A nameless campaign response denies any connection to political surrogate Jacqueline Perez, insinuates “secret payment,” and dodges every question about Bergermann’s judicial philosophy, qualifications, JNC history, and courtroom temperament
LUTHMANN NOTE: Tree-hugger and incessant judicial candidate Vera Bergermann’s campaign answered my email inquiry late on Friday, four minutes before we went to press. I didn’t see it, so this is a follow-up, as promised. Somebody wrote a polished response from the official campaign account, attached the campaign logo and disclaimer, and signed nobody’s name. The writer denied any affiliation with Jacqueline Perez, then ignored every question directed to Bergermann’s judicial philosophy and qualifications. The response also insinuated that Judge James Stewart or his supporters might be paying me. Here’s the answer: I don’t know James Stewart. I’ve never met him. Nobody connected to him has paid me or FL Gulf News one red cent. Bergermann’s record created this story. Her campaign’s evasions made it bigger. This piece is “Bergermann’s People Replied.”
By Richard Luthmann
Four Minutes Before The Deadline
(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) — At 3:56 p.m. Friday, four minutes before the deadline, an email arrived from in**@**********ge.com. Outlook displayed “Vera Bergermann” as the sender. The message carried the Bergermann campaign logo, its campaign-finance disclaimer, and a carefully drafted series of denials written in the collective voice of a political operation. The writer repeatedly referred to “the Bergermann campaign,” “we,” and “no one associated with this campaign.” Nobody put a name beneath the response.
The email was in response to questions about the judicial race between Bergermann and Judge James Stewart in the 20th Judicial Circuit.
Vera Bergermann did not personally sign it or state that she had written it. A staff member, lawyer, consultant, or campaign operative appears to have prepared the message, and the campaign decided the author’s identity could remain hidden.
Here is my original email and her campaign’s response, published in full:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 12:50 PM Richard Luthmann <rl*******@********ws.com> wrote:
Ms. Bergermann and Campaign Team:
This is a formal, on-the-record request for comment from FL Gulf News concerning the August 18 election for the 20th Judicial Circuit Court, Group 19.
This inquiry—and your response—may be published in full.
The public record now shows Jacqueline Perez doing considerably more than expressing a private opinion. On August 9, Perez amplified Bergermann campaign material, praised Ms. Bergermann, attacked campaign manager Terry Miller’s criticism as “slanderous,” urged voters to “Please vote for Vera,” and directed readers to VeraForJudge.com.
Perez subsequently published an extensive personal attack against journalist Richard Luthmann for previously scrutinizing Bergermann’s 2025 candidacy. The attack included a professionally produced anti-Luthmann graphic and messaging calculated to discredit the journalist rather than answer questions about the candidate.
Whatever title Perez may or may not hold, she is publicly functioning as a Bergermann campaign surrogate: promoting the candidate, distributing campaign content, attacking critics and attempting to shape the race’s narrative.
If the campaign denies that characterization, say so unequivocally.
Please answer each question with “yes” or “no” where possible, followed by any explanation:
1. Does the Bergermann campaign deny that Jacqueline Perez is acting as a formal or informal campaign surrogate?
2. Has Perez served as a campaign employee, volunteer, consultant, donor, fundraiser, organizer, messenger, social-media promoter, or point of contact?
3. Has Ms. Bergermann, anyone in her campaign, or any campaign consultant communicated with Perez about Richard Luthmann, Terry Miller, Judge James Stewart, or negative coverage of Bergermann?
4. Did anyone associated with the campaign request, encourage, approve, coordinate, edit, distribute, or know in advance about Perez’s anti-Luthmann post or graphic?
5. Did Perez receive campaign talking points, opposition research, photographs, graphics, documents, or suggested language concerning Luthmann, Miller, or Stewart?
6. Does Ms. Bergermann endorse Perez’s attack? If not, will she publicly repudiate it and ask Perez to stop attacking journalists on her behalf?
7. Perez accused Terry Miller of “slanderous hits.” What specific statement does the campaign contend was false, who made it, and what evidence establishes falsity?
8. Does the campaign contend that Luthmann is employed by, paid by, coordinating with, or acting at the direction of Miller, Stewart, or any organization supporting Stewart? If so, provide the evidence.
