Is He A Legal Judicial Candidate?
BY BUDDY NEVINS
Judicial hopeful Lloyd Golburgh failed to sign his financial disclosure when he filed for office, leading to questions whether he is legally a candidate.
Lloyd Golburgh
A lawyer who specializes in defending those charged with drunk driving, Golburgh is running against County Court Judge Edward H. Merrigan Jr.
The financial disclosure form is required when a judicial candidate qualifies for office. At the bottom of the form is an oath the candidate signs swearing the information is correct.
Golburgh’s form contains no signature.
Surprisingly, the blank form is notarized by Lori Juriga-Carter, a notary. It is a crime to falsely notify a document.
This leads to the question that if a form isn’t sworn to, does it legally fulfill the requirements of qualifying for judicial office.
Is Golburgh a legally qualified candidate?
Lawyers will have to decide that. Maybe even a judge.
Golburgh did not return a call to his office for comment.
Maybe you believe that it was just an oversight and that Golburgh should be allowed to amend his form by signing it.
One lawyer said to me:
“I don’t think he can amend his form to sign it. You can’t amend a nullity, which is legal speak for an invalid document or condition.
Signing the form is a legal requirement of candidacy. Golburgh is running for judge.
Here is how I discovered this situation:
I learned from a source that lawyer Michael Ahearn had filed a public records request with the Supervisor of Elections for all the county court candidates’ financial disclosures.
When he is not practicing law, Ahearn is a political operative. He worked on the campaign of sheriff’s candidate Scott Israel and handled the campaign of Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler.
I talked to Ahearn about what he found. He told me about Golburgh’s form.
Ahearn works out of Seiler’s office. So does Judge Merrigan’s wife, M. Tamara Rimes, who is a name partner in the firm of Seiler, Sautter, Zaden, Rimes & Weihe.
“I have no role in the judge’s campaign, Ahearn said. “I’ve known him for years and that’s all.
He says finding Golburgh’s invalid form was “a fluke. I wasn’t looking for it. I was looking at all the (candidates’) forms out of curiosity.
When he found the flawed form, he immediately went to Rimes and called Judge Merrigan.
“That’s all I did. And I talked to you, he said.
Now the ball is in Golburgh’s corner.
May 7th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
The man can’t even fill out a form and we’re supposed to dump Merrigan for him??? Is this for real?? Highly decorated combat veteran vs. Lloyd…. Hard Choice for Broward.
May 7th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Hello Buddy. Thank you for bringing the oversight to my attention. I assure you that the information in the original, timely filed document is true and correct. Also rest assured that I have filed the appropriate form 6x, the Amendment to Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests Form pursuant to the procedure of the supervisor of elections. It should post by Monday.
FROM BUDDY:
Please let me know what happens. Browardbeat.com stands ready to print anything from you or your campaign.
May 7th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Buddy, did you say Ahearn works out of Seiler’s office and so does Merrigan’s wife? Doesn’t the head of the Judicial Nominating Committee, Richard Zaden, also work for that firm? Interesting. Ahearn has been everywhere I’ve seen Lloyd speak. He slithers in and slithers out right after Goldburgh speaks. Seems like he’s doing what he normally does, slimes around looking for dirt against anyone who challenges a political appointment. I get that the guy forgot to sign the form, we’ve all done that. But I would have expected you to pick on him on the merits, not on a technical issue. So far, you’ve written three columns on Mr. Goldburgh, and all we know so far is that the guy is an experienced criminal defense lawyer who has no debt, no tax problems, no bar problems and is new to the world of political hatchet men like you and Ahearn. I’m actually starting to wonder whether you’re worried that he’s a legitimate threat to Merrigan, a pure establishment guy and the poster-boy for the political appointment.
May 7th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
submitting a financial disclosure form without signing it is:
(a) not as shady as having the header on your campaign website’s homepage state “Broward County Judge, John R. Howes…” thereby violating campaign rules by implying that you’re a judge
(b) equally as shady as having the header on your campaign website’s homepage state “Broward County Judge, John R. Howes…” thereby violating campaign rules by implying that you’re a judge
or
(c) more shady than than having the header on your campaign website’s homepage state “Broward County Judge, John R. Howes…” thereby violating campaign rules by implying that you’re a judge
survey says?
http://www.howes4judge.com/home.html
May 7th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
It always comes back to Ahearn and the Irish Mafia. So Ahearn, a political operative who works in Merrigan’s Wife’s firm’s building is following Golburgh around to political functions and then goes digging around his filings “out of curiosity?” Seems like business as usual from the entrenched politically appointed judiciary. Not sure Merrigan wants to be associated with Ahearn. I thought the mud would be slung by the challengers, not the incumbents. It’s obvious why so many incumbent judges have drawn opposition.
May 7th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I don’t understand how a candidate who had been running for months doesn’t check his papers before turning them in. I agree with the other lawyer who said this type of error can’t be amended. I also think that the notary should lose her license.
