October 24, 2024 • 34 mins
I do not solicit interviews with judicial candidates. The reason? Rules prohibit them from saying much of anything because they have to be impartial and rule based on the law as written and evidence as presented. Historically, I found those sit downs to be problematic. However, Robert Churchill reached out to the show and asked. Doing a show visit was a "No;" a podcast sitdown made more sense. So here you go ... as always, no edits. This is our conversation.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
All right, folks, here we are. You thought I was
done doing the podcast for the election season, and nay, nay,
I am not. I am sitting with Robert Churchill, who
is running for Leon County Judge seat four. Robert, good
to meet you.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
How are you. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
It's wonderful to be here present. I am wonderful. I'm well,
and I'm delighted to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Are you delighted as well that you're at the end
of this cycle?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
I am delighted to be nearing the end. You know what,
We are in the last two laps of the five
k race here. So it's when people ask me how
I'm doing, I say, I'm in the last two laps.
You know, we're kicking and we're working hard. But it's hard.
And I have never run for office before. I'm not
(00:45):
a politician. I'm not a good campaigner, but I want
the job and I care about the court, which is
why I'm doing it.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Let's talk about that for just a second. Because you're
not a politician. I think every judicial candidate says that
we find out sometimes usually in the higher levels, whether
it's the Supreme Court or whether it's a higher level
of appellate court. Maybe they're a little more political than
we thought, But the reality is, you do have to
(01:14):
run in this political arena, or prepared you for that
or is there any preparation for it?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Well, I say I'm not a politician now, and that
is true now, and that's because I was sure that
I was going to become a politician when I was younger.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
In law school. I did law school.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
I didn't the FSU College of Law has because we're
so here in the capitol and are connected to government institutions.
There's an externship that they had offered at the legislature.
And I was certain that I was going into politics
at that point, and I wasn't quite sure where I
was where it was going to take me, but I
(01:54):
wanted to see it in action, and so I did
the externship at the Florida Legislature, and that completely cured
me of my desire to go into politics. It was
an interesting time, but you know, what I found was
that what I cared about and was good at doing
was the legal research part of that job. And so
(02:16):
I found myself kind of working on the legal analysis
that they needed done. But I was not in committee meetings,
and I did.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Not care at all for the.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Show of it, really, And then while I was still
doing the externship, the entire world came to Tallahassee during
Bush versus Gore, which was just an extraordinary thing to
witness and watch and be sitting there in working in
the Capitol while that was playing.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Out, and it still cured me. I'm not a politician
and never have been. Whether I thought I was going
to or not, I'm not doing it.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
So I think a lot of people, whether they'd admitted
or not. As another story, but when I think about
someone wanting to be a judge, I for years had
this idea that it surely had to be kind of
like the basketball team or the football team. You had
the varsity, and then you had the JV and then
(03:17):
you had the freshmen and they all kind of tried out,
and then you'd pick and you'd move your way up
from freshmen to junior varsity to varsity. And so I
think a lot of us think that, well, you want
to be the county judge seat, for surely you've been
a judge somewhere else, someplace else, But it doesn't quite work.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
That way there.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
I would venture say, there are probably some people who
view it in those terms. The county judge seat is
the lowest level trial court in the state. So the
county court is where small claims court is handled where
and it used to be smaller than it is now.
That is, the jurisdiction limit for county Court used to
(04:02):
be fifteen thousand dollars. It has because of the workload
on the entire court system. The legislature has changed that
and so now the county load is up to fifty
thousand dollars and they'd handle criminal misdemeanors and batteries and
housing disputes like landlord tenant things. What that means is
(04:23):
that now the county court is concerned with really what
our most small business disputes most If you are in
a small business dispute that involves more than fifty thousand dollars,
you have real problems. Most of those disputes are for
less than that amount of money, and there are many,
many of them. So I built my law practice here
(04:46):
around defending small businesses in county court and individuals being
chased for money or housing disputes, landlord tenant matters. And
that was just because as a business matter. When I
went out on my own, it made sense there was
nobody else doing that work, and I sort of niched
into it and turn the corner running my business doing
(05:07):
that work. But many people, to address your point, a
lot of people see a county court job as like
a stepping stone to bigger, better things later on. And
there are many people who start as county court judges
and then move on to becoming circuit judges, which is
(05:28):
the higher jurisdiction court, etc. Or DCA appalot judges. I
can't say that would never occur for me, but what
I will say is that I don't view the job
as a stepping stone. This is where I work, and
I care about this court and I care about the
product of its work.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
How does somebody literally, though, become qualified to even run
to become a judge. I think a lot of people
are under the impression that, like I said, you've been
a judge somewhere else doing something else, that you're you're
like born a judge, you know you're a judge. But
it's not that way. So everybody that's going to run
(06:08):
for this position has to have certain qualifications, though.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Correct well to constitutional qualifications under Florida law are that
to be a judge you have to have been a
lawyer for a certain number of years, and when you are,
as it happens in this seat, we both have markedly
more experience than is required as a minimum to to
be that thus qualified that way on numbers of years
(06:34):
of experience, but then it depends on how you're getting there.
So if you're judges are supposed to be elected under
our system, and there was a referendum done decades ago
where the people of the state of Florida decided yes,
judges should be elected when judge. When judicial vacancies occur
(06:55):
by a judge's retirement or a judge moving from position
to position, then the ovenor appoints the replacement, and that
appointment is done through a merit selection process through the
Judicial Nominating Commission. I've been through that process four times.
I've been nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission four times
(07:15):
and have not been appointed. But now this seat has
come open because a judge is retiring and did not
put his name into qualify for the election, and so
that's why the seat opened. And it's an open seat,
which is relatively rare, but that's why it's happening this way.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
When you say you care about this court, try to
quantify that or qualify that for me, what do you mean?
