The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Jose Iglesias (Petitioner or Iglesias) is entitled to attorney's fees and costs from the Complainant/Respondent, Robert Nieman (Respondent or Nieman), pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact On August 14, 2003, the Respondent executed a Complaint that was filed with the Ethics Commission against the Petitioner. The Complaint alleged: Vice Mayor Iglesias is constantly interfering with Police Department’s day-to- day operations, and spreading false rumors about Police Department personnel. (Document #1) Vice Mayor Iglesias is causing a hostile work environment with constant complaints about officers. Vice Mayor Iglesias is constantly encouraging racism, pitting hispanics against white and black officers of the Department. Vice Mayor Iglesias filed false police reports (verbally) constantly for his own gain and benefits. Vice Mayor Iglesias’s 16-year-old son works part time in Town Hall. (Nepotism) Vice Mayor Iglesias improper use of his title by instructing the Town Manager to take actions on the police department, and even retaliation against the Police Chief and myself. Vice Mayor Iglesias ordered public records about himself not to be released, and then when they were released he insisted the secretary releasing the records be fired. (Document #1) Mr. Iglesias is falsely using the title of M.D. and in fact used this title to gain his seat on the council and then becoming Vice Mayor. When Mr. Iglesias has been questioned on this matter by residents in the past he has stated he was a brain surgeon, a foot doctor, and a chiropractor, and could not list a hospital where he did his residency to become M.D. (Document #2) At all times material to this case the Petitioner was Vice Mayor serving on the Town’s governing council. As such, the Petitioner was subject to the ethics provisions governed by the Ethics Commission. The Respondent is a town employee and serves as a police sergeant within the police department. Mr. Nieman has been so employed for over 20 years. After an investigation of three of the allegations set forth in the Complaint (only three were deemed legally sufficient to warrant investigation) and consideration of the Advocate’s recommendation, the Ethics Commission entered a Public Report on March 16, 2004. The Public Report dismissed the Complaint and closed the matter. On April 14, 2004, the Petitioner filed the instant Fee Petition pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes (2004). The Fee Petition alleged that the Complaint “is based on eight allegations, all of which are false and were known to be false by Complainant when he filed the Complaint.” Additionally, the Fee Petition stated the Complaint “was filed by the Complainant with the knowledge the Complaint contained one or more false allegations, or with reckless disregard as to whether the Complaint contained false allegations. ” At hearing, the Petitioner presented evidence as to the three allegations of the Complaint that were investigated and deemed legally sufficient to require an ethics investigation. Those allegations were: whether the Petitioner had filed false police reports for his personal benefit; whether the Petitioner had attempted to prevent the release of a public record or insisted on the firing of the person who had released the record; and whether the Petitioner had caused his son to be employed by the Town. The false police reports allegation stemmed from the Petitioner’s use of public roads for rollerblading. The Petitioner is an avid rollerblader and likes to rollerblade for exercise. The Petitioner opined that rollerblading puts less stress on his back and has less impact than jogging. The Petitioner frequently rollerblades on the public road within the Town. Automobile traffic on the road must go around the Petitioner in order to pass. It is the Petitioner’s position that since there is no sidewalk or shoulder suitable to rollerblade, he is entitled to use the road surface just as a pedestrian might use the road surface. The Petitioner skates toward the middle of the lane and not on the edge of the road surface because the roadway is better there for the rollerblades. The record in this case does not clarify whether the Petitioner skates with or against the traffic. In connection with the rollerblading, the Respondent believes that the Petitioner is not entitled to use the road as he does and that if the Petitioner did not use his position as a councilman for influence, he would be cited for rollerblading down the road as he does. Further, the Respondent maintains that the Petitioner has made verbal complaints against motorists who passed too close to him. The Respondent maintains that the verbal complaints are false in that the Petitioner is not entitled to use the roadway as he does and therefore cannot complain against motorists as he does. The Petitioner does not deny the activity. The Respondent has observed the Petitioner rollerblading down the road. The Respondent has not issued a citation to the Petitioner because he is assigned an administrative position within the police department and he believes he is not allowed to issue such citations. The Respondent based the allegation regarding this claim upon statements he has heard from police officers within the Town’s police department. The Respondent did not subpoena the officers to the hearing because he did not want to involve other Town employees in the matter. The Respondent does not have any evidence to support the allegation other than what he believed he had been told in his