2005
DEED
15050
1711
PT S26 T27 R17
2005227053
6
To
WARD SAMANTHA
MONTGOMERY WARD CREDIT CORP
3/22/2000
SATISFACTION
10100
1726
2000078535
7
To
WARD SAMANTHA
KITCHENS MARION E
4/16/1993
COURT PAPER
6945
384
93085103
8
To
WARD SAMANTHA
FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY
6/5/1990
NOTICE
5995
622
90120133
9
To
WARD SAMANTHA L
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUB DEF
11/22/1993
NOTICE
7194
1857
93281128
10
To
WARD SAMANTHA L
FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY
9/10/1993
TERMINATION
7111
1057
93214836
11
To
WARD SAMANTHA L
FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY
7/19/1993
NOTICE
7048
1418
93165985
12
To
WARD SAMANTHA L
FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY
5/2/1989
NOTICE
5679
1813
89093758
13
To
WARD SAMANTHA LEE
MONTGOMERY WARD CREDIT CORP
3/7/1994
JUDGMENT
7312
1677
94057113
14
To
WARD SAMANTHA LEE
MONTGOMERY WARD CREDIT CORP
2/7/1994
JUDGMENT
7282
20
94030864
15
To
WARD SAMANTHA LEE
FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY
9/25/1990
NOTICE
6088
312
90203649
16
To
WARD,SAMANTHA LEE
SUAREZ,AL NELSON
11/6/2004
MARRIAGE RECORD
684
250
200404937
-3876086
1
Neither does BIG AL.
Does anyone know if this pos drives a red pickup truck with the tag that says SANWICH?????
I bet he does. What a STALKING POS if so. If not then sanwich is just the run of the mill tampa fire rescue thug stalking piece of SHIT.
So this matterhorn murder pretty much covers the area from Busch to around 15th St.
Busch to Central or Sligh...
Nebraska to Florida AND BEYOND those areas a block or so and interchangeably with hanna.
I keep forgetting to post the video of the fucking freak from Hanna fire rescue who was leering at me like a crazy man from the backyard behind the publix on nebraska right next to the fire station there on hanna. I walked back out to my car and the fucking freak was leering like a fucking murderer. I thought it was a severely disturbed person (I really did not kidding) but then I recognized the paramedic shirt he was wearing and filmed his disgusting ass. They have ALL the houses around that station TOO. ALL OF THEM. Maybe one or two left. Same story .. fallen down trees, damaged roofs.. you name it.
Awww lookeee. already talk of Samantha's corruption. Add the useless slut to the RICO list because GUESS WHAT??? She is (WOW does it GET any SWEETER???) a piece of shit family unity judge.
PAM AND JANE AND LITTLE MISS POOPY PANTS EVANS. WTF????
MURDER MURDER MURDER.
Blood on the judge's hands and now .... ties to fucking criminal activities surrounding mi familia.
Another fucked individual.
I gotta keep following this thread.
Search Results
WMNF 88.5 FM News: 10 judicial candidates speak at Tampa Tiger Bay ...