May 7th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Golbugh has problems and it seems more than a minor oversight.
Say what you want about Ahern but every candidate in town will call him to help out because no one will want to be on the opposite side him. He knows how to take care of things.
If someone sues and Golurgh gets knocked of the ballot Ahern will be quite popular.
May 7th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Who found the error is irrelevant. The question is whether Golburgh ” qualified” or not, and if he did, is this enough of a blunder to diminish him in the eyes of the electorate.
May 7th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
I don’t think that L.B. can cure the document AFTER the deadline for filing the document has passed.
This is not a typo or scrivener’s error. Rather, since the document wasn’t executed, under oath it would follow that no proper document was therefore “filed”.
Its now too late to “file” a document.
May 8th, 2010 at 4:28 am
Lloyd should be a man, admit his mistake and withdraw before this ends up a messy court fight. He can run again in two years. It may take him two years to understand what a signed oath is.
May 8th, 2010 at 5:50 am
Signed by the party to be charged.
May 8th, 2010 at 5:59 am
First thing, Someone needs to get comment from SOE to find out if this form is faulty or can it be amended.
Second, As the Election Statute says below the completed and executed Form 6 had to be in before the qualifying deadline. It was not here. SOE can always accept an Amendment but it will be the Courts decision if its permitted.
No matter what, this will not be resolved until someone files a declaratory action like Dijoles/Scherer did against Mardi Cohen.
Thrid, Lloyd are you saying it was an oversight to knowingly particpate in a 3rd degree Felony when you had the notary (whom I hear is your secretary) state you gave an Oath and executed a sworn document without a signature? Explain that one.
Sadly, the Notary is probably going to be really screwed in this situation.
117.107 Prohibited acts.–
(9) A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document if the person whose signature is being notarized is not in the presence of the notary public at the time the signature is notarized. Any notary public who violates this subsection is guilty of a civil infraction, punishable by penalty not exceeding $5,000, and such violation constitutes malfeasance and misfeasance in the conduct of official duties. It is no defense to the civil infraction specified in this subsection that the notary public acted without intent to defraud. A notary public who violates this subsection with the intent to defraud is guilty of violating s. 117.105.
117.05 Use of notary commission; unlawful use; notary fee; seal; duties; employer liability; name change; advertising; photocopies; penalties.–
(1) No person shall obtain or use a notary public commission in other than his or her legal name, and it is unlawful for a notary public to notarize his or her own signature. Any person applying for a notary public commission must submit proof of identity to the Department of State if so requested. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) The employer of a notary public shall be liable to the persons involved for all damages proximately caused by the notary’s official misconduct, if the notary public was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time the notary engaged in the official misconduct.
NOW LETS LOOK AT THE ELECTION LAWS
FSS 105.031(5) (a) (5)
5) ITEMS REQUIRED TO BE FILED.–
(a) In order for a candidate for judicial office or the office of school board member to be qualified, the following items must be received by the filing officer by the end of the qualifying period:
(5) The full and public disclosure of financial interests required by s. 8, Art. II of the State Constitution or the statement of financial interests required by s. 112.3145, whichever is applicable. A public officer who has filed the full and public disclosure or statement of financial interests with the Commission on Ethics or the supervisor of elections prior to qualifying for office may file a copy of that disclosure at the time of qualifying.
May 8th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
My god this was a simple error made by a HUMAN BEING(s)! anyone presuming not to make such an error seriously has problems! Is this all you can find on Mr. Golburgh people?!!!!!
May 9th, 2010 at 6:27 am
Those defending Golburgh are idiots. These are the same people that if a prosecutor didn’t dot his I’s and cross his T’s, they would move to dismiss. If this was an oath in a trial, Golburgh would be the first to try to disqualify it.
May 9th, 2010 at 10:35 am
To: Broward Esq.: Look between the “C” in Elect on the left hand side and the “C” in County and you will see, written at an angle the word “for” as plain as day. I admit I had to put my reading glasses on to see it but it IS there, plain as day.
May 9th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Nice John at least you pretty much confirm you made the “for” a small as possible so old people like yourself who don’t use glasses to read it will be fooled into thinking you are a judge. This is why the voters need to take a hard look at these slimy criminal attorneys like Howe’s and Golburgh who will mislead the voters to get elected
May 10th, 2010 at 8:29 am
[…] Here is my original post explaining the controversy. […]
May 10th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
actually…
i was referring to the page caption on the browser window. which very clearly reads in regular sized font
“Broward County Judge, John R. Howes for Judge”
http://www.howes4judge.com/home.html
May 13th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
I agree one hundred percent with gimme a break.
Everyone who is anyone knows Lloyd Golburgh is a for real man.
I gather his opponent is in fear of someone as gifted as Mr. Golburgh, so they need to find something, anything to win.
It was an oversight and that is it.
Grow up and be fair. Run a fair race.