experience as a police officer for the Town. The record does not demonstrate any written record of either the Petitioner being cited for improper rollerblading or making a report against a vehicle. As to the second allegation that was investigated, a memo purportedly from the chief of police was released to a member of the public by accident. It was included within a stack of documents that had been requested by a private citizen. The document stated in part: SUBJECT: Ethics violations and continual interference of day-to-day police operations by the Vice Mayor Iglesias This memorandum is to inform you [Mayor Michael Addicott] of constant harassment of police personnel and interference in daily operations by the new vice mayor. The Petitioner admitted that he was concerned that the document had been released in error and that the person who wrongly released a document should be disciplined. The Petitioner did not know about the document before it was released. He did not attempt to prevent the release of the document. Instead, the Petitioner sought to, after-the-fact find out why the document had been released, if the document was in fact a public record subject to release, and if the employee should be disciplined for the release. The document in question was a public record, was subject to public release, and the employee was not disciplined for its release. Nevertheless, the Petitioner did require a second (and arguably third opinion) regarding whether the document constituted a public record. In the meanwhile, the controversy within the Town over whether the document should have been released was widely discussed among Town employees. The Respondent filed his claim based upon several reports that the Petitioner wanted the secretary who released the report fired. One of the Respondent’s sources was the Chief of Police. The Respondent did not question the veracity of the police chief. At hearing, the Petitioner did not deny that discipline would have been appropriate if the release of the document were shown to be erroneous. The Petitioner acknowledged that the Town pursued a full review of the matter and that he was among those who called for the review. As to the third allegation (that the Petitioner caused his son to be hired by the Town), the Respondent believed that once the Petitioner was elected as a councilman that the son was not eligible to work for the Town. The Respondent thought that rules prohibiting nepotism applied to the Petitioner’s son and that as such the son could not continue to work for the Town. The Respondent based this interpretation on a general but un- researched idea about nepotism. He also discussed this matter with another Town employee who also thought the son was not eligible to work for the Town. In fact, the Petitioner’s son, Joseph, started working for the Town in a part-time position prior to the Petitioner being elected to office. After the Petitioner became Vice Mayor, the son continued with his duties but was moved from an independent contractor status to part-time employee status. The son then received a raise in his hourly rate of pay when the Town employees also received a raise. The Petitioner did not supervise the son’s employment and did not direct the son’s work. The record is unclear as to whether the Petitioner voted on the pay raise or not. At hearing the Respondent maintained that he had had numerous conversations with persons at the Ethics Commission who recommended that he add the information regarding the nepotism claim to his allegations. He admitted that he did not independently check any laws or rules that might pertain to nepotism before filing the claim. Much of the Respondent’s attitude and comments in connection with the Petitioner must be viewed in the context of the happenings within the Town. For unknown reasons, the Town, its employees, and the governing council were in a state of change and confrontation. The Respondent and the Petitioner apparently do not relate well to one another personally. The Respondent is suspicious of the Petitioner’s medical credentials and is uncertain as to why the Petitioner holds himself out as an “M.D.”, when he is not licensed nor is he eligible to be licensed as a medical doctor. The Petitioner believes the Respondent holds some animosity toward him for unknown reasons. Further, because the Respondent admitted he believes the Petitioner is arrogant, that belief somehow that demonstrates malice toward the Petitioner. The questions of whether the Petitioner is credentialed to be a medical doctor, whether the Petitioner attempted to interfere with the police department, or whether the Petitioner spread false rumors regarding the police department were not investigated and do not support, if true, an ethics violation. If attorney's fees and costs are entered in this cause the beneficiary of an award will be the Town. The Petitioner has incurred no expenses or costs associated with the defense of the Complaint. The Town agreed to pay and has paid all attorney's fees and costs associated with this case. The Petitioner presented several invoices from the Law Offices of Stuart R. Michelson that were alleged to pertain to the instant case. The Petitioner also presented testimony from an expert witness who was to be paid by the Town. That witness, an attorney, was to be paid $200.00 per hour for his efforts in this matter. Although the Petitioner’s expert testified that the hourly rates for fees applied in this cause were reasonable, there was no evidence that the time was actually expended in connection with the instant case. There