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Well, because I work here on a day in, day
out basis, and I have been working in this court
since two thousand and six, roughly a little bit earlier
than that, but I started my business focusing on it
in two thousand and six. I have in that time
seen five or six judges come and go, and they've
(07:58):
all been perfectly professional and good people and hard working.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
And what.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
My experience has been is that most of the experience
of the judges who end up on any court anywhere
have a lot of prior experience in either criminal law
through the state attorney's office or in state government somewhere,
neither of which happens to be on my resume in
(08:27):
any extensive amount. What I have done is focus my
time and energy on civil litigation and the nuances and
the depths of those cases. That means that the judges
on this court tend to look to lawyers who practice
in areas that the judges are rather under exposed on
(08:49):
in their own.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
Prior careers to.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Assess the areas of law that need exploration and to
do better work. And so I and other lawyers like
me working in my practice area have been leaned on
that way for years. My opinion on this is my
experience has been that the court is better served by
(09:14):
having people on the bench who have different professional backgrounds
and experiences on which to draw, and we end up
with a better product overall when the court system is
populated by people with broad and diverse backgrounds of experience.
And that's why, that's at least a large part why
(09:36):
I'm doing it, But I also want the product of
the court to be elevated through that process. I'm doing
this because I think I have something to bring to it.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Over the years, I've told my radio audience that I
don't do interviews with judicial candidates very often because I
can't ask about what would you do in this case?
How would you view that case? There are specifics, and
I appreciate why you just can't talk about because it
could come before you in a case. So let me
(10:04):
broaden and go back out a little bit and maybe
get to the thirty thousand and sixty thousand foot view.
Is there a judicial philosophy that in this type of courtroom,
with the types of cases that you'll face can summarize
your view of the job.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Yes, I don't know that I have a label for it,
but basically it's my philosophy over the way judges are
to approach their own power is sparingly. That is I
viewed judicial power and I've talked about this and one
of the campaign forums. I view the exercise of judicial
(10:46):
power as akin to the reverse gear in a car,
and a reverse gear in a car is something that
you want to use.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
When I was.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
I've now gotten through three of my daughters learning how
to drive, sat in the passenger seat, and what we
came away from that lesson with was we use this
reverse gear as little as possible. You you use it
to safely back up, and as soon as you can
get in drive and navigate around, you do that. And
that's because you have more control, more vision, more you're
(11:15):
just a better driver in the drive gear than you
are in reverse. When you're in reverse, too often you
run into things, you step, you do things that you
did not intend, and a judge's power is like that.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
In my view. You we when when.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
The legislature writes a law and the governor participates in
the crafting of that law by by by allowing it
to go through, not vetoing it.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Et cetera. That is the policy of the state.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
And the judge's job is to carry out that policy.
And there's there are nuances, there are ambiguities in law
at times that the judge has to interpret, but that's
really rare relative to how often it's invoked. So more
often the job of the judge is to enforce the
(12:05):
law that's on the books and to do what it
says far more often. And and then if the legislature
gets pushed back that law is missing its mark, that's
up to them the fix or change.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
It's not a judge's responsibility.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Right And and every lawyer that I know who when
the legislature changes a law in an area of practice
that a lawyer is practicing in, what you what you
get is the lawyers who are more creatively minded start
to figure out, how are we going to get around
this now do we and what?
Speaker 2 (12:38):
And And the way that they.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Argue this is, in large part is to say judge,
as sometimes they will say they didn't really mean what
they said, but but very often what they say is
just think about the practical implications of what happens here.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Judge, if we.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Do what the legislature said to do, it's it's a
bad idea. And so what they're then doing is asking
the judge to effectively veto in this case for whatever reason,
what the legislature said, and that, in my view, is
not the role of a judge. The judge's job is
to is to do what the statute says on the books.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
If I were to ask you to define how you'll
approach the idea that I mean, there's two sides to
every case. That's the point of having a judge. You've
got a plaintiff, you've got a defense, right, you've been
on one side of that versus the other. More, how
do you balance that moving forward as a judge?
Speaker 3 (13:39):
I well, you have to understand that your job when
when you move forward, as this is true of almost
every judge. Every every judge who has come to the
bench has come there from a background experience of normally
being steeped in some area of law where they were
playing one part of the other. And we then have
to trust the ability of the judge to basically take
(14:00):
off that hat and put on a different one. That
is essentially an arbor and you're you're not playing the
game now, you're you're a referee or an.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Umpire, and and.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
The and and that is a role that I'm I'm
happy to embrace. I'm not I'm not concerned at all
about my inability to be impartial in reference to cases
that come before me. I and I think that I
can bring something to the cases that add perspective to
the and complement the existing makeup of the court, just
(14:32):
based on that background.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
How important is it that just the people listening right now,
overwhelmingly are not ever going to be in front of you.
Most of them just aren't. They're not going to find
their way into a courtroom, but yet they're deciding who's
going to sit in this judge's seat.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Right?
Speaker 1 (14:52):
How important is it that they understand the why behind
your rulings?
Speaker 3 (14:59):
The It's important for everybody that comes before the court
to understand the why, and it's important for the community
to understand the why of this system itself. Basically, we
are we are all better off when the law is
predictable and the law is adequately, evenly, fairly applied as
(15:21):
it reads. What what in my view, where we are
worse off or worse off in business. We're worse off
in social relationships and interactions in everyday life when you
don't know when whether in this transaction that you're having
today or this one that you have on the road
down the street from wherever you go out from here
(15:43):
might be treated differently based on which judge hears it and.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
The what what.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
The legislature has done in reference to those things on
matters that are of concern to them enough when when
when they when they care enough about an issue, then
they will legislates something into it. Then it's the job
of the judge to carry it out well.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Two.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
And that regulates the and then allows us to And
when I say regulate, I mean it it may it
should make predictable what the interaction of the court system
is then in these relationships. And that's exactly what the
legislature is trying to do. And that's what the job
of the judges to carry out. And that affects us
all in our relationships, business and otherwise.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
See I asked the question because the email I get
most often at election time is what do I do
about the judges up for retention? The Supreme Court stuff
it's kind of low hanging fruit. They don't make a
ton of rulings, and so you can read, you can
find out who voted what and why they might have
signed on with a majority versus a dissenting opinion. But
(16:51):
for about every other judge's retention, and you're not facing
that you want this seat. You're trying to figure out, okay, well,
how they rule. And that's one of the big flaws
in our system of retaining and electing judges is the
public just doesn't have information to hang their hat on
(17:11):
to know to make a good informed choice. So would
you rather only inform people vote on the judges race,
because you're really at the whim of you know, well,
I like his personality or I like the way that
he answered that question versus anything beyond that that has substance.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
I would rather I would rather.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
The the people voting be very well informed on what
they're voting on. And the election that you're kind of
elections that you're referring to, are these retention elections for
appellate judges, which are and they have their rulings. Appeals
court judges have a sweep to them or basically what
they say matters and governs or buyings all lower trial courts.