The campaign must also address the substantive questions Perez’s attack ignored.
9. In your May 31 candidate questionnaire, you wrote that a judge may use “discernment and wisdom” and “carefully chosen case law” to “craft a fair decision” when a statute appears to require a harsh outcome. Do you believe a trial judge may depart from the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute because the judge considers the result unfair?
10. Florida appellate precedent holds that judges may not extend, modify, or limit an unambiguous statute because doing so intrudes upon legislative power. How do you reconcile that rule with your promise to “craft” a different result?
11. You identified family law as your strongest field and acknowledged that you would need to study criminal and probate law if assigned those dockets. Why should voters remove an incumbent with extensive criminal, civil, juvenile, and jury-trial experience while you are still preparing in two major areas of circuit-court jurisdiction?
12. Public records show that you pursued judicial appointment through multiple JNC proceedings in 2024 and 2025 but were not selected for appointment and did not reach the November 2025 certified shortlist. Why should voters now remove the judge who successfully completed that vetting process and was appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis?
13. FL Gulf News previously reported that you used part of your November 2025 JNC interview to criticize unnamed sitting judges without presenting publicly verifiable support. Which judges were involved, what precisely did you allege, and what evidence supported those allegations?
14. Did you report that alleged misconduct to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, the Florida Bar, or another appropriate authority? If so, identify the complaint date, agency, and disposition. If not, explain why the accusations were raised during a judicial job interview.
15. You say that accepting endorsements may cast doubt upon a judge’s impartiality. Are you asserting that Judge Stewart’s endorsements from State Attorney Amira Fox, Public Defender Kathleen Smith, and all five county sheriffs compromise his impartiality? If not, why is his acceptance of those endorsements relevant?
These are not trick questions. They go directly to campaign transparency, judicial philosophy, professional preparation, and courtroom temperament.
Perez’s attack does not erase Ms. Bergermann’s questionnaire. It does not explain her repeated failure to emerge from the JNC process. It does not answer why voters should replace an already-serving judge. And it does not establish that a candidate who proposes “crafting” a preferred outcome will faithfully apply an unambiguous statute.
Please respond point by point no later than 4 p.m. Friday, August 14, 2026. Supporting documents, campaign records, and an additional written statement are welcome. An on-the-record telephone interview can also be arranged before the deadline.
If the campaign does not respond, FL Gulf News will accurately report that Ms. Bergermann and her campaign were presented with these questions and declined or failed to answer by publication time.
Respectfully,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Commentator, and Investigative Reporter
FL Gulf News
Tips or Story Ideas:
(239) 766-5800
rl*******@********ws.com
https://linktr.ee/rluthmann
From: Vera Bergermann <in**@**********ge.com>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 3:56 PM
To: Richard Luthmann <rl*******@********ws.com>
Subject: Re: RIGHT OF REPLY: Is Jacqueline Perez Your Campaign Surrogate—and Will You Follow the Law as Written?
Mr. Luthmann,
Thank you for reaching out and for the opportunity to respond on the record. This response may be published in full.
To address the core question directly: the Bergermann campaign has no affiliation with Jacqueline Perez.
– Jacqueline Perez is not, and has never been, a campaign employee, volunteer, consultant, donor, fundraiser, organizer, messenger, social media promoter, or point of contact for this campaign.
– No one on this campaign has ever met or spoken with Jacqueline Perez. We have no knowledge of who she is beyond what has now been brought to our attention by your inquiry.
– No one associated with this campaign requested, encouraged, approved, coordinated, edited, distributed, or had any advance knowledge of any post, graphic, or statement made by Ms. Perez, including any statement concerning you or Mr. Miller.
– Ms. Perez has not received campaign talking points, opposition research, photographs, graphics, documents, or suggested language of any kind from this campaign or anyone acting on its behalf.
– Any content Ms. Bergermann personally shared or engaged with was on her own personal social media page, not on any page, account, or material controlled or published by the campaign committee. Nothing referencing you or your reporting has been posted on any official campaign material, page, or channel.
