Voted 2018 “Seminole County Judge of the Year.”

Dear Voter,

I am not, have not, nor will I ever be, a polished politician. I am not perfect or flawless, and, I admit that I have made mistakes in past campaigns. I can only hope that you judge me based on what I have done, as a Judge, and not as a political candidate. In 2012, I promised the voters that I would be fair, courteous, and respectful to all parties involved, and I have done so. I promised to treat every person who appeared before me how I would want to be treated, and I have done that, in every case, every day. I promised to listen carefully and apply the law, and I promised to show a measure of humility and refrain from personal whims in decisions, and my record clearly demonstrated that I have done exactly that.



The JQC stated:
Judge Krause has been cooperative, responsive, and forthright with the panel, and has admitted the 
foregoing.  She accepts full responsibility, and acknowledges that such conduct should not have occurred.  Judge Krause has maintained that the campaign violations were inadvertent and were corrected when discovered.  Judge Krause has explained that the contributions she received from her spouse, she believed to be accurately described as in her campaign disclosure forms, but now recognizes that this understanding was improper because the accounts were solely owned and controlled by her husband, even though they considered them to be part of the marital estate.” “The Judicial Qualifications Commission has concluded that while the judge’s conduct was improper, it resulted from inadvertence or from mistake.”

In the June 4, 2015 Order  (Case No. SC14-1812)

“5. The JQC, in finding probable cause and recommending a public reprimand, advised this Court that the primary considerations in coming to its recommendation were the commission’s determination that this was a limited transgression, albeit magnified by the pending reprimand, and Judge Krause’s full cooperation and acceptance of responsibility.


6. The violation of the [j]udicial [c]anons in this matter arises from Judge Krause’s single incident of participating in her husband’s judicial campaign. Judge Krause admits that, while her husband was a judicial candidate, she one time used social media to seek the assistance of her friends to help her husband correct perceived misstatements of his judicial opponent.

7. Judge Krause accepted full responsibility for the conduct, admitted that it should not have occurred, and apologized. She explained that her social media posting followed multiple private but ignored attempts to correct what she and her husband perceived as misstatements about her previous JQC matter. Judge Krause told the Panel that those attempts included seeking counsel from her Chief Judge, twice sending the same letter to the candidate asking her to refrain from misrepresenting the record (and never receiving acknowledgement or a response,) and enlisting the help of an emissary to speak with her husband’s opponent. All of these attempts proved fruitless.

8. Judge Krause further explained that she intended her posting, which was a frustrated last effort to correct the record, to be a private message to her friends. Even still, she removed the message within hours of its posting after realizing it could have a reach beyond her circle of friends. Only through the actions of those supporting her husband’s opponent was the posting further disseminated.”


9. The Judicial Qualifications Commission concluded that the judge’s conduct was improper but was followed quickly with remedial action, long before any notice from the JQC, and the JQC filed a Stipulation in which the JQC and Judge Krause agreed that she should receive a public reprimand for her conduct in case SC14-1812.


10. On February 25, 2015, the Court rejected that Stipulation and ordered that the public reprimand, and $25,000 fine that the Court previously approved in Judge Krause’s prior case, SC13-2263, shall remain in place, and suggested that a 30-day suspension without pay would be the appropriate resolution to case SC14- 1812.”