(18:01):
So they have a lot of power.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
And yet not.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
If average person on the street could not name one
of those judges, correct, and they have a privilege and
right to do their work anonymously. Literally, they can have
an opinion that where we don't know who wrote it.
And so when you're asked whether we should retain this
(18:26):
judge or not, they I don't think any appellate court
judge has ever been rejected, but in the history since
since that system has been in place, whether we should
do it that way or not, I don't know. But
what I will say is that when you have an
open election to an open judicial seat, it matters that
(18:49):
people have done some background research on these candidates. I
don't know whether we could come up with a better
way than what we're doing the way that we're doing.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I've Robert, I've long suggested that there be either either
the judge or the court that the judges is serving.
Basically write a summary of Okay, here was the case,
here was the ruling, here's why for everything, to give
us the people in the public, a look into Okay,
what was the judge thinking in that case and why.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Right, and that I will tell you, and that has
particular particular sort of pertinence to this job in particular,
and that's because the county court happens to be And
you were saying that most of your audience is never
going to show up in county court or any court,
and that's probably true, and it's fortunate for them. Most
people that I deal with in court are there are
(19:42):
kind of one and done's they're there and they're surprised
to be there a lot of times. But but yeah,
they got a letter in the mail. But in the
in the process of that, because this court happens to
be the one where if you're ever going to interact
with the court system, unless it's in your divorce, which
(20:03):
is in circuit court and it's a contested matter, then
this court, the county court Small claims court, is where
you're going to see the court in action. Okay, So
this court essentially serves in some way as an ambassador
for the court system to the.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Public and.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
It around the state. County courts do a relatively poor job.
Sometimes they do an awful job of carrying out that
important duty. That is, people go into court and walk
out of there, not knowing what just happened, and there
was lawyers were up there talking.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
I didn't.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
It was like a foreign language. I had no idea
what was happening that It seemed like they were too busy,
too hurried. They said my name, something happened. I walked
out of there. Now the reason I know that is
because then those people end up in my office telling
me exactly that, and I have to then go and
look on the docket and explain to them this, from
what I can see, this is what happened to you,
(21:01):
and this affected your rights. They were deciding something about
you while you were sitting there and didn't understand it. That,
in my view, is a fundamental problem and something that
is the job of the judge to address.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
So how much discretion do you have in that type
of case without going into details, and how much discretion
do you have to maybe create a trail for people
to understand the rulings that you make and why.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
One of the ways that one judge I've talked to
about what the important roles and duties of a judge
are said he has told me, and what I like
a lot is that a judge's job is to listen
well to listen more than they talk, to make sure
that everyone is heard and feels heard. That matters, and
(21:52):
to explain well what their rulings are. If you're making
a ruling, you have to be able to explain it
in a way that people understand what just happened, whether
they or lost. And they Meanwhile, there's a lot of
the docket is crowded, there's a backlog for whatever reason,
and there's a lot of emphasis on moving things through
(22:15):
where that part of explaining well what happened is perhaps
being underserved at times, and that's not where you want
to cut these corners. In my view, a part of
the job of a judge is to make sure that
the rulings are understood. Now, a judge cannot and what
many judges will tell you is, look, I can't give
anybody advice, and that is true.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
They can't. They What they can tell you.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Is, here's what happened, here's and here's why it happened,
and they can explain that in as much detail as
they need to to make sure the point is across.
Some people can't fathom that they have lost. And the
reality is when you have a case that is a
versus b one of them is going to lose, So
fifty percent of the people are going to be unhappy,
(23:00):
but they deserve the explanation.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
You have offices in Tallahassee, Thomasville and Saint Pete. Still correct, Yes,
real weird question, but I think it's a fair one.
What happens to the other offices. Clearly you shut down
your office in Tallahassee.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
No, I don't know the law.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
The law office will will keep going just without me
in it, and it will not have my name on it.
But the I have an attorney who is of counsel
to my firm who is in Jacksonville. I used to
have a branch in Jacksonville, and then she's from Tallahassee.
Your name is Marilyn Wells, and she took she took
(23:42):
the Jacksonville office and then turned the corner and grew
it herself and thrived and is doing well. She is
still of counsel to my law firm, meaning that she's
she's associated with my firm. And then my branch office
in Saint Pete will keep on running. And then they
the two of them, and probably another lawyer here locally,
we'll keep running the office. If I become a judge,
(24:02):
the office in Thomasville, Georgia would would cease to exist,
and the and my Georgia work would then shut down
because nobody in my law firm is admitted in Georgia
other than me, so and I. And when he pretty
much ends that, then, yes, sir, so, when you when
you become a judge, you're no longer allowed to practice
law in any form, and that's why that would shut down.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
What do you think is most important for voters to
know beyond the things we've chatted about so far as
they you know, obviously early votings underway and we're about
halfway through that. But what do you want them to
consider when it comes to making a decision on this race?
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Just to be well informed on the the background, the philosophy,
the philosophy, the approach of the judge, the judicial candidates
that are in the race, and to understand that my
the as you were referring to, and as we were
talking here before we started, the the the rules that
apply to judges and judicial candidates make it so that
(25:05):
I'm not allowed to talk about and a lot of
matters of import to you and your audience.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
So I.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
Have no opinion on those things by because that's the
way it has to be.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Even if you had an opinion, you have no opinion
because you have to base your rulings on what's presented,
not anything you hear ancillary to that right.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
And so we all these amendments that are on the ballot.
