The issues to be determined in this proceeding are: Whether Respondent violated section 112.313(2), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ by soliciting something of value to him based upon an understanding that his vote, official action, or judgment would be influenced thereby; and (2) whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6) by corruptly using or attempting to use his official position to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself.The Commission did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent engaged in solicitation or acceptance of gifts in violation of section 112.313(2), or misuse of public position in violation of section 112.313(6).

Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC14-1899 _ JENNIFER BRINKMANN, Appellant, vs. TYRON FRANCOIS, etc., et al., Appellees. [February 4, 2016] PERRY, J. This case is before the Court on appeal from a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Francois v. Brinkmann, 147 So. 3d 613 , 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), which declares invalid section 99.0615, Florida Statutes (2014), governing the residency requirement for write-in candidates of elections statewide. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1)..

The nature of the controversy is set forth in the Order Finding Probable Cause issued by the Commission on Ethics (the "Commission") on September 16, 2015, which specifically alleged that Respondent, City Attorney, code enforcement special magistrate, or special or backup counsel for the City of North Port, violated sections 112.313(3), 112.313(6), 112.313(7)(a), and 112.313(16), Florida Statutes: [B]y providing counsel and recommendations to the City Commission regarding the adoption of local Ordinance 2014-29 requiring the appointment of a Zoning Hearing Officer and encouraging the City Commission to amend Part II, Chapter 2, Article IX, of the City Code to replace the Code Enforcement Board with a Code Enforcement Special Magistrate and offering himself for consideration for the position of Zoning Hearing Officer as well as Code Enforcement Special Magistrate. The issue is whether Respondent violated these provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees as alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.Petitioner violated sections 112.313(6) and 112.313(16)(c) and should pay a penalty of $5,000 per violation.

944 So. 2d 999 (2006) WILCHCOMBE v. CARPENTER. No. 3D06-103. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. December 27, 2006. Decision without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.

Has Petitioner, Unlimited Financial Services, LLC (Unlimited), conducted the unlicensed business of insurance in violation of section 626.112(7), Florida Statutes (2011)?1/ Has Unlimited engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice, false advertising, as prohibited by section 626.9541(1)(b)?Dept. of Insurance proved postcard and call center operation was unlicensed business of insurance. The Department proved the operation was a deceptive practice.

Whether Respondent, Malcom Thompson, as Clerk of the Court for Osceola County, Florida, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ by using his position to intimidate Osceola County Clerk of the Court employees in order to enhance his personal and political power and, if so, the appropriate penalty.Clerk of Court did not misuse his official postition in meeting with employees concerning the complaint that he pushed an employee where facts show that he did not threaten or take any action against employees seeking withdrawal of complaint.

The issue in this case, as stipulated by the parties, is whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ by attempting to enter into, or by entering into, pre- dated employment agreements, and/or by attempting to destroy or destroying public records and/or evidence of wrongdoing and/or by attempting to enter into or entering into agreements which exceeded the Respondent's purchasing authority.Petitioner did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated section 112.313(6), as alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause.

The issue in this case, as stipulated by the parties, is whether Respondent violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2006),1/ by drafting a legal opinion that justified a one-percent raise in salary for herself and others without the need for approval from the Hillsborough Board of County Commissioners.Respondent misused her public position by writing a legal opinion, without proper factual inquiry or legal analysis, to justify a 1-percent salary increase for herself and others, without approval by the HBCC; recommend censure, reprimand, and fine.

The issues for determination are: (1) Whether Respondent, as Director of the Florida State Athletic Commission ("Athletic Commission") violated Subsection 112.313(2), Florida Statutes, by soliciting a $100,000 donation from Don King and/or Don King Productions, Inc., on behalf of the Florida State Boxing Foundation ("Foundation") which was established in part by Respondent; (2) Whether Respondent violated Subsection 112.313(4), Florida Statutes, by (a) accepting the $100,000 donation from Don King or Don King Productions, Inc., on behalf of the Foundation, when he knew or should have known that the donation may have been given to influence his official actions relative to his advocating for the acceptance of long-term promotional contracts in Florida by the Athletic Commission and/or the licensing of Don King and/or Don King Productions, Inc., as a promoter despite the existence of a pending indictment in violation of the Athletic Commission rules; (b) soliciting boxing officials for political contributions and donations to the Foundation, and soliciting a boxing official for a loan to Ms. Cathy Reed and travel expenses for Ms. Reed; (3) Whether Respondent violated Subsection 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by (a) soliciting funds for the Foundation from persons or entities regulated by the Athletic Commission; (b) soliciting political contributions from persons regulated by the Athletic Commission; (c) signing a letter prepared by boxing promoter Don King's attorney on Athletic Commission stationery, which indicated the Athletic Commission's interpretation of Section 548.056, Florida Statutes, as stated in letters written by the former Executive Secretary, was the former Executive Secretary's personal opinion rather than the opinion or policy of the Athletic Commission, in order to benefit Don King or Don King Productions, Inc; (d) preparing and reading a position paper opposed to the position taken by the former Executive Secretary of the Athletic Commission relative to the interpretation of Section 548.056, Florida Statutes, and denying that the earlier position was, in fact, the position of the Athletic Commission in order to strengthen the arguments of Don King or Don King Productions, Inc., for the use of exclusive long-term promotional contracts in Florida, when he knew the contrary to be true, or as a reward for the $100,000 contribution to the Foundation; (e) lying to the members of the Athletic Commission who relied on his representations at its November 5, 1998, meeting regarding the preparation of the position paper he read to the commission at its August 13, 1998, meeting; (f) soliciting tickets or complimentary admissions to boxing matches for his or other Athletic Commission members' guests from promoters; (g) soliciting a loan and travel expense payments from Boxing Judge Peter Trematerra; (h) rewarding Mr. Trematerra with an assignment to judge a World Title fight for telling the Athletic Commission what Respondent wanted him to say, despite Mr. Trematerra's allegedly not having the requisite experience to warrant such an assignment; (i) not giving Boxing Judge Paul Herman boxing assignments that his experience may have warranted after he refused to appear and testify as to what Respondent wanted him to say before the Athletic Commission; (j) making judging assignments based on personal considerations of perceived loyalty or disloyalty to Respondent, rather than on the experience levels of judges; directing Athletic Commission staff to remove Mr. Trematerra's and Mr. Herman's names from fight assignments after they provided affidavits concerning Respondent's misconduct to Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Inspector General; (l) representing falsely to the Salvation Army and the public on Athletic Commission stationery that David Walker had completed 16 hours of his obligatory community service; and (4) Whether Respondent violated Subsections 112.3148(3) and (4), Florida Statutes, by soliciting and accepting tickets and free admissions from promoters, and, if Respondent is guilty of any of these alleged offenses, what penalty is appropriate.Respondent allegedly committed numerous violations of Chapter 112, Florida Statutes; found guilty of soliciting and accepting free admissions to boxing events. Recommend $1,000 penalty.

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was subject to discrimination in employment for the reasons alleged in the Petition.Petitioner failed to prove a prima facie case of age, race, or disability discrimination. Respondent also established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (i.e., absence without authorization and excessive tardiness).