Jul 18, 2008 ... The race for Circuit Court Judge, Group 2, is between Miriam Velez and Samantha Ward. Velez said she is running for judge because she ...www.wmnf.org/news_stories/5880 - Cached - Similar
Knowyourcandidates: These eight want to be called 'Your Honor'
Oct 25, 2006 ... Web site: peacockforjudge.com. Samantha Ward. Ward, 41, recently resigned from the Hillsborough Public Defender's Office to run for judge. ...www.sptimes.com/2006/10/.../These_eight_want_to_b.shtml - Cached - Similar
Knowyourcandidates: Four judge candidates showcase their experience
Aug 23, 2006 ... SAMANTHA WARD, 41, recently resigned from the Hillsborough ...www.sptimes.com/2006/08/23/.../Four_judge_candidates.shtml - Cached - Similar
Show more results from sptimes.com
Judicial disinterest Tampa News Political Whore
Dec 6, 2006 ... Judge Samantha Ward is corrupt and taking bribes?! she has chosen favoritism of a follow lawyer who has the power and the money to ...tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/judicial.../Content?oid... - Cached - Similar
For Hillsborough judicial circuit - St. Petersburg Times
Aug 5, 2008 ... 26 primary election features fives races for circuit court judge in the ... Samantha Ward Group 2 Samantha Ward's demonstrated love for the ...www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article757616.ece - Cached - Similar
Here Come The Judge Candidates For Hillsborough
Aug 11, 2008 ... The circuit judge position pays $145080 per year. .... Samantha Ward. Age: 43. Education: Bachelor's degree, University of Florida, 1987. ...www2.tbo.com › News - Cached
In Area Judicial Races, Here Are Our Recommendations
Aug 4, 2008 ... In the most rancorous judicial contest in years, incumbent ...www2.tbo.com › News › Opinion - Cached - Similar
Show more results from tbo.com
Samantha L. Ward - Judgepedia
May 6, 2010 ... Samantha L. Ward is a United Family Court judge of the Thirteenth Circuit of Florida. References. ↑ Judicial Directory ...judgepedia.org/index.php/Samantha_L._Ward - Cached
Samantha Ward - Topix
Jan 21, 2011 ... Samantha Ward. Posted in the Bowie Forum ... Report Abuse. . Judge it! . #5. Jan 22, 2011. Hey I was being nice. samantha ...www.topix.com/forum/city/bowie-tx/TB4IJTR780DJLAHP2 - Cached
Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections
Circuit Court Judge Group 1, Caroline J. Tesche, 6 Year Term. Circuit Court Judge Group 2, Samantha L. Ward, 6 Year Term. Circuit Court Judge Group 3 ...www.votehillsborough.org/ElectedOfficials.aspx - Cached
Searches related to samantha ward judge
miriam velez judge
kevin carey judge
lisa campbell judge
haven't thought a whole lot about judicial elections since I quit the political consulting business in 2004.
That's partly because these down-ballot races just aren't exciting. Out of sight, out of mind. But mostly, it's because judicial campaigns were, in the end, the most frustrating and disappointing aspect of my work, part of what made it easier to jump back over the fence into journalism.
But last week, a Palm Beach Post editorial on the subject piqued my interest again. The Post, arguably in a dead heat with the St. Petersburg Times as Florida's most liberal newspaper, called for judgeships to be changed to appointed positions, taking the voters out of the equation.
The issue of appointed vs. elected judges is not a new one. Judicial campaigns are practically designed to give voters very little information, because the rules governing what candidates can and cannot say are extremely strict. Criticism of opponents is sharply curtailed and scrutinized. Candidates can't say how they feel about an issue that may conceivably come before them some day. A judicial candidate's speech is pretty much name, rank and serial number.
The Post editorial raised a new concern about judicial elections: The lack of interest on the part of the public in the voting booth, as shown by the undervote.
Undervoting was made famous in 2000 in Palm Beach County, when Al Gore lost out on votes that could have made him president. An undervote occurs when someone doesn't vote in every race on his or her ballot (or when a machine doesn't properly count their votes). It's the difference between the number of voters who participate in an election and the number of total votes cast for the candidates in any given race. Again this year, undervoting is making national headlines. In Sarasota, a 15-percent undervote in the infamous Christine Jennings-Vern Buchanan congressional race has spawned lawsuits and national debate about the veracity of the voting system.
That's paltry compared with undervoting in judicial races. In Palm Beach County, the Post said, the undervote ranged from 15 percent to 25 percent. It's just as bad in Tampa Bay. In Hillsborough's judicial circuit, 21 percent of Nov. 7's voters did not cast a ballot for either Emily Peacock or Samantha Ward. That is the same undervote as in the race for the Soil and Water District Board, the difference being that Soil and Water winner C. Dennis Carlton can't put you in jail or take away your kids.
In the Pinellas-Pasco circuit, the figures were worse. In two judicial elections, nearly one in four voters didn't cast a ballot for a judge.