What do you think about the amendments? The presidential election
obviously is a huge thing, and there's all these other
contentious local elections, and there are there's there is what
seems to be a rather constant pull on me and
my opponent, Miss Riggins in this race too, to identify,
(25:47):
to tell us who, where, where are what side of you.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
On support right?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
And our job is is to RISI I didn't write
these rules, but our job ultimately is to resist those
influences and to say, listen, based on my background, I'm
the best person for this job.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Now. The forced banality of this, I mean.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
The the the absolute vanilla flavor of what what you're
getting in a judicial campaign is because that's that's the
way the rules are written. And what it also does,
and I think what it's done in our campaign is
it's it's made it so that we genuinely like one another.
I'm I we've become fast friends in this campaign. I
(26:35):
wish her well. I want the job and I and
I'm prepared to explain why I think my background.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
My view of the judicial role as.
Speaker 3 (26:46):
Shown in these forums that you're referring to that people
can look at, is best suited for the job.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Now you've mentioned the dollar limit that is on cases
that would come before this court, which is the Leon
County seat for court. What about the breadth of it.
Let's go just a little bit deeper in explaining the
type of cases that you see, because when you see
(27:15):
you hear a dollar figure, you're thinking, Okay, there's a
financial crime. You mentioned small claims, kind of civil court
type things, but criminal matters.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
Yes, the county county judges deal with criminal misdemeanors basically
crimes that are punishable by less than a year put away.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
So if there's an armed robbery that's going somewhere.
Speaker 3 (27:36):
Else, correct, Yes, that's going to circuit court. If it's
a felony, does that.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Expansion of the types of cases you'll hear. What kind
of requirements does that place on you? Given your area?
You mentioned you have a niche practice.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Right, Well, the requirements that puts on me and on
every other judge is that you have to you have
to be prepared to understand the full breadth of the
law and the scope of what applies to it to
deal with the case as well that come before you.
In criminal law practice, one of the things that I've
been collecting feedback from everybody i can on this campaign.
(28:17):
I've talked to the state attorney, to the sheriff, to
the to the chief of police, to the public.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Defender and their office.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
And one of the things, one of the bits of
feedback that I'm getting from those involved in the criminal
legal process is that it matters that that good lawyering
is adjudicated. There are so many cases in the criminal
system that are basically wheel and deal jobs. You know,
let's let's let's make a deal happen here and get
(28:46):
this done that. And I see that also on the
civil side in my own practice, where where there's we
people are encouraged to get things resolved and settled. Number one,
because it reduces caseload, It gets the case off the docket,
and usually it's a better, more predictable outcome for everybody involved.
(29:12):
That said, there are cases that have to be adjudicated.
And the role of the judge when you have two
lawyers before you is to say, I see that you're here,
and I'm not going to ask you whether you've talked,
if everybody here knows what they're doing, and if they
have not been able to make a deal, I have
a job to do, and that job is adjudicating the case.
(29:32):
That is something that I think is incumbent upon every
judge to address your question. There are as My particular
background and my area of depth of knowledge and expertise
has been in civil litigation, in collection matters and garnishment procedure,
(29:54):
and a lot of things that come before county judges
all the time, Okay, which is why I that's where
I pitched my tent. There have been in our great
great judges who like me, have come to the bench
steeped in some prior background knowledge of one particular area
(30:15):
of law, but not in the other areas of law
that judge will necessarily touch on the bench. So James
Hankinson a great great judge. Here, Kevin Carroll another great judge.
Both of them came from entirely different career paths. One
was civil and one was criminal. And then when they
were judges, they handled everything and they did a fantastic job.
(30:39):
To the extent that I am done the honor of
being elected to the seat, I would be in that
mole and basically I'm going to be doing everything that
the judge, the judicial seat touches. But my background is
extensive in civil litigation.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
You mentioned talking to attorneys and prosecutors and other judges
and sheriffs and all of that. What have you heard
from people, just people as you've gone around to these forums,
business owners, regular citizens out there, and what they voice
to you anything catch you off guard?
Speaker 3 (31:14):
What the most common thing that you hear from regular
people is, well, it's twofold. The people who have are
are one time players. That is one and Done's tend
to say. All I want to know is that you're
(31:36):
going to be fair, that you're going to do justice.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Okay, the justice can be perceived through just their lands.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
Well, this is just the devils and the details, because
they know what they mean justice as I see it,
that's right and when when? And others who are there
more often a small business owner's landlord, ards, et cetera say,
and I think rightly say, listen, I want to know
(32:04):
that the judge on the bench is somebody who's going
to do what the law says, because god I'm doing
I'm doing my business based on what I'm reading in
the law, based what my lawyer is telling me the
law says. And what makes makes those particular mom and
pop business clients want to pull their hair out is
(32:26):
when they do everything that they have been advised to
do and then they get a result that just doesn't
square with that advice because a bad day in court
and the judge didn't do what their lawyer said the
law requires be done.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
And that.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Is perhaps more frequent than it ought to be around
our state. But it's something that I think is the
job of the judge and the court system to address.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Let's wrap this up with this question, and I'll let
you play an attorney once more and make the argument,
because ultimately the people listening are the judge. They're going
to make the decision on their ballot. So make the
case why, Robert.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
Churchill, I have been thank you for that. I have
been working in this court for eighteen years. I've built
a small business catering to and handling the caseload that
exists on the Leon County Court. My view of our
(33:29):
court system in general is that it has to it
has to accomplish one of the central roles of the
judiciary is to bring confidence in the rulings of the court.
Because you can see that the bench is strong and
the way that that's been applied over some years, it
(33:51):
means that there are people on the bench who have
similar backgrounds to me, those whose cases are being handled.
The reason I'm in this race is because I think
that my candidacy brings something to.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
The table for this court.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
That my experience and background in civil litigation, in running
a small business, in handling small business related matters in court,
in handling collection and landlord tenant matters for moms and
pops and for college students, for my pro bono background,
and my giving back and my community service, means that
(34:34):
that perspective would.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
Aid the court and.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
Would improve the product of the output of the court.
Now and I hope to earn the vote of every
one of your listeners for this seat.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Thanks for the time today. Appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Thank you for Preston. I appreciate it.
All right, folks, here we are. You thought I was
done doing the podcast for the election season, and nay, nay,
I am not. I am sitting with Robert Churchill, who
is running for Leon County Judge seat four. Robert, good
to meet you.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
How are you. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (00:15):
It's wonderful to be here present. I am wonderful. I'm well,
and I'm delighted to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Are you delighted as well that you're at the end
of this cycle?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
I am delighted to be nearing the end. You know what,
We are in the last two laps of the five
k race here. So it's when people ask me how
I'm doing, I say, I'm in the last two laps.