is no way to know if the services were performed for the defense against the Respondent’s Complaint. The expert merely opined that the invoices he reviewed were reasonable. He maintained that the Petitioner should recover $27,455.53 in this matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Fee Petition in this case. S DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phillip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Mclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Commission on Ethics 3600 Mclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 James J. Birch, Esquire Law Office of Stuart R. Michelson 200 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Robert Nieman 9731 Southwest 12th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner committed a public entity crime as that term is defined in Section 287.133, Florida Statutes (2000), and, if so, whether it is in the public interest to place Petitioner's name on the convicted vendor list maintained by the Department of Management Services (the "Department").
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 2000, Petitioner and White Construction Company, Inc., were charged by a twelve-count criminal indictment by the Fifteenth Statewide Grand Jury in Leon County, Florida. Petitioner's indictment arose out of certain work he performed after he was retained by attorneys representing White Construction Company to do cost evaluation and preparation of cost damages and to testify regarding those matters in depositions and, if necessary, at trial. On August 30, 2000, Petitioner entered a plea agreement with the State of Florida in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the Plea Agreement, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to Counts Seven and Eight of the indictment and agreed to pay restitution in the amount of $84,000 to the State of Florida, an amount equaling the fees that Petitioner was paid for his services. In the Plea Agreement, the State agreed to nolle prosse Counts One through Six and Nine through Twelve against Petitioner, and it also agreed that a formal adjudication of guilt would be withheld. Finally, the Plea Agreement provided, that by entering a plea of guilty, Petitioner "admits the facts of the charge." Counts Seven and Eight of the indictment charged Petitioner with two counts of Grand Theft, in the first degree, and both counts provided in relevant part the following: WHITE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., by and through its officers, representatives and employees, and WILLIAM THOMAS COOPER, JR. as part of a related transaction . . . committed GRAND THEFT in the First Degree and did thereby knowingly obtain or use, or endeavor to obtain or use U.S. Currency or other property with an equivalent value, to-wit: "delinquency days," with a value of $100,000 or more, the property of another, to-wit: Florida Department of Transportation, hereinafter: FDOT, with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive said person of a right to the property, or a benefit therefrom, or to appropriate the property for the defendants' own use or to the use of a person(s) not entitled thereto, by filing false or fraudulent claim(s) or lawsuits for damages allegedly attributable to the FDOT, and fraudulently opposing delinquency status declared by FDOT, that included false or fraudulent charges or claims in that the claim(s) presented contain(s), when all line items are considered together, damages and/or delays for the same days and the same equipment expenses on multiple occasions, and/or fraudulent or false claims for equipment not owned by WHITE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. . . . Count Seven related to Project No. 36210-3439 on Interstate 75 in Marion County, Florida, and to activities which allegedly occurred between January 8, 1996, and January 30, 1998. Count Eight related to Project Nos. 36210-3440 and 36210-3441 on Interstate 75 in Marion County, Florida, and relates to activities which allegedly occurred between April 15, 1996, and January 30, 1998. At the hearing in this matter, Petitioner testified that he prepared damage and extension of time claims, based on information that was provided to him by the attorneys for White Construction Company. Petitioner testified that he did plead guilty to Counts Seven and Eight, which involved instances of billing the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") for the same equipment at different locations on the same day. It is undisputed that first degree grand theft, pursuant to Subsection 812.014(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2000), in the context of doing business with a state agency, constitutes a "public entity crime" as defined by Subsection 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not notify the Department that he had been convicted of a public entity crime within 30 days of his conviction, as required by Subsection 287.133(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2000). Petitioner testified that, at the time of the plea, he was unaware of this statutory requirement. Petitioner was represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings, and testified that his lawyer did not mention Section 287.133, Florida Statutes (2000), in their discussions. Petitioner further testified that the statewide prosecutor did not mention the public entity crimes statute during plea negotiations. Section 287.133, Florida Statutes (2000), is not mentioned in the plea agreement. Petitioner further contends that the fact that adjudication was withheld