My most heartbreaking losses came in judicials, where I saw lawyers with longer resumes, more years practicing law and better civic experience go down to defeat to vastly less-qualified opponents.
Still, for those many years, I did not favor appointing our circuit and county court judges. I had seen the guts of the appointment process, with its back-room politics. You had to be in the right party (Republican) and, often, in a big, well-connected law firm. So I stuck to my guns for electing judges.
Until now.
It is clear that the public cannot be expected to learn enough about judicial candidates to make an informed choice and has relatively little interest in doing so. The races draw no TV coverage and precious little daily newspaper analysis. The only way judicial candidates can let the voters know about themselves is to either 1) finance their own campaigns to the tune of more than $125,000 (meaning that only the wealthy need apply) or 2) raise tons of money, almost all of it from lawyers who will later appear in front of them in court (raising the appearance of favoritism).
There are still good arguments for elections (and I heard about them on our own blog, Blurbex.com), but I'd like to see an appointment process, removed from the governor's office to an evenly split bipartisan panel that evaluates three to six nominees sent to them by a likewise evenly split bipartisan judicial nominating committee in each circuit.
Then, make those appointees run for retention and force them to get a majority of total votes cast -- not just a majority of those who don't undervote.
COMMENTS
RE: Judicial disinterest
Posted by Metafizcal on 05.23.10 @ 12:35 AM
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALSSECOND DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDAMay 19, 2010Lester P JENNINGS, PRO SEPetitioner DCA CASE NO 2D10-1977 L.T. Case No. 81-DR-14711v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o CORLIS A. McIntyre RespondentPETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITIONWITH APPENDICESPETITIONER:Paul Jennings, Pro Se3417 E Fern StTampa, Fl 33610813-381-7549Appendix Index1. Appendix 1: Motion to Recuse Judge Emily Peacock2. Appendix 2: Certificate of service of Recusal3. Appendix 3: Recusal denied, Judge Emily Peacock4. Appendix 4: Notice of Appeal5. Appendix 5: Referral to General Magistrate 6. Appendix 6: Referral granted7. Appendix 7: Objection, to State Attorney felonious motion8. Appendix :8 Judge Charles Bergmann order October 3, 20039. Appendix 9: Administrative Order S-2006-01110. Appendix 10: Copy of lower court’s docket11. Appendix 11: Notice of Hearing12. Appendix 12: Recuse General Magistrate13. Appendix 13: Recuse Attorney General14. Appendix 14: Report and Recommendations15. Appendix 15: Judge Peacock Order September 6, 20071. COMES NOW Petitioner Pro Se, Lester P. Jennings, asserting this Petition for Writ of Prohibition in extraordinary circumstances where the matter is one of right and giving timely NOTICE that plain judicial error exists involving the Court's abuse of discretion and constitutional violations affecting substantial rights of, and resulting prejudice to the petitioner. SUMMARY OF FACTS2. As soon as the facts were known and eleven days after Judge Emily Peacock’s order Report And Recommendation, of General Magistrate\Hearing Officer dated March 19, 2010, the Petitioner filed and served his Motion To Recuse Judge Emily Peacock on March 30, 2010 (Appendix 1). Given one day for mailing of service to Petitioner, his motion to Recuse was timely filed and served to Judge Emily Peacock and Assistant Attorney General J Kevin McNamara by U S Certified Mail (Appendix 2). The Department of Revenue Child Support Division was served by regular U S Mail due to the fact of being represented by Assistant Attorney General J Kevin McNamara who was served by U S Certified Mail. 3. Motion To Recuse Judge Emily Peacock denied on April 12, 2010 as legally insufficient (Appendix 3). 4. Petitioner filed Notice Of Appeal of that motion April 22, 2010, (Appendix 4) resulting in this petition for prohibition, in which petitioner swears made in good faith. 5. GROUNDS FOR RELIEF6. The Petitioner will show in fact, the trial court's orders (knowingly and willing) depart from the essential requirements of the law. 7. The petitioner will show the trial court’s orders (knowingly and willing) violated due process of the petitioner. 