You know, we're kicking and we're working hard. But it's hard.
And I have never run for office before. I'm not
(00:45):
a politician. I'm not a good campaigner, but I want
the job and I care about the court, which is
why I'm doing it.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Let's talk about that for just a second. Because you're
not a politician. I think every judicial candidate says that
we find out sometimes usually in the higher levels, whether
it's the Supreme Court or whether it's a higher level
of appellate court. Maybe they're a little more political than
we thought, But the reality is, you do have to
(01:14):
run in this political arena, or prepared you for that
or is there any preparation for it?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Well, I say I'm not a politician now, and that
is true now, and that's because I was sure that
I was going to become a politician when I was younger.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
In law school. I did law school.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
I didn't the FSU College of Law has because we're
so here in the capitol and are connected to government institutions.
There's an externship that they had offered at the legislature.
And I was certain that I was going into politics
at that point, and I wasn't quite sure where I
was where it was going to take me, but I
(01:54):
wanted to see it in action, and so I did
the externship at the Florida Legislature, and that completely cured
me of my desire to go into politics. It was
an interesting time, but you know, what I found was
that what I cared about and was good at doing
was the legal research part of that job. And so
(02:16):
I found myself kind of working on the legal analysis
that they needed done. But I was not in committee meetings,
and I did.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Not care at all for the.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Show of it, really, And then while I was still
doing the externship, the entire world came to Tallahassee during
Bush versus Gore, which was just an extraordinary thing to
witness and watch and be sitting there in working in
the Capitol while that was playing.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Out, and it still cured me. I'm not a politician
and never have been. Whether I thought I was going
to or not, I'm not doing it.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
So I think a lot of people, whether they'd admitted
or not. As another story, but when I think about
someone wanting to be a judge, I for years had
this idea that it surely had to be kind of
like the basketball team or the football team. You had
the varsity, and then you had the JV and then
(03:17):
you had the freshmen and they all kind of tried out,
and then you'd pick and you'd move your way up
from freshmen to junior varsity to varsity. And so I
think a lot of us think that, well, you want
to be the county judge seat, for surely you've been
a judge somewhere else, someplace else, But it doesn't quite work.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
That way there.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
I would venture say, there are probably some people who
view it in those terms. The county judge seat is
the lowest level trial court in the state. So the
county court is where small claims court is handled where
and it used to be smaller than it is now.
That is, the jurisdiction limit for county Court used to
(04:02):
be fifteen thousand dollars. It has because of the workload
on the entire court system. The legislature has changed that
and so now the county load is up to fifty
thousand dollars and they'd handle criminal misdemeanors and batteries and
housing disputes like landlord tenant things. What that means is
(04:23):
that now the county court is concerned with really what
our most small business disputes most If you are in
a small business dispute that involves more than fifty thousand dollars,
you have real problems. Most of those disputes are for
less than that amount of money, and there are many,
many of them. So I built my law practice here
(04:46):
around defending small businesses in county court and individuals being
chased for money or housing disputes, landlord tenant matters. And
that was just because as a business matter. When I
went out on my own, it made sense there was
nobody else doing that work, and I sort of niched
into it and turn the corner running my business doing
(05:07):
that work. But many people, to address your point, a
lot of people see a county court job as like
a stepping stone to bigger, better things later on. And
there are many people who start as county court judges
and then move on to becoming circuit judges, which is
(05:28):
the higher jurisdiction court, etc. Or DCA appalot judges. I
can't say that would never occur for me, but what
I will say is that I don't view the job
as a stepping stone. This is where I work, and
I care about this court and I care about the
product of its work.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
How does somebody literally, though, become qualified to even run
to become a judge. I think a lot of people
are under the impression that, like I said, you've been
a judge somewhere else doing something else, that you're you're
like born a judge, you know you're a judge. But
it's not that way. So everybody that's going to run
(06:08):
for this position has to have certain qualifications, though.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Correct well to constitutional qualifications under Florida law are that
to be a judge you have to have been a
lawyer for a certain number of years, and when you are,
as it happens in this seat, we both have markedly
more experience than is required as a minimum to to
be that thus qualified that way on numbers of years
(06:34):
of experience, but then it depends on how you're getting there.
So if you're judges are supposed to be elected under
our system, and there was a referendum done decades ago
where the people of the state of Florida decided yes,
judges should be elected when judge. When judicial vacancies occur
(06:55):
by a judge's retirement or a judge moving from position
to position, then the ovenor appoints the replacement, and that
appointment is done through a merit selection process through the
Judicial Nominating Commission. I've been through that process four times.
I've been nominated by the Judicial Nominating Commission four times
(07:15):
and have not been appointed. But now this seat has
come open because a judge is retiring and did not
put his name into qualify for the election, and so
that's why the seat opened. And it's an open seat,
which is relatively rare, but that's why it's happening this way.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
When you say you care about this court, try to
quantify that or qualify that for me, what do you mean?
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Well, because I work here on a day in, day
out basis, and I have been working in this court
since two thousand and six, roughly a little bit earlier
than that, but I started my business focusing on it
in two thousand and six. I have in that time
seen five or six judges come and go, and they've
(07:58):
all been perfectly professional and good people and hard working.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
And what.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
My experience has been is that most of the experience
of the judges who end up on any court anywhere
have a lot of prior experience in either criminal law
through the state attorney's office or in state government somewhere,
neither of which happens to be on my resume in
(08:27):
any extensive amount. What I have done is focus my
time and energy on civil litigation and the nuances and
the depths of those cases. That means that the judges
on this court tend to look to lawyers who practice
in areas that the judges are rather under exposed on
(08:49):
in their own.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
Prior careers to.
Speaker 3 (08:54):
Assess the areas of law that need exploration and to
do better work. And so I and other lawyers like
me working in my practice area have been leaned on
that way for years. My opinion on this is my
experience has been that the court is better served by
(09:14):
having people on the bench who have different professional backgrounds
and experiences on which to draw, and we end up
with a better product overall when the court system is
populated by people with broad and diverse backgrounds of experience.