as a result of his plea agreement establishes that he was never "convicted" of a public entity crime. Subsection 287.133(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), defines "conviction" as "a finding of guilt or a conviction of a public entity crime, with or without an adjudication of guilt, in any federal or state trial court of record relating to charges brought by indictment or information after July 1, 1989, as a result of a jury verdict, nonjury trial, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere." (emphasis added) Petitioner's contention that he was not "convicted" is therefore without merit. However, Petitioner's belief that he had not been convicted of a crime is credited. Even if he had been aware of the requirements of Section 287.133, Florida Statutes (2000), Petitioner in all good faith would not have believed that he was under any obligation to report his conviction. In addition to requiring a person convicted of a public entity crime to inform the Department within 30 days of his conviction, Subsection 287.133(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), requires any public entity which receives information that a person has been convicted of a public entity crime to transmit that information to the Department in writing within 10 days. Subsection 287.133(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2000), defines "public entity" as "the State of Florida, any of its departments or agencies, or any political subdivision." The Office of Statewide Prosecution, which was the signatory party to Petitioner's plea agreement, never informed the Department of Petitioner's conviction. In 2002, the Florida Engineers Management Corporation on behalf of the Board of Professional Engineers issued a complaint against Petitioner, seeking to discipline his license as a professional engineer because of the acts alleged in the indictment and the crimes to which Petitioner pled guilty. Petitioner contested the proposed discipline and the matter went to a full evidentiary hearing before a judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. See Florida Engineers Management Corporation v. Cooper, Case No. 02-3167PL (DOAH January 6, 2003). Neither the Florida Engineers Management Corporation nor the Board of Professional Engineers informed the Department that Petitioner had been convicted of a public entity crime. Petitioner presented documentary evidence indicating that Michael K. Bowen, an FDOT employee, filed the complaint that led to the investigation that culminated in Case No. 02-3167PL. The complaint was filed with the Board of Professional Engineers on September 13, 2001, more than one year after Petitioner's plea agreement was entered. In the Recommended Order in Case No. 02-3167PL, the Administrative Law Judge recommended that the charges against Petitioner be dismissed, based on the conclusion that the allegations did not directly relate to the practice of engineering or the ability to practice engineering. The Agency's Final Order, dated May 15, 2003, rejected the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion and imposed a six-month license suspension and a fine of $1,000.00 on Petitioner. On June 16, 2003, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the First District Court of Appeal. Petitioner and the Board of Professional Engineers settled the appeal, and Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the case on October 23, 2003. See Cooper v. State of Florida, Board of Professional Engineers, Case No. 1D03-2542. Petitioner testified that he believed the dismissal of his appeal would mark the end of his legal problems, some three and one-half years after the filing of the indictment. By letter to Steve Rumph, the Department's inspector general, dated March 15, 2005, Cecil T. Bragg, Jr., FDOT's inspector general, reported the "criminal conviction of Luther White, Jr., William Thomas Cooper, Jr., and White Construction Company, Inc. of Chiefland, Florida." The letter notes that Petitioner entered his guilty plea to two counts of grand theft and agreed to repay FDOT $84,000 in addition to permanent debarment from doing business with or associating with any business doing work with FDOT. The letter correctly states that the plea agreement was entered on August 30, 2000. It is notable that Mr. Bragg concludes the letter by directing any questions to "Investigations Manager Michael K. Bowen." Michael K. Bowen was the same FDOT employee who filed the complaint against Petitioner with the Board of Professional Engineers on September 13, 2001. Thus, the documents in this case establish that FDOT knew of Petitioner's conviction no later than September 13, 2001,1 yet waited nearly four years before notifying the Department of Petitioner's conviction. At the hearing, no plausible explanation was offered for FDOT's failure to comply with the requirements of Subsection 287.133(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2000). In his questioning of Petitioner, the Department's counsel implied that it was merely standard practice for FDOT to wait until everyone involved in the case had been convicted before notifying the Department. Even if this implication is accepted, it does not bring FDOT's actions within the terms of the statute. The letter itself states that the individual Whites and White Construction Company entered into a plea agreement on July 7, 2004, and that FDOT's inspector general concluded all investigation in the matter on December 23, 2004. Both those dates are months before the March 15, 2005, letter from FDOT to the Department. As noted above, Subsection 287.133(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2000), required the agency to provide notice of the convictions to the Department within 10 days of receiving the information. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that he believed that FDOT intentionally dragged out these matters due to simple vindictiveness. Given the facts noted above, Petitioner's explanation is as plausible as any offered by the Department. By letter dated March 21, 2005, Mr. Rumph attempted to notify Petitioner that the Department had received information that he had been found guilty of a public entity crime and that the Department was commencing an investigation of the matter. Because the letter was sent to an old address and apparently not forwarded, Petitioner never received it. For reasons again unexplained, another year passed before the Department made any further effort to contact Petitioner. By certified letter dated April 6, 2006, the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to place him on the convicted vendor list. This letter was sent to the old address, but was forwarded to Petitioner's current address. Petitioner testified, both at this hearing and the hearing in DOAH Case No. 02-3167PL, that he was retained to provide cost evaluations and calculate cost damages based entirely on information provided to him by engineering firms hired by the attorneys for White Construction Company, as well as information provided by White Construction Company and FDOT. He made only brief visits to the job sites, was not allowed to question the calculations performed by the engineers, and had no knowledge that the information provided to him was untrue. Petitioner did not submit the claims that later proved fraudulent. Petitioner testified that he pled guilty "to make the trial go away and save me about $150,000 at that time." He did not concede that he had actually committed any crime. Petitioner's plea agreement provided that his total aggregate sentence would be ten years of probation, with the possibility of an early termination "upon proof by Defendant to the court's satisfaction that: (a) all restitution, fines, and costs have been paid; (b) Defendant has satisfied in full all other conditions of his probation; and (c) the interests of justice are best served by early termination of probation. The Defendant understands that the State will not agree to an early termination of probation any sooner than one-half of his probationary period." At the hearing, Petitioner testified that the order terminating his probation was entered on February 10, 2006, more than four years early. The early termination of probation leads to the reasonable inference that Petitioner complied with all the terms of his plea agreement, including the following: Defendant agrees, when directed by the State, to appear and testify truthfully and fully and to provide information truthfully and fully at all interviews, hearings, depositions, and trials involving the above- captioned case and any related investigations. Defendant agrees to provide all interview statements and testimony in all depositions, hearings and trials voluntarily. . . . Petitioner has performed no work for White Construction Company or any of its principals since March 2000. Petitioner has performed no work for any state agency since March 2000. On November 8, 2000, the Federal Highway Administration suspended Petitioner from participating in federally funded projects, based on the March 23, 2000, indictment. The suspension was imposed for the duration of the criminal proceedings. By letter dated April 11, 2005, the Federal Highway Administration notified Petitioner that his suspension had been terminated, due to the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed with the Board of Medical Examiners an application for licensure by examination in 1983. Included with that application were original "affidavits" submitted on Petitioner's behalf by Dr. Borroto and Dr. Velez. Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement in October of 1984. In conjunction with his application for licensure by endorsement, Petitioner submitted photocopies of the "affidavits" submitted with his 1983 application for licensure by examination. These photocopies of Dr. Borroto's and Dr. Velez's "affidavits" were submitted by Petitioner with notarized attestations that the notary had in fact seen the originals. Petitioner knew that this was not true. On December 28, 1984, Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners (hereinafter "the Board"), sent Petitioner a letter indicating, among other things, that Petitioner had submitted photocopies rather than original letters establishing his five years of licensed medical practice. Furthermore, he was notified that his application would not be complete until the originals were received. The same letter notified Petitioner that all documents to be notarized must be certified as true and correct copies of the original and stated so by the notary. Petitioner was specifically warned that the notary must see the original and copy in order to make the required statement. In January of 1985, Petitioner submitted new affidavits concerning five years of licensed medical practice. On August 2, 1985, Petitioner attended a meeting of the Board's Foreign Medical Graduate Committee (hereinafter "FMGC") in order to address problems with his application for licensure by endorsement. At that meeting, Petitioner failed to satisfactorily address the issues concerning affidavits attesting to his five years of licensed