To be unequivocal in answering your direct questions:
1. Does the campaign deny Perez is acting as a formal or informal surrogate? Yes, we deny it.
2. Has Perez served in any campaign capacity? No.
3. Has anyone associated with the campaign communicated with Perez about you, Mr. Miller, Judge Stewart, or coverage of this race? No.
4. Did anyone associated with the campaign request, encourage, approve, coordinate, edit, distribute, or have advance knowledge of Perez’s post? No.
5. Did Perez receive any campaign materials or messaging guidance? No.
6. Does Ms. Bergermann endorse the content of Perez’s post? The campaign does not control, direct, or endorse the independent statements of private individuals with whom it has no relationship, and cannot repudiate or issue instructions to someone it has never had contact with.
7. Regarding Perez’s characterization of Mr. Miller’s statements as “slanderous” — this campaign has no knowledge of the basis for that statement, as it did not originate from us and we were not consulted on it.
8. Does the campaign contend you are employed by, paid by, or coordinating with Mr. Miller, Judge Stewart, or any supporting organization? No such claim has been made by this campaign. However, based upon your questions in your email of this afternoon directed to Ms. Bergermann, it seems you are involving yourself in this campaign.
9. Are you being paid by a campaign and/or PAC to promote Mr. Stewart or is it to denigrate Ms. Bergermann?
Best,
Paid by Vera Bergermann, Non-Partisan for Circuit Court Judge. This page is maintained by the Vera Bergermann Campaign Committee. Contributions to the Campaign are being solicited by the Vera Bergermann Campaign Committee. $1000 max contribution per person or business entity. Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.
That leaves us with a clean factual description. Bergermann’s campaign responded from its official email account. Vera Bergermann has not personally answered the questions addressed to her. Perhaps she reviewed the response. Perhaps she approved every word. Perhaps a consultant handled the whole thing while watching the deadline creep closer. The document supplies no answer, and guessing would add nothing.
What matters is what the campaign chose to address and what it ran away from.
FL Gulf News submitted 15 questions covering two distinct subjects. The first eight concerned Jacqueline Perez, who had distributed Bergermann material, urged voters to support her, attacked Terry Miller’s criticism as “slanderous,” and published a professionally packaged broadside against this reporter.
My connection to this controversy is public-record reporting. Last year, I covered the 20th Circuit JNC process and the candidates seeking appointment. Bergermann’s performance drew criticism, including her reported decision to criticize unnamed sitting judges during an interview for judicial office. Perez later attacked me for that coverage. Her broadside pulled my attention back to a judicial race that otherwise looked settled.
No “secret patron” created this follow-up. Bergermann’s questionnaire, her JNC record, Perez’s attack, and the campaign’s evasive response did the work all by themselves.
Questions 9 through 15 went directly to Bergermann’s fitness for judicial office. They addressed her written approach to statutory interpretation, her acknowledged need to study criminal and probate law, her repeated appearances before the Judicial Nominating Commission, her criticism of unnamed sitting judges, and her attack on Judge Stewart’s endorsements.
The campaign handled the Perez questions, although one answer came wrapped in fog. Then it stopped. Every substantive question directed to the candidate disappeared.
Bergermann’s People Replied: Perez Looks Like A Surrogate. The Campaign Says She Is A Stranger.
The campaign’s denial concerning Jacqueline Perez could hardly be broader. According to the unnamed writer, Perez has never been an employee, volunteer, consultant, donor, fundraiser, organizer, messenger, social-media promoter, or point of contact. Nobody involved with the campaign has met or spoken with her. Nobody communicated with Perez about Richard Luthmann, Terry Miller, Judge Stewart, or negative coverage of Bergermann. Nobody supplied her with talking points, opposition research, photographs, graphics, documents, or suggested language.
Readers should have the campaign’s exact position before judging the surrounding facts.
But Perez’s online activity tells its own story. She shared Bergermann’s campaign post, praised her as “a great and competent attorney,” directed readers to VeraForJudge.com, and urged them to “Please vote for Vera.” Perez also characterized Miller’s criticism as “slanderous hits,” although Bergermann’s campaign now admits it has no idea what supposed falsehood Perez meant.
Days later, Perez published a lengthy attack against me, complete with a polished anti-Luthmann graphic, because I had previously scrutinized Bergermann’s unsuccessful 2025 pursuit of a judicial appointment. Perez behaved publicly like a campaign surrogate, even if the campaign never gave her a title, talking points, or permission.