And that's why, that's at least a large part why
(09:36):
I'm doing it, But I also want the product of
the court to be elevated through that process. I'm doing
this because I think I have something to bring to it.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Over the years, I've told my radio audience that I
don't do interviews with judicial candidates very often because I
can't ask about what would you do in this case?
How would you view that case? There are specifics, and
I appreciate why you just can't talk about because it
could come before you in a case. So let me
(10:04):
broaden and go back out a little bit and maybe
get to the thirty thousand and sixty thousand foot view.
Is there a judicial philosophy that in this type of courtroom,
with the types of cases that you'll face can summarize
your view of the job.
Speaker 3 (10:24):
Yes, I don't know that I have a label for it,
but basically it's my philosophy over the way judges are
to approach their own power is sparingly. That is I
viewed judicial power and I've talked about this and one
of the campaign forums. I view the exercise of judicial
(10:46):
power as akin to the reverse gear in a car,
and a reverse gear in a car is something that
you want to use.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
When I was.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
I've now gotten through three of my daughters learning how
to drive, sat in the passenger seat, and what we
came away from that lesson with was we use this
reverse gear as little as possible. You you use it
to safely back up, and as soon as you can
get in drive and navigate around, you do that. And
that's because you have more control, more vision, more you're
(11:15):
just a better driver in the drive gear than you
are in reverse. When you're in reverse, too often you
run into things, you step, you do things that you
did not intend, and a judge's power is like that.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
In my view. You we when when.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
The legislature writes a law and the governor participates in
the crafting of that law by by by allowing it
to go through, not vetoing it.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Et cetera. That is the policy of the state.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
And the judge's job is to carry out that policy.
And there's there are nuances, there are ambiguities in law
at times that the judge has to interpret, but that's
really rare relative to how often it's invoked. So more
often the job of the judge is to enforce the
(12:05):
law that's on the books and to do what it
says far more often. And and then if the legislature
gets pushed back that law is missing its mark, that's
up to them the fix or change.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
It's not a judge's responsibility.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Right And and every lawyer that I know who when
the legislature changes a law in an area of practice
that a lawyer is practicing in, what you what you
get is the lawyers who are more creatively minded start
to figure out, how are we going to get around
this now do we and what?
Speaker 2 (12:38):
And And the way that they.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
Argue this is, in large part is to say judge,
as sometimes they will say they didn't really mean what
they said, but but very often what they say is
just think about the practical implications of what happens here.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Judge, if we.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Do what the legislature said to do, it's it's a
bad idea. And so what they're then doing is asking
the judge to effectively veto in this case for whatever reason,
what the legislature said, and that, in my view, is
not the role of a judge. The judge's job is
to is to do what the statute says on the books.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
If I were to ask you to define how you'll
approach the idea that I mean, there's two sides to
every case. That's the point of having a judge. You've
got a plaintiff, you've got a defense, right, you've been
on one side of that versus the other. More, how
do you balance that moving forward as a judge?
Speaker 3 (13:39):
I well, you have to understand that your job when
when you move forward, as this is true of almost
every judge. Every every judge who has come to the
bench has come there from a background experience of normally
being steeped in some area of law where they were
playing one part of the other. And we then have
to trust the ability of the judge to basically take
(14:00):
off that hat and put on a different one. That
is essentially an arbor and you're you're not playing the
game now, you're you're a referee or an.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Umpire, and and.
Speaker 3 (14:09):
The and and that is a role that I'm I'm
happy to embrace. I'm not I'm not concerned at all
about my inability to be impartial in reference to cases
that come before me. I and I think that I
can bring something to the cases that add perspective to
the and complement the existing makeup of the court, just
(14:32):
based on that background.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
How important is it that just the people listening right now,
overwhelmingly are not ever going to be in front of you.
Most of them just aren't. They're not going to find
their way into a courtroom, but yet they're deciding who's
going to sit in this judge's seat.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
Right?
Speaker 1 (14:52):
How important is it that they understand the why behind
your rulings?
Speaker 3 (14:59):
The It's important for everybody that comes before the court
to understand the why, and it's important for the community
to understand the why of this system itself. Basically, we
are we are all better off when the law is
predictable and the law is adequately, evenly, fairly applied as
(15:21):
it reads. What what in my view, where we are
worse off or worse off in business. We're worse off
in social relationships and interactions in everyday life when you
don't know when whether in this transaction that you're having
today or this one that you have on the road
down the street from wherever you go out from here
(15:43):
might be treated differently based on which judge hears it and.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
The what what.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
The legislature has done in reference to those things on
matters that are of concern to them enough when when
when they when they care enough about an issue, then
they will legislates something into it. Then it's the job
of the judge to carry it out well.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Two.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
And that regulates the and then allows us to And
when I say regulate, I mean it it may it
should make predictable what the interaction of the court system
is then in these relationships. And that's exactly what the
legislature is trying to do. And that's what the job
of the judges to carry out. And that affects us
all in our relationships, business and otherwise.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
See I asked the question because the email I get
most often at election time is what do I do
about the judges up for retention? The Supreme Court stuff
it's kind of low hanging fruit. They don't make a
ton of rulings, and so you can read, you can
find out who voted what and why they might have
signed on with a majority versus a dissenting opinion. But
(16:51):
for about every other judge's retention, and you're not facing
that you want this seat. You're trying to figure out, okay, well,
how they rule. And that's one of the big flaws
in our system of retaining and electing judges is the
public just doesn't have information to hang their hat on
(17:11):
to know to make a good informed choice. So would
you rather only inform people vote on the judges race,
because you're really at the whim of you know, well,
I like his personality or I like the way that
he answered that question versus anything beyond that that has substance.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
I would rather I would rather.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
The the people voting be very well informed on what
they're voting on. And the election that you're kind of
elections that you're referring to, are these retention elections for
appellate judges, which are and they have their rulings. Appeals
court judges have a sweep to them or basically what
they say matters and governs or buyings all lower trial courts.
(18:01):
So they have a lot of power.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
And yet not.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
If average person on the street could not name one
of those judges, correct, and they have a privilege and
right to do their work anonymously. Literally, they can have
an opinion that where we don't know who wrote it.