8. The Petitioner will show in fact, Judge Emily Peacock (knowingly and willing) violated orders of the court.9. The Petitioner will show in fact, officers of the court (knowingly and willing) committed “Fraud On The Court.”CAUSE OF ACTION10. Petitioner Pro Se, Motioned for and supported good cause for the Recusal of Judge Emily Peacock during the week of April 05, 2010. The Judge did not remove herself from the bench in her order April 12, 2010; this “ongoing” prejudice continues to operate violations of constituional and statutory rights, remedies and defenses, the Code of Judicial Ethics affecting the substantial rights and justiciable cause of the petitioner; and, no further action has been taken by Judge peacock to cure this matter denying an impartial and fair trial.11. Appendix 5 & 6 illustrates and show clearly the fact Judge Emily Peacock departed from the essential requirements of the law, and violated Petitioner’s due process. Appendix 5 is a motion from Assistant Attorney General, J Kevin McNamara. The Motion For Referral to General Magistrate dated December 4, 2010. Attached to the motion is a letter from Assistant Attorney General, J Kevin McNamara requesting approval and a signed order from Judge Emily Peacock to refer this case to the general Magistrate. Petitioner requests this court to take special notice of the December 4, 2010 date of the motion. At the expense of the petitioner’s due process, (Appendix 6) Judge Emily Peacock signed the order, “FOR Referral to General Magistrate dated December 4, 2010;” on December 7, 2010. Just three days after the motion was submitted, Judge Emily Peacock signed the order. Contained in, and apart of Appendix 5 & 6 clearly states: (1) Requires consent of all parties, (2) A written objection must be made ten days of service. Petitioner filed his OBJECTION TO STATE ATTORNEY’S FELONIOUS MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, December 15, 2010 (Appendix 7). Petitioner timely filed his objection, given one day for mail to reach petitioner, eleven days is well within requirements for timely filing of the objection. 12. Judge Emily Peacock departed from the essential requirements of the law, and violated Petitioner’s due process by; (1) (Appendix 6) By signing this order in three days, it did not give petitioner any opportunity to object to the motion. But that’s not all of it. (2) Judge Emily Peacock signed the order knowingly and willing in violation to Judge Charles Bergmann Order dated October 3, 2003. Judge Charles Bergmann Order states: (Appendix 8) ORDERED AND ADJUDGED “To avoid any appearance of impropriety this matter is herby referred to the Division Judge.” (3) Judge Emily Peacock also departed from the essential requirements of the law, and violated Petitioner’s due process by violating (Appendix 9) which clearly states: 13. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER S-2006-011,(Supersedes Administrative Order S-2003-078)Hearing Officer Assignment“If both hearing officers have been recused from the case, the case will be reassigned to the domestic relations / family law judge who is assigned to the division in which the case is pending.”Fraud on the court14. FURTHERMORE, The Petitioner claims Fraud On The Court and cover up of Fraud On The Court in the fact that Judge Emily Peacock and\or Assistant Attorney General, J Kevin McNamara, had the Clerks Records of this case checked out and not available for public view for over two months from January 2010 thru April 2010. Judge Emily Peacock and\or Assistant Attorney General changed the official court’s record (Fraud on the Court) to show Appendix 5 and 6 were filed on February 8, 2010. (Appendix 10). This Fraud On The Court is a “criminal” attempt to prove the Petitioner did not properly file his objection to the Motion For Referral to General Magistrate “dated authentically” December 4, 2010.15. PETTITONER was present at the (Appendix 11 ) Court Ordered Notice Of Hearing hearing that was scheduled for March 17, 2010 with General Magistrate, Joan Montagno (Child Support Hearing Officer); the result of Appendix 5 and 6. Petitioner file and served the General Magistrate, Joan Montagno (Appendix 12) a Motion To Recuse herself at the hearing. The Motion To Recuse dated May 17, 2010 was a legal request and made in good faith because of Judge Charles Bergmann Order dated October 3, 2003 (Appendix 8). Also at the March 17, 2010 hearing, petitioner served the Attorney General J Kevin McNamara with (Appendix 13) petitioner’s Motion For Recusal Of Attorney General With Attachments. This motion was made in good faith along with the attachments to the motion which were substantiated by Hearing Officer Lila Stello who was disqualified from this case by court order as stated in Appendix 5 and 6. In the attachment is Hearing Officer Stello’s testimony to The Florida Bar in answer to a complaint of the petitioner (Appendix 13 Attachment). This testimony clearly establish petitioner’s complaints of misconduct displayed in the trial court Judge Emily Peacock is a part of (knowingly and willing) by signing “unlawful” orders stated in this petition. 