The personal relationship between Perez and Bergermann remains unknown. They may be friends, professional acquaintances, members of the same social orbit, or strangers whose politics happen to align. The campaign did not address whether Bergermann personally knows Perez outside the formal campaign structure. It answered narrower questions about campaign roles and communications concerning the race.
The most revealing dodge concerned Perez’s attack. Bergermann was asked whether she endorsed it and whether she would publicly repudiate it. The campaign replied that it could not control, direct, repudiate, or issue instructions to someone it had never contacted.
That is political throat-clearing. Bergermann needs no authority over Perez to say, “I reject personal attacks against journalists.” She could condemn the conduct without claiming ownership of the speaker.
Her campaign declined. Apparently, a public rebuke of an unsolicited supporter was one bridge too far.
Bergermann’s People Replied: Seven Questions Vera Wouldn’t Touch
Questions 9 through 15 went directly to the power Bergermann wants voters to place in her hands. Her May 31 questionnaire says a judge confronting a harsh statutory result may use “discernment and wisdom,” memoranda, evidence, and “carefully chosen case law” to “craft a fair decision.” FL Gulf News asked whether she believes a trial judge may depart from the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute when the judge considers the outcome unfair. We also asked her to reconcile that language with Florida appellate decisions prohibiting judges from extending, modifying, or limiting clear statutes. Bergermann’s campaign supplied no explanation.
That silence becomes louder beside the campaign’s new Facebook advertisement. The official page declares, in Bergermann’s voice, that she is a “constitutional conservative” whose public record proves it. Good. A constitutional conservative should welcome the opportunity to explain how “carefully chosen case law” and judicial “wisdom” operate when statutory language is clear. Bergermann could have clarified that she would follow the text and reserve policy decisions for the Legislature.
Make no mistake, any jurist who does not begin and end with the text and the original intent of statutory and legal language embraces a LIBERAL interpretation of the law. A “constitutional conservative” does not look at “carefully chosen case law.” They look at the carefully chosen words of the legal or statutory text. To do anything else is Bidenesque at best.
Her people skipped the question.
They also ignored her admitted need for additional preparation in criminal and probate law. Bergermann has decades of valuable experience in family law, mediation, taxation, and corporate matters. Judge Stewart already brings extensive criminal, civil, juvenile, and jury-trial experience to the circuit bench. Why should voters remove the incumbent while his challenger prepares for major portions of the job? No answer arrived.
The JNC questions disappeared too. Bergermann pursued appointment through multiple proceedings in 2024 and 2025, failed to receive an appointment, and did not reach the November 2025 certified shortlist. Stewart completed that process and received Gov. Ron DeSantis’ appointment. Bergermann never explained why voters should now reverse the result. She also declined to identify the sitting judges she reportedly criticized during her 2025 interview, to state the alleged misconduct, to produce the evidence, or to disclose whether she reported those matters to an appropriate authority.
Finally, her campaign ignored the endorsements question. Judge Stewart has the support of State Attorney Amira Fox, Public Defender Kathleen Smith, and all five county sheriffs. Those officials occupy different offices and frequently stand on opposite sides of the same justice system. Their agreement reflects professional confidence in Stewart.
Bergermann’s campaign says, “DON’T BELIEVE THE LIES.” Fair enough. Believe the questionnaire, the JNC records, DeSantis’ appointment, Stewart’s endorsements, Perez’s posts, and the campaign email that dodged seven questions.
The law is not Vera Bergermann’s bonsai. Neither is the public record. A political consultant cannot trim away the inconvenient branches and call the remaining stump transparency.
Keep Judge James Stewart. Send the non-answer back to the campaign shop.
VOTE TUESDAY, AUGUST 18.
Links And Public Records
- First article: Keep Judge James Stewart
- Vera Bergermann campaign website
- Judge James Stewart campaign website
- Gov. DeSantis appoints Judge Stewart
- Bergermann’s 2026 candidate questionnaire
- 20th Circuit JNC interview records
- November 2025 certified finalists
- Prior FL Gulf News coverage of Bergermann’s JNC appearance
Leave a Reply