And so when you're asked whether we should retain this
(18:26):
judge or not, they I don't think any appellate court
judge has ever been rejected, but in the history since
since that system has been in place, whether we should
do it that way or not, I don't know. But
what I will say is that when you have an
open election to an open judicial seat, it matters that
(18:49):
people have done some background research on these candidates. I
don't know whether we could come up with a better
way than what we're doing the way that we're doing.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I've Robert, I've long suggested that there be either either
the judge or the court that the judges is serving.
Basically write a summary of Okay, here was the case,
here was the ruling, here's why for everything, to give
us the people in the public, a look into Okay,
what was the judge thinking in that case and why.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Right, and that I will tell you, and that has
particular particular sort of pertinence to this job in particular,
and that's because the county court happens to be And
you were saying that most of your audience is never
going to show up in county court or any court,
and that's probably true, and it's fortunate for them. Most
people that I deal with in court are there are
(19:42):
kind of one and done's they're there and they're surprised
to be there a lot of times. But but yeah,
they got a letter in the mail. But in the
in the process of that, because this court happens to
be the one where if you're ever going to interact
with the court system, unless it's in your divorce, which
(20:03):
is in circuit court and it's a contested matter, then
this court, the county court Small claims court, is where
you're going to see the court in action. Okay, So
this court essentially serves in some way as an ambassador
for the court system to the.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
Public and.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
It around the state. County courts do a relatively poor job.
Sometimes they do an awful job of carrying out that
important duty. That is, people go into court and walk
out of there, not knowing what just happened, and there
was lawyers were up there talking.
Speaker 2 (20:39):
I didn't.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
It was like a foreign language. I had no idea
what was happening that It seemed like they were too busy,
too hurried. They said my name, something happened. I walked
out of there. Now the reason I know that is
because then those people end up in my office telling
me exactly that, and I have to then go and
look on the docket and explain to them this, from
what I can see, this is what happened to you,
(21:01):
and this affected your rights. They were deciding something about
you while you were sitting there and didn't understand it. That,
in my view, is a fundamental problem and something that
is the job of the judge to address.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
So how much discretion do you have in that type
of case without going into details, and how much discretion
do you have to maybe create a trail for people
to understand the rulings that you make and why.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
One of the ways that one judge I've talked to
about what the important roles and duties of a judge
are said he has told me, and what I like
a lot is that a judge's job is to listen
well to listen more than they talk, to make sure
that everyone is heard and feels heard. That matters, and
(21:52):
to explain well what their rulings are. If you're making
a ruling, you have to be able to explain it
in a way that people understand what just happened, whether
they or lost. And they Meanwhile, there's a lot of
the docket is crowded, there's a backlog for whatever reason,
and there's a lot of emphasis on moving things through
(22:15):
where that part of explaining well what happened is perhaps
being underserved at times, and that's not where you want
to cut these corners. In my view, a part of
the job of a judge is to make sure that
the rulings are understood. Now, a judge cannot and what
many judges will tell you is, look, I can't give
anybody advice, and that is true.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
They can't. They What they can tell you.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Is, here's what happened, here's and here's why it happened,
and they can explain that in as much detail as
they need to to make sure the point is across.
Some people can't fathom that they have lost. And the
reality is when you have a case that is a
versus b one of them is going to lose, So
fifty percent of the people are going to be unhappy,
(23:00):
but they deserve the explanation.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
You have offices in Tallahassee, Thomasville and Saint Pete. Still correct, Yes,
real weird question, but I think it's a fair one.
What happens to the other offices. Clearly you shut down
your office in Tallahassee.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
No, I don't know the law.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
The law office will will keep going just without me
in it, and it will not have my name on it.
But the I have an attorney who is of counsel
to my firm who is in Jacksonville. I used to
have a branch in Jacksonville, and then she's from Tallahassee.
Your name is Marilyn Wells, and she took she took
(23:42):
the Jacksonville office and then turned the corner and grew
it herself and thrived and is doing well. She is
still of counsel to my law firm, meaning that she's
she's associated with my firm. And then my branch office
in Saint Pete will keep on running. And then they
the two of them, and probably another lawyer here locally,
we'll keep running the office. If I become a judge,
(24:02):
the office in Thomasville, Georgia would would cease to exist,
and the and my Georgia work would then shut down
because nobody in my law firm is admitted in Georgia
other than me, so and I. And when he pretty
much ends that, then, yes, sir, so, when you when
you become a judge, you're no longer allowed to practice
law in any form, and that's why that would shut down.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
What do you think is most important for voters to
know beyond the things we've chatted about so far as
they you know, obviously early votings underway and we're about
halfway through that. But what do you want them to
consider when it comes to making a decision on this race?
Speaker 3 (24:41):
Just to be well informed on the the background, the philosophy,
the philosophy, the approach of the judge, the judicial candidates
that are in the race, and to understand that my
the as you were referring to, and as we were
talking here before we started, the the the rules that
apply to judges and judicial candidates make it so that
(25:05):
I'm not allowed to talk about and a lot of
matters of import to you and your audience.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
So I.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
Have no opinion on those things by because that's the
way it has to be.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Even if you had an opinion, you have no opinion
because you have to base your rulings on what's presented,
not anything you hear ancillary to that right.
Speaker 3 (25:24):
And so we all these amendments that are on the ballot.
What do you think about the amendments? The presidential election
obviously is a huge thing, and there's all these other
contentious local elections, and there are there's there is what
seems to be a rather constant pull on me and
my opponent, Miss Riggins in this race too, to identify,
(25:47):
to tell us who, where, where are what side of you.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
On support right?
Speaker 3 (25:53):
And our job is is to RISI I didn't write
these rules, but our job ultimately is to resist those
influences and to say, listen, based on my background, I'm
the best person for this job.
Speaker 2 (26:09):
Now. The forced banality of this, I mean.
Speaker 3 (26:14):
The the the absolute vanilla flavor of what what you're
getting in a judicial campaign is because that's that's the
way the rules are written. And what it also does,
and I think what it's done in our campaign is
it's it's made it so that we genuinely like one another.