16. PETTITONER claims Judge Emily Peacock departed from the essential requirements of the law on March 19, 2010 by signing orders of Report and recommendation (Appendix 14) from General Magistrate\Hearing Officer Montagno, when Judge Charles Bergmann Order dated October 3, 2003 (Appendix 8) was a sanction against such actions.17. Including the fact of violating Judge Bergmann’s order, (Appendix 8) Judge Peacock seems to violate her own order dated September 6, 2007 (Appendix 15). Judge Peacock’s order clearly states: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED “the only matter pending in this court is the State Of Florida’s Motion For Clarification to consider the ability of the respondent to pay a purge amount of $100.00 for his contempt.” 18. Judge Peacock’s order was three years ago. Justice delayed is justice denied!19. The Department Of Revenue has suspended the petitioner’s driver’s license from 2001 to date. Judge Bergmann’s order (Appendix 8) was seven years ago, however Judge Peacock in a conspiracy to this “ongoing” prejudice continues to operate violations of court orders, constituional and statutory rights, and due process denied to the Petitioner.CONCLUSIONThe question for this Court is whether it is prepared to recognize and protect Petitioner’s individual rights in being “irreparable harmed” by Judge Emily Peacock signature of orders that seem void in its face for the reasons of:20. Appendix 5, 6, is clear evidence of departure from the essential requirements of the law. The order signed by Judge Peacock within three days denied due process to the petitioner.21. Appendix 8 is a sanction that barred all the actions performed by Judge Emily Peacock and Attorney J Kevin McNamara which are substantiated in this petition, and\or violations of due process to the petitioner.22. Appendix 13 Attachment, is testimony from Hearing Officer Lila Stello of misconduct of Assistant Attorney Generals, ongoing, and enabled by Judge Emily Peacock (knowingly and willing)seemingly void orders.23. Appendix 10 is a copy of the lower court’s docket and clearly shows Fraud on the Court, when you compare it to the actual documents Appendix 5 & 6 dated December 4, 2009. The Respondent, with intentions of Fraud, and to prejudice the petitioner, withheld from the court unlawful actions of the Respondent; entered two months later Appendix 5 & 6 on entry date February 8, 2010. The intent of the conspirators’ was to make the court’s record appear as if the petitioner did not object legally to the unlawful actions of the Officers of the Court and with Judge Peacock’s endorsement. RELIEF SOUGHT24. Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of prohibition directed to the trial court, which prevents the trail court from proceeding with trial of this case. 25. In the alternative Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of Certiorari.26. Petitioner seeks issuance of an Order to the Department Of Revenue Child Support Division to release the suspension of Petitioner’s driver license.Pro Se Paul Jennings swears this motion is made in good faith.“Under Penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Motion and that the facts stated in it are true.”May 19, 2010PAUL JENNINGS, PRO SECERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI Paul Jennings, HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy has been sent May 19, 2010 by U S Mail to:Toni c BernsteinOffice of Attorney General, Child Support EnforcementThe Capital, Plaza 01Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1050The Florida Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement6302 MLK Blvd Ste # 110, Tampa, Fl 33619-1166.Judge Emily Peacock800 Twiggs St, Rm 427 Tampa, Fl 33602PETITIONER:Paul Jennings, Pro Se3417 E Fern StTampa, Fl 33610813-381-7549
RE: Judicial disinterest
