Supreme Court May REMOVE Democrat Judge After Chilling Discovery
Allegations of Improper Political Contributions
1.1 Details of the JQC Complaint
In a formal petition filed earlier this month, the Judicial Qualifications Commission charged Judge Moon with violating Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.045 and the accompanying Code of Judicial Conduct. The core allegation is that, between 2022 and 2024, Judge Moon made multiple campaign contributions to:
Kamala Harris—then a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
Joe Biden—the eventual Democratic nominee and President of the United States.
ActBlue—a Democratic Party fundraising platform utilized by a wide array of progressive candidates and causes.
The JQC’s records indicate that these contributions totaled $2,115 and were made while Judge Moon was an active member of the Florida judiciary. Under Florida’s judicial canons, any direct financial support by a sitting judge of partisan political candidates or entities is strictly forbidden.1.2 The JQC’s Recommended Sanction
As part of a proposed resolution—subject to approval by the Florida Supreme Court—the JQC has suggested:
Public Censure: A formal reprimand to be entered in the official court record, made available to the public.
Monetary Penalty: A fine equaling the total amount of her prohibited contributions ($2,115).
The JQC stated that these sanctions, combined, “will be sufficient to deter similar misconduct by the respondent (Moon) in the future and will also serve as a reminder to future candidates for judicial office” of their duty to maintain the integrity of judicial elections.
2. Prior Misconduct Referrals
Judge Moon is already awaiting a separate decision by the Florida Supreme Court on earlier allegations of unprofessional conduct. Those charges stemmed from two incidents in January 2024:
Courtroom Solicitation: In open court, Judge Moon reminded attorney Michael Jones that he had not returned her after-hours phone call regarding her re-election campaign—comments that the JQC characterized as coercive given the inherent power dynamic between judge and attorney.
Ex Parte Contact: She directly contacted a therapist involved in a case before her court, a move the JQC argued violated the prohibition on ex parte communications, which safeguard fairness by preventing one party from gaining private access to the judge without the opposing side’s knowledge.
Earlier this year, the JQC recommended a public reprimand for those two incidents as well. Judge Moon has agreed to accept that sanction, though the final decision rests with the Florida Supreme Court.
The commission, which investigates judicial conduct, and judge Stefanie Moon reached an agreement to recommend that she face a public reprimand and pay a fine of $2,115, the amount of the political contributions. https://t.co/RAtJzGspO8
— NBC 6 South Florida (@nbc6) April 7, 2025
3. Florida’s Rules on Judicial Conduct and Political Activity
3.1 Rule of Judicial Administration 2.045
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.045 governs judicial campaign practices. Key provisions include:
Prohibition on Partisan Activity: Judges and judicial candidates are prohibited from making contributions to or soliciting funds for any political party, political organization, or candidate.
Limits on Endorsements and Speeches: Judges may not publicly endorse or oppose candidates in partisan elections. They may attend nonpartisan forums but must avoid any action that could reasonably be viewed as political.
3.2 Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 7
The Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth principles to ensure judges remain nonpartisan and impartial. Canon 7 specifies that judges:
Shall not engage in political activity that would be inconsistent with the impartial performance of judicial duties.
Must refrain from activities that could create an appearance of impropriety or compromise public confidence in the judiciary.
Judge Moon’s donations—direct financial contributions to partisan candidates—are squarely barred under these provisions.
4. The Judicial Qualifications Commission: Oversight and Process
4.1 Composition and Mandate
The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission is an independent state agency tasked with:
Investigating allegations of judicial misconduct or incapacity.
Holding formal hearings before JQC hearing panels.
Recommending disciplinary action—ranging from reprimand to removal—to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Commission consists of nine members: six appointed by the governor (including three lawyers and three nonlawyers) and three appointed by the Florida Supreme Court.
4.2 Investigative Procedures
Upon receipt of a complaint, the JQC:
Conducts preliminary fact-finding, requesting documents, campaign records, and sworn statements.
Decides whether to file formal charges. If charges are filed, the judge in question may negotiate a stipulated agreement—our current situation—or proceed to a public hearing.
Issues a recommendation to the Florida Supreme Court. Only the Court has authority to impose discipline, from reprimand up to removal from office.
Judge Moon has engaged with this process, indicating her willingness to accept sanction for both the campaign-contribution violations and the earlier misconduct claims.
5. Judge Stefanie Moon: Career and Community Involvement
5.1 Judicial and Legal Background
Education and Early Practice: Moon graduated from a major Florida law school and served as a state prosecutor before ascending to the circuit bench in 2015.
Circuit Court Assignments: As a Broward County Circuit Judge, she has presided over civil, family, and criminal matters, earning a reputation for efficiency and strong case-management skills.
5.2 Civic Engagement and Recognitions
Florida Supreme Court Historical Society: In 2024, Moon was nominated to a three-year term on the Society’s Board of Trustees, an honor that recognizes contributions to preserving Florida’s judicial history
Community Outreach: She has participated in judicial-education programs, speaking at local schools and bar associations about the rule of law and civic responsibility.