I'm I we've become fast friends in this campaign. I
(26:35):
wish her well. I want the job and I and
I'm prepared to explain why I think my background.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
My view of the judicial role as.
Speaker 3 (26:46):
Shown in these forums that you're referring to that people
can look at, is best suited for the job.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Now you've mentioned the dollar limit that is on cases
that would come before this court, which is the Leon
County seat for court. What about the breadth of it.
Let's go just a little bit deeper in explaining the
type of cases that you see, because when you see
(27:15):
you hear a dollar figure, you're thinking, Okay, there's a
financial crime. You mentioned small claims, kind of civil court
type things, but criminal matters.
Speaker 3 (27:23):
Yes, the county county judges deal with criminal misdemeanors basically
crimes that are punishable by less than a year put away.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
So if there's an armed robbery that's going somewhere.
Speaker 3 (27:36):
Else, correct, Yes, that's going to circuit court. If it's
a felony, does that.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Expansion of the types of cases you'll hear. What kind
of requirements does that place on you? Given your area?
You mentioned you have a niche practice.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Right, Well, the requirements that puts on me and on
every other judge is that you have to you have
to be prepared to understand the full breadth of the
law and the scope of what applies to it to
deal with the case as well that come before you.
In criminal law practice, one of the things that I've
been collecting feedback from everybody i can on this campaign.
(28:17):
I've talked to the state attorney, to the sheriff, to
the to the chief of police, to the public.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
Defender and their office.
Speaker 3 (28:24):
And one of the things, one of the bits of
feedback that I'm getting from those involved in the criminal
legal process is that it matters that that good lawyering
is adjudicated. There are so many cases in the criminal
system that are basically wheel and deal jobs. You know,
let's let's let's make a deal happen here and get
(28:46):
this done that. And I see that also on the
civil side in my own practice, where where there's we
people are encouraged to get things resolved and settled. Number one,
because it reduces caseload, It gets the case off the docket,
and usually it's a better, more predictable outcome for everybody involved.
(29:12):
That said, there are cases that have to be adjudicated.
And the role of the judge when you have two
lawyers before you is to say, I see that you're here,
and I'm not going to ask you whether you've talked,
if everybody here knows what they're doing, and if they
have not been able to make a deal, I have
a job to do, and that job is adjudicating the case.
(29:32):
That is something that I think is incumbent upon every
judge to address your question. There are as My particular
background and my area of depth of knowledge and expertise
has been in civil litigation, in collection matters and garnishment procedure,
(29:54):
and a lot of things that come before county judges
all the time, Okay, which is why I that's where
I pitched my tent. There have been in our great
great judges who like me, have come to the bench
steeped in some prior background knowledge of one particular area
(30:15):
of law, but not in the other areas of law
that judge will necessarily touch on the bench. So James
Hankinson a great great judge. Here, Kevin Carroll another great judge.
Both of them came from entirely different career paths. One
was civil and one was criminal. And then when they
were judges, they handled everything and they did a fantastic job.
(30:39):
To the extent that I am done the honor of
being elected to the seat, I would be in that
mole and basically I'm going to be doing everything that
the judge, the judicial seat touches. But my background is
extensive in civil litigation.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
You mentioned talking to attorneys and prosecutors and other judges
and sheriffs and all of that. What have you heard
from people, just people as you've gone around to these forums,
business owners, regular citizens out there, and what they voice
to you anything catch you off guard?
Speaker 3 (31:14):
What the most common thing that you hear from regular
people is, well, it's twofold. The people who have are
are one time players. That is one and Done's tend
to say. All I want to know is that you're
(31:36):
going to be fair, that you're going to do justice.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Okay, the justice can be perceived through just their lands.
Speaker 3 (31:42):
Well, this is just the devils and the details, because
they know what they mean justice as I see it,
that's right and when when? And others who are there
more often a small business owner's landlord, ards, et cetera say,
and I think rightly say, listen, I want to know
(32:04):
that the judge on the bench is somebody who's going
to do what the law says, because god I'm doing
I'm doing my business based on what I'm reading in
the law, based what my lawyer is telling me the
law says. And what makes makes those particular mom and
pop business clients want to pull their hair out is
(32:26):
when they do everything that they have been advised to
do and then they get a result that just doesn't
square with that advice because a bad day in court
and the judge didn't do what their lawyer said the
law requires be done.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
And that.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Is perhaps more frequent than it ought to be around
our state. But it's something that I think is the
job of the judge and the court system to address.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Let's wrap this up with this question, and I'll let
you play an attorney once more and make the argument,
because ultimately the people listening are the judge. They're going
to make the decision on their ballot. So make the
case why, Robert.
Speaker 3 (33:08):
Churchill, I have been thank you for that. I have
been working in this court for eighteen years. I've built
a small business catering to and handling the caseload that
exists on the Leon County Court. My view of our
(33:29):
court system in general is that it has to it
has to accomplish one of the central roles of the
judiciary is to bring confidence in the rulings of the court.
Because you can see that the bench is strong and
the way that that's been applied over some years, it
(33:51):
means that there are people on the bench who have
similar backgrounds to me, those whose cases are being handled.
The reason I'm in this race is because I think
that my candidacy brings something to.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
The table for this court.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
That my experience and background in civil litigation, in running
a small business, in handling small business related matters in court,
in handling collection and landlord tenant matters for moms and
pops and for college students, for my pro bono background,
and my giving back and my community service, means that
(34:34):
that perspective would.
Speaker 2 (34:36):
Aid the court and.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
Would improve the product of the output of the court.
Now and I hope to earn the vote of every
one of your listeners for this seat.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Thanks for the time today. Appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Thank you for Preston. I appreciate it.
Popular Podcasts
Good Game with Sarah Spain
Good Game is your one-stop shop for the biggest stories in women’s sports. Every day, host Sarah Spain gives you the stories, stakes, stars and stats to keep up with your favorite women’s teams, leagues and athletes. Through thoughtful insight, witty banter, and an all around good time, Sarah and friends break down the latest news, talk about the games you can’t miss, and debate the issues of the day. Don’t miss interviews with the people of the moment, whether they be athletes, coaches, reporters, or celebrity fans.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Crime Junkie
If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people.