Hulsey makes several apologies in latest response, continues to deny making racial and sexist remarks


  • By
  • | 12:00 p.m. January 2, 2017
  • | 5 Free Articles Remaining!
  • Law
  • Share

Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge Mark Hulsey offered nearly a dozen apologies in his latest response to charges from the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

His response filed Thursday came after the JQC’s second amended notice of the charges.

New information in the notice includes assertions that Hulsey created a hostile work environment and used the circuit’s FedEx account to mail campaign materials. It also accuses Hulsey of bullying and intimidation, as well as being overly demanding.

Those are added to early accusations that the judge made racist and sexist remarks.

But, as he has from the beginning, Hulsey continues to deny telling a staff attorney in 2011 that African-Americans should “get back on a ship and go back to Africa.”

His latest response adds Hulsey “cannot recall the specific verbiage of any conversation he may have had in 2011” but says he is not a racist.

Hulsey’s apologies range from having a conversation with his judicial assistant about her interview about the charges against him; admitting using an assistant to handle a campaign issue; and for failing to obtain written permission from people who orally supported his campaign in a letter to members of The Jacksonville Bar Association.

Among the new information in the complaint:

• Hulsey admits he should not have had his assistant place a letter from his campaign treasurer on judicial letterhead to respond to an audit letter from the Florida Elections Commission.

Instead, the judge said, he should have had his campaign treasurer send the correspondence. He apologized and said he will reimburse any costs associated with it.

• He also said he would reimburse the cost of a letter being sent to the elections commission by using the circuit’s FedEx account. He said he “sincerely apologizes for not providing better oversight” to the assistant, who was new.

• His previous assistant was reassigned after Hulsey talked to her about her interview regarding the allegations against him. The response says the judge expressed disappointment that the assistant was “apparently unwilling to offer an opinion as to whether he would have made derogatory comments about women or African-Americans.”

Hulsey said he regrets having the conversation and apologizes to the assistant for any undue stress caused by the discussion.

• Hulsey’s previous assistant said the judge was having her do excessive personal tasks that she said caused her to take work home with her.

The judge said the assistant told him she had helped a previous judge with personal tasks and would be happy to help Hulsey, which he appreciated.

Hulsey said the help was beneficial because he was new to the bench and he had inherited a large criminal docket that required him to spend a substantial amount of his day in the courtroom.

He pointed out he allowed his assistant to adjust her work schedule for personal activities, including coaching softball, and that’s why be believed she was periodically taking work home.

He also said he doesn’t believe her performing personal tasks for him should have prevented timely responses on post-conviction matters.

Instead, Hulsey said he believes his former assistant failed to open the mail and route requested orders to him in a timely manner, contributing to or causing any delays. He apologized for those delays, particularly to the Attorney General’s Office.

• Hulsey apologized if his “judgment was incorrect” when he had a private conversation with a staff attorney to ask about her leaving the courthouse without advising she had done so. He said he also talked to her about incorrect information regarding trial procedure. Hulsey said the conversations with her instead of the lead staff attorney were meant to correct mistakes and avoid embarrassing her.

• In a previous response, Hulsey denied demeaning female staff attorneys as “cheerleaders who talk during the national anthem.” The latest response says after “reflecting further,” Hulsey may have made a comment intended to compare the conduct of anyone showing lack of respect or decorum for court proceedings with the lack of respect demonstrated by those who talk during the national anthem at football games. Hulsey said the comment was intended as an “illustrative example” and not directed at female staff attorneys. To the extent it was so interpreted, the response said, Hulsey “regrets that misunderstanding and sincerely apologizes.”

• The judge apologized for not getting written permission from local people who had orally agreed to support his campaign before listing them in a letter sent to Jacksonville Bar Association members.

He also admits campaign literature should not have listed an endorsement from Clay County Commission Ronnie Robinson, who said he could not publically endorse Hulsey because he is a member of the canvassing board in Clay. Robinson did endorse Hulsey in his 2010 election.

Hulsey said including Robinson’s name was “an unintentional error,” which he regrets, but denies intentionally misrepresenting his support.

The final evidentiary hearing is scheduled for May 1 in Duval County. It is expected to last five days.

 

×

Special Offer: $5 for 2 Months!

Your free article limit has been reached this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited digital access to our award-winning business news.