Let God be the Judge to anyone who would try to push out a good man.
as for the notary, she did nothing wrong. After all, she is his employee and for that reason swears to his signature. It is done everyday. She also, did nothing wrong.
Let them both alone and go after the ones trying to accuse the innocent.
May 13th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
How can one swear to a signature where there is no signature.
Thanks for confirming that Lloyd’s secretary did this. When she loses her notary license and faces criminal charges at least Lloyd can defend her.
Done every day? No most people sign a document in front of and before a Notary signs her name. It’s wacky but it’s the law.
June 8th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
ATTORNEYS! ATTORNEYS!
(and solely attorneys)
Please read the law, rather than making embarassing political, and highly inaccurate, uninformed and (sadly) anonymous conclusions solely to cowtow to cronies and gain useless “points” from those who will only nail you, or–worse–make crucial decisions based solely on political favors, corruption and lawlessness.
Please begin, for example, with Browning v. Young, 993 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008):
“We begin with the text of the statute. Section 99.061(5), Florida Statutes provides that ‘each candidate for a constitutional office shall file a full and public disclosure of financial interests,’ pursuant to Article II, section 8, of the Florida Constitution. This provision of the Constitution refers to a public disclosure of financial interests as a ‘sworn statement’ but it does not specify a required method of attestation. No further direction is given on this point in the statute. Section 99.061(5) does not expressly require that a candidate’s signature on the financial disclosure form must be notarized or that it must be verified in a particular way.”
Browning v. Young, 993 So.2d at 65.
“As the court explained [so very long ago in State ex rel. Siegendorf v. Stone, 266 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1972], ‘Literal and ‘total compliance’ with statutory language which reaches hypersensitive levels and which strains the quality of justice is not required to fairly and substantially meet the statutory requirement to qualify as a candidate for public office.’ Siegendorf, 266 So.2d at 346 (emphasis added).â€
Browning, 993 So.2d at 346.
Please do not strain the quality of justice with your uninformed hair-splitting, ad hominem lies. These are so much easier in countries we so hypocritically denounce. Be real. Have the courage to change camps. Vote for Lloyd Golburgh because you care more about Justice than crossed t’s, dotted i’s, or whether the Titanic was sunk by a Golburgh or an Iceburg[h].
June 9th, 2010 at 8:21 am
[…] disclosure form before the qualifying period closed. After Browardbeat.com broke the story here, Golburgh amendment the […]
June 14th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Noone can cite any basis whatsoever for the proposition that the financial interest form must be signed. Judge Merrigan, Plaintiff Beamer & Attorney Weiss are the ones who have the burden of citing law. The statutes they point to do not even come close to supporting the notion that a signature is required on the form. Even if a statute existed that made signing the form a mandatory requirement for qualification, such a statute would be unconstitutional because it would add a qualification or disqualification not contained in the Constitution.
“[E]ligibility to run for judicial office is controlled by Article V Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Any statute that restricts eligibility beyond the requirements of the Florida Constitution is invalid.”
Miller v. Mendez, 804 So.2d 1243, 1246 (Fla. 2001). The form itself was concocted by some clerk at the Commission on Ethics. Obviously, the Commission on Ethics cannot add qualifications for public office to those contained in the Constitution any more than the Legislature can. Thus,
“Candidates are required to have the form notarized in the manner required by the Commission on Ethics, but it is not at all clear that this procedural element can be elevated to a mandatory condition to be met in order to qualify for public office.”
Browning v. Young, 993 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
Just because “every other candidate in Florida signed theirs” does not alter the Florida Constitution. [Merrigan, Weiss &] Beamer v. Golburgh is a frivilous pleading. It is the same species of pleading for which prison inmates are routinely disciplined. See Van Meter v. State, 726 So.2d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“We find that the purpose of section 944.279 and section 944.28(2), Florida Statutes, is similar to that of section 57.105, Florida Statutes, which is to preclude the filing of frivolous litigation”). In addition to being frivolous, the suit is a political blow beneath the belt, an act of cowardice in the line of battle, and an underhanded attempt to rob both Golburgh of his Constitutional right to run for office and rob the People of their right to vote for him. No matter who one supports, it must be condemned as an act of anti-Democratic terrorism:
“The lexicon of democracy condemns all attempts to restrict one’s right to run for office.†Ervin v. Collins, 85 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1956).”
Article II, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution required Merrigan to take the following Oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution…”
Violating that Oath by attempting to take away Golburgh’s Constitutional right to run for office and the People’s Constitutional right to vote for him without any legal basis whatsoever for doing so is not akin to omitting a signature that is not even required.
FROM BUDDY:
Thank you so much for doing this research for Browardbeat.com’s readers.
June 14th, 2010 at 11:30 am
My pleasure, Buddy.
June 29th, 2010 at 11:57 am
[…] is Browardbeat.com’s original story on the Golburgh […]