medical practice. The committee voted to recommend denial of Petitioner's application based upon the lack of personal knowledge of the affiants, improper notarization of the purported affidavits and fraudulent notarization of the 1983 affidavits of Dr. Borroto and Dr. Velez. The Board considered Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement on August 3, 1985, and voted to deny licensure based on the recommendations of the FMGC. An Order to that effect was filed on August 26, 1985. On October 4, 1985, the FMGC reconsidered Petitioner's application, including new affidavits from Dr. Oscar R. Bravo-Campa, Dr. Juan A. Enriquez- Elesgaray and two other licensed physicians. However, the FMGC determined that the new affidavits did not overcome the problems raised during Petitioner's original attempt to obtain licensure by endorsement and voted to reaffirm their previous recommendation. On October 5, 1985, the Board reconsidered Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement and voted to reaffirm its previous denial. An Order to that effect was filed on March 27, 1986. Dr. Pedro G. Velez's certification dated January 10, 1983, stated that he had personal knowledge of Petitioner's medical practice in Cuba from January 1971 to June 1980. At the final hearing in this cause, Dr. Velez testified that he has known Petitioner personally only since the 1980s and that he did not know him professionally in Cuba at all. Dr. Velez also testified that he left Cuba in 1966 and that he might have met Petitioner when Petitioner was a student in 1964. Dr. Velez further testified that he signed a second letter in behalf of Petitioner. He testified that Petitioner had probably prepared it for his signature and that no one was present when he signed it. Specifically, the notary who attested to his signature was not present. Dr. Pedro G. Velez clearly had no personal knowledge that Petitioner was licensed to practice or did practice medicine in Cuba from January 1971 through June 1980. The certification completed by Dr. Esperanza Arce-Nunez, regarding Petitioner's five years of licensed medical practice and submitted by Petitioner to the Board in 1985, was not notarized as an affidavit. Dr. Arce-Nunez testified that she could not remember anything about seeing Petitioner in a practice setting in 1971, one of the years covered by her certification. In fact, her only personal knowledge of Petitioner's practice of medicine in Cuba occurred in 1977. Dr. Oscar R. Bravo-Campa testified that he coincided with Petitioner during annual medical rotations in Havana every year. He also testified that he could not remember when or where he saw Petitioner in a practice setting during the nine years covered by his affidavit, which specifically stated that he had contact with Petitioner in a practice setting three times a year in addition to rotations every year between 1971 and 1980. In fact, his only personal knowledge of Petitioner's practice of medicine in Cuba occurred in 1977. Dr. Ignacio Coro initially testified that he knew Petitioner for six years. In fact, Petitioner has resided in this country for approximately six years, since June of 1980. Dr. Coro subsequently claimed to know Petitioner longer than six years, about thirteen years. Although Dr. Coro's certification claimed he saw Petitioner in a practice setting twice a year from 1971 to 1980, he testified that he saw Petitioner only once in 1980. Dr. Coro could not remember seeing Petitioner in a practice setting during 1973. Dr. Coro further testified that the clarification statement, dated September 20, 1985 and attached to his September 9, 1985 affidavit, was included because Petitioner specifically requested it, and he did not know where the document was typed. The certification prepared by Dr. Juan A. Enriquez-Elesagaray and submitted by Petitioner did not contain a notarization. Petitioner testified that the letters dated September 20, 1985 and signed by Dr. Esperanza Arce-Nunez, Dr. Oscar R. Hravo-Campa, Dr. Ignacio Core, and Dr. Juan A. Enriquez- Elesgaray were each composed by the individual doctors. However, the letters are almost identical as to their wording, punctuation mistakes and misspellings. Petitioner testified both that he received his medical degree in 1971 and in 1977. Petitioner further testified that he allowed his application to be notarized by someone who did not witness his signature. Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director of the Board, testified that the Board initially had concerns about Petitioner's application, specifically because he submitted affidavits with attestations stating that the notary had seen the originals. The Board doubted the veracity of such a statement because the originals were in the Board's possession. Ms. Faircloth also testified that the change in the Board's certification forms that took place subsequent to 1983 was an attempt to clarify and emphasize the Board's previous requirement that affiants have actual knowledge, by determining the basis and frequency of such knowledge. Petitioner took his blank application (except for Petitioner's signature) to Dr. Luis Manuel Rodriguez Molina who prepares licensure application documents for Cuba doctors seeking licensure in Florida. Molina translated and/or filled in all documents, obtained signatures, and then later had his son notarize those documents even though none was actually signed in the presence of his son, the notary public. When he submitted it to the Board, Petitioner knew that he had not signed his application in front of a notary public, and, therefore, Petitioner's affidavit portion of his application was knowingly false. The purported "personal knowledge" of each affiant and witness testifying as to Petitioner's five years of actual practice is that each between the years of 1971 and 1980 saw Petitioner at the equivalent of medical association meetings. These meetings were, however, also attended by students. Only Dr. Elesgaray could testify that he saw Petitioner in a practice setting twice each year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ramon S. Santos, Jr., Esquire 1000 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 303 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this case. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Through October 1, 1987, Respondent held a Class "K" license number K- 00-00347 for the instruction of persons seeking a Class "G" license to bear a firearm. While working at a security guard service, Respondent met Enrique Bonet, who asked Respondent if he would be interested in teaching firearm classes to students solicited by Mr. Bonet. Respondent agreed. After teaching not more than 25 students supplied by Mr. Bonet, Respondent terminated the arrangement with Mr. Bonet shortly after it began. Thereafter, Mr. Bonet continued to train persons seeking a Class "G" license, even though Mr. Bonet was not licensed to do so. Following each training session, Mr. Bonet forged Respondent's signature to the certificate that was submitted to Petitioner on behalf of each applicant. Respondent was unaware of Mr. Bonet's unlawful actions until one of Petitioner's employees contacted Respondent and informed him that scores were missing on one certificate bearing Respondent's signature. When asked for these scores, Respondent promptly stated that he had not trained anyone during the period of training shown on the application. After a copy of the application was provided to Respondent, he promptly identified his signature as a forgery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. Entered this 26th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1404 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted. Adopted in substance. Adopted in substance although there is insufficient evidence as to when Respondent conducted the classes with students supplied by Mr. Bonet. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Mr. Purcell's identification was uncertain and was not clear and convincing evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Petitioner's case can be largely reduced to the word of Respondent against the word of Mr. Bonet. Respondent attended the hearing, testified candidly, and assisted Petitioner's investigation by promptly identifying a fraudulent certificate. Respondent's demeanor was good. On the other hand, Mr. Bonet has vanished, leaving behind a trail of fraud and deceit by his own admission. In a statement not subject to cross-examination, Mr. Bonet asserted that Respondent was involved in Bonet's fraudulent activity. This assertion does not qualify as an admission against interest so as to be admis- sible under the hearsay exception. Nor does Mr. Bonet's hearsay statement supplement or explain other admissible evidence. Even if Mr. Bonet's statement were admissible, it would be rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Mr. Bonet's absence and admitted deceit militate against taking his testimony over Respon- dent's. Moreover, Petitioner produced only one person to corroborate Mr. Bonet's testimony concerning the involvement of Respondent in Mr. Bonet's unlawful activities. This witness's testimony was vague and uncertain. Petitioner should have produced one of the 60-65 other persons who took classes from Mr. Bonet while improperly supervised by Respondent. Even such testimony, however, would somehow have had to link Respondent with Mr. Bonet's unlawful activities. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Timothy Jansen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 James E. Meade, Jr., pro se 8425 Mattituck Circle Orlando, Florida 32829 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ken Rouse General Counsel Department of state 1801 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent’s felony convictions directly relate to the practice of public accounting and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed certified public accountant, having been issued license number AC-0001638 by the Florida Board of Accountancy. Respondent was convicted on felony charges of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, mail fraud, and making false statements in United States v. Tunick in the Southern District of New York on December 26, 2000. Respondent was thereafter sentenced to a year and a day in prison to be followed by three years of supervised probation. He is currently free on bail pending an appeal. Respondent’s convictions violate the level of professional conduct expected of a person licensed to practice public accounting in Florida and are within the scope of crimes that directly relate to the ability to practice public accounting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order in this case finding Respondent guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; permanently revoking the Respondent’s license to practice public accounting in Florida; and assessing Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter B. Lebowitz, Esquire 12555 Biscayne Boulevard, No. 924 Miami, Florida 33308 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Martha Willis, Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