Posted by Metafizcal on 01.07.10 @ 09:49 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTYFAMILY LAW DIVISION Y/DFLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Case No.: 81-14711ON BEHALF OF, CORLIS A. McINTYRE Division Y/D PETITIONERVs. LESTER P. JENNINGSRESPONDENT_______________________________________OBJECTION TO SATATE ATTORNEYS FELONIOUS MOTIONAND MOTION TO DISMISSDecember 15, 2009Paul Jennings, Pro SeMetafizcal@hotmail.comThe Respondent specifically object to State Attorneys motion for referral to general magistrate. State Attorneys are knowingly involved in Paternity fraud and should be Recused from this case; the alternative Judge Peacock should dismiss this case for reasons lawfully stated below: 1. A court of competent jurisdiction previously ordered a dismissal in favor of Respondent, eight years (Res Judicata) prior to this case 1981DR014711. Case number 41279 signed by Judge Charles Scruggs including affidavit to his signature on that order, has been submitted to this court and now recorded as part of the record. That order has not been ruled void by any court.2. This court ordered the State Attorney to investigate the respondent’s ability to comply with the [void] order of contempt since June 2007. The attorney Maria Chisholm stated at that time, they were to busy to investigate the [void] order of contempt and has not made this determination which the court ordered two years ago. (RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, Exhibits 2,3,8)Transcript of proceeding filed in the court’s record July 10, 2008, page 22 lines 1-25)3. The State Attorneys are in contempt of court, and caused enormous damage to the respondents due process to a fair trial. State Attorneys are contradicting themselves by continuing to motion for contempt, while violating the court order. State Attorneys refusal to comply with this court order is one of many violations to respondents due process to a fair trial.4. The State Attorneys are in contempt of court…to repeat this process is willful fraud on the court…to contribute to cover up of all the facts and persons involved is fraud, conspiracy, and cover up of fraud on the court… To “willfully” violate due process and manipulate the court is obstruction of justice…these unlawful acts over a period of time are criminal…persons involved are liable…The respondent position is that State Attorneys J. Kevin McNamara, Albert J. Arena, Maria Chisholm, and others have crossed the Bright line Standard in prosecuting this case and they are participants in a conspiracy in this case.5. State Attorneys continued to schedule this case with a co-conspirator Hearing Officer Lila Stello, when Stello has been recused by a court order. (RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, Exhibits 2,3,8)6. State Attorneys have unlawfully blocked respondent from all hearings on the respondent’s motions.(RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, Transcript of proceeding filed in the court’s record July 10, 2008, page 23 lines 20-25)7. State attorneys have allow and participated in prejudice against the respondent and caused enormous violations to due process in this case according to Hearing Officer Lila Stello’s reply to respondent’s complaint to the Florida Bar File No 2009-10,233(13C). Lila Stello stated the State Attorneys scheduled all hearings that resulted in violation of Stello’s recusal order. State Attorneys also violated the due process of the respondent again. (RESPONDENT REQUEST HEARING AND OBJECTION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, Florida Bar File No 2009-10,233(13C) Page 2.WHEREFORE Respondent Pro Se, PAUL JENNINGS respectfully moves and employ the court to grant the respondent a hearing or the alternative, dismiss this case.“Under Penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Motion and that the facts stated in it are true.”December 15, 2009___________________________________________PAUL JENNINGS, PRO SEMetafizcal@hotmail.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail this day, December 15, 2009 to:Assistant Attorney General J. Kevin McNamaraThe Florida Department of Revenue Judge Emily Peacock _______________________________________PAUL JENNINGS, PRO SE
RE: Judicial disinterest
Posted by modyclassic on 12.24.09 @ 09:49 PM
Judge Samantha Ward is corrupt and taking bribes?!she has chosen favoritism of a fellow lawyer who has the power and the money to contribute to her political campaign so she can increase her chances to be re elected as a circuit judge 1n 2012 ?!and the real aim is a political office in the future coming elections and senate possibly !as the result she denies any right of a respondent or a defendant who hires the said lawyers ?!she started abusing power as soon as she took office ?
![[PDA - Progressive Democrats of America - Stand Up. Take Action. Vote.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/pdalink-150x200.gif)