These accomplishments underscore the breadth of her service, even as the JQC process calls certain aspects of her conduct into question.
6. Comparative Analysis: Precedents and Expert Commentary
6.1 Similar Cases in Florida and Beyond
Judges nationwide have faced discipline for political activities:
Florida Precedent: In 2019, a Miami-Dade judge was publicly reprimanded for attending a fundraiser on behalf of a state legislative candidate—another clear violation of Rule 2.045.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him.

"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him. For a few seconds, I honestly thought I was looking at the wrong table, because my name card had vanished and Melissa’s was sitting exactly where mine had been on every seating chart. She wore a pale blue silk dress, lifted her champagne as if she belonged there, and avoided my eyes when I stopped beside the chair. David stood up, pointed to an empty seat at the next table, and quietly said, “For tonight, why don’t you sit over there?”
I had spent fourteen months helping our daughter, Emily, plan that wedding, from dress fittings and florist meetings to late-night calls over napkins and seating charts. That morning, while I fastened the pearl buttons on her gown, she made me promise I would enjoy the day and not let anything between her father and me touch it. I meant that promise, because whatever was left of my marriage, I would not make my daughter’s wedding the battlefield where it died. But David had apparently made a different plan, and he expected me to cooperate with it in silence.
When I asked what Melissa was doing there, David’s face showed guilt for only a second before he hid it behind irritation. He acted as though I were creating the problem simply by noticing that his mistress was seated at the family table in the place reserved for the bride’s mother. Then Melissa looked at me and said, “Honey, today really isn’t the day to make Emily uncomfortable.” I almost laughed, because the woman who had been sleeping with my husband for nearly a year was now warning me not to embarrass my own daughter.
I could feel people settling into nearby seats, laughing and talking, unaware that my marriage was being quietly rearranged in front of them. David kept his voice low and told me we should not “do this here,” as if the humiliation belonged to me because I refused to disappear politely. I looked at the empty chair he had chosen for me between a cousin and someone from the groom’s side, and I realized something colder than anger. This was not spontaneous; he had thought about where Melissa would sit, and he had assumed I would move.
For twenty-eight years, I had been the woman who adjusted, explained, forgave, and made excuses when David forgot anniversaries, missed dinners, or put work ahead of family. When he became distant, I learned to expect less instead of asking for more, and somewhere along the way he mistook that patience for permission. Even now, part of me considered taking the other chair, smiling for photographs, swallowing the humiliation, and telling myself it was all for Emily. I actually reached for the chair because protecting my daughter still mattered more to me than winning a public fight.
Then I heard one word behind me: “Mom?” Emily was walking toward us in her wedding dress, still glowing from the ceremony, and at first she looked confused rather than angry. Her eyes moved from me, to the empty chair, to Melissa, then back to the family table where she had personally placed me months ago. David quickly stepped in and announced that he had “rearranged a few things,” as if changing the bride’s seating chart without permission were no more serious than moving a centerpiece.
Emily asked why I was not sitting in my seat, and David casually pointed to the neighboring table and said I would be sitting “right there.” Her smile disappeared, and her eyes dropped to the place card in front of Melissa. I watched my daughter’s expression go completely still as she picked up that card and turned it over in her hand. In that instant, I understood the worst part: Emily had not approved this, and David had brought his mistress into our daughter’s wedding believing he could force everyone to accept what he wanted once it was already done.
What Emily did not know was that six months earlier, I had discovered David’s affair through a message that appeared on his phone while he was in the shower. Melissa had written, “I hate pretending I don’t miss you when she’s around,” followed by another message asking whether Friday was still theirs. When I confronted him, David spent eleven minutes calling me paranoid, insecure, dramatic, suspicious, and unfair before I repeated Melissa’s words exactly. The silence that followed ended our marriage long before either of us ever said the word divorce.
We had kept the details quiet because Emily was planning her wedding, and I refused to turn her happiest season into a crisis about us. David told me he was “confused,” that what he had with Melissa was “more complicated than an affair,” and that he needed time before making decisions. I agreed only that Emily’s wedding came first, so we slept in separate rooms, spoke carefully, and tried to appear functional while our marriage quietly collapsed. I believed David understood that one day required restraint, but he had apparently used that silence to prepare something else.
Three weeks before the wedding, he had casually asked whether Emily had finalized the family table and whether every seat had been assigned. At the time, I thought it was harmless conversation, but standing there with Melissa’s card in my daughter’s hand, I finally understood why he had asked. He had been checking whether there would be room, and when there was not, he simply removed me. Emily looked up at her father and asked, very quietly, “Where is Mom’s place card?”—and for the first time that night, David had no easy answer.
…FULL STORY IN THE COMMENT 👇👇👇"" "