The Issue By this petition, American Foam Rubber Distributors, Inc. (AFRD) and Edward Rothbard seek to have the Department of Revenue's assessment for documentary stamp tax and penalties on a transfer of real property by quit claim deed from Edward Rothbard to AFRD set aside. Petitioners contend that the transfer was without consideration and therefore nontaxable under sec. 201.02, F.S. , while Respondent contends that consideration flowed to the grantor by virtue of the grantee making the mortgage payments; and therefore, documentary tax stamps were due on the deed of conveyance computed on the amount of the mortgage at the time of transfer. One witness testified in behalf of Petitioners and four exhibits were admitted into evidence. From the pleadings, interrogatories and evidence presented at the hearing, the facts are largely undisputed and are as follows:
Findings Of Fact Edward Rothbard owns 100 percent of the outstanding stock of AFRD and he has been the sole shareholder and chief executive officer of the company since the company s inception in 1962. On March 9, 1973 the Seaboard Coastline Railroad (SCL) entered into an agreement with AFRD to sell a tract of land in Miami to the latter at an agreed price of $116,978.00 with certain conditions. The principal condition was that the grantee erect a warehouse on the property within one year from the date of the transfer. By deed dated August 23, 1973 the property was conveyed by SCL to Edward Rothbard rather than as per the contract. This deed was apparently delivered in late October, 1973 and the proper documentary stamp tax was paid on this transaction. Mr. Rothbard's testimony that the sole reason for taking the property in his name was to expedite the transaction was not rebutted. In exhibits 1 and 2 copies of letters from SCL dated September 21 and 26, 1973, SCL referred to Rothbard as nominee of AFRD to be grantee of the property. Exhibit 4, the title page of an interim title insurance binder, indicates that the title insurance policy on the property purchased from SCL was intended to be in the name of AFRD. In August, 1974 the building erected on the site for the use and benefit of AFRD was completed and Edward Rothbard mortgaged the property to secure a note in the amount of $550,000.00. His wife also executed the note and mortgage. AFRD occupied the building in September, 1975 and made all mortgage payments to the mortgagee including the first payment. By quitclaim deed executed February 26, 1975 Edward Rothbard conveyed the property here involved to AFRD subject to the mortgage. Minimum documentary tax stamps were placed on this deed. On February 26, 1975 the outstanding balance due on the mortgage was $543,969.59.
Findings Of Fact By warranty deed dated July 29, 1974 Marco Cove, Inc. conveyed certain property to the Barnett Bank of Naples, Florida as Trustee. At the time of these conveyances the properties were subject to a first mortgage dated September 14, 1971 in an original principal amount of $1,400,000 to AMI Investments, Inc. mortgagee and a second mortgage dated August 24, 1973 in the amount of $130,278 to Joseph R. Lynch, Inc. By quitclaim deed dated November 5, 1974 (Exhibit 8) Donald P. Landis conveyed his interest in Apartment Number C-3 in the condominium here involved to the Barnett Bank of Naples, Trustee. It appears that at the time of the conveyances here involved Marco Cove, Inc. was delinquent on both mortgages, owed materialmen's liens on the property, had sold some of the units to innocent purchasers without giving clear title, and had not placed in escrow the sums so received from these purchasers. Barnett Bank accepted title as trustee, so the various rights of the parties could be resolved without foreclosure proceedings. Although Petitioner contested that Barnett Bank was Trustee for AMI Investments, Inc., Exhibit 10, which was admitted into evidence without objection, clearly shows the bank understood they were trustees for AMI Investments, Inc. and accepted the deeds here involved. At the time of the conveyances the balance owned on the first mortgage was $63,356.16 and on the second mortgage $130,278. Respondent's third Notice of Proposed Assessment (Exhibit 3) assesses documentary stamp taxes and penalties in the amount of $59.25 on each of the three condominium units conveyed to the Trustee and documentary stamp tax and penalty in the amount of $547.88 on the conveyance of the entire condominium for a total tax and penalty of $725.63. No surtax is claimed. The conveyances to the Trustee did not extinguish the mortgages and the Trustee took title to the properties subject to these mortgages. Petitioner has subsequently sold its rights as first mortgagee to a third party for some $66,000.
Findings Of Fact At all times materal to this proceeding, the Respondent, Robert G. Hammond, was the holder of Beverage License No. 64-183, Series No. 2-APE. That license is issued to the licensed premises located at 1000 Reid Street, Palatka, Florida. On September 23, 1983, the Respondent, Robert G. Hammond entered a plea of guilty to the charge of fraud under Florida Statute 409.325(2). Based upon that guilty plea, the Respondent was sentenced to six months confinement in the Putnam County Jail and five years probation under certain specified conditions of probation. The offense to which the Respondent pleaded guilty and for which he was adjudicated guilty has a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine and is a felony of the third degree under Florida law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the charge as set forth in the Notice to Show Cause and revoking Respondent's Beverage License No. 64-183. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 18th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Hammond 1000 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32077 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact In April 1990, DHRS advised the Petitioner that she owed the Department $7.00 for Food Stamps and $1,278 in excess AFDC which it had erroneously paid to her. On January 4, 1993, Petitioner submitted a claim to the Lottery based on an instant ticket she held. The ticket reflected that Petitioner was eligible for a prize of $1,000. On January 4, 1993, DHRS certified to the Lottery that Petitioner owed $7.00 in Food Stamp benefits and $1,278.00 in Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits due to previous payments made to Petitioner in error. By letter dated January 15, 1993, the Lottery notified Petitioner that DHRS had advised it of the outstanding debt and that, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, it had transmitted the prize amount to DBF. Petitioner was further advised that DBF soon would notify her regarding the distribution of the funds. By letter dated January 26, 1993, DBF notified Petitioner that it was in receipt of her prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply Petitioner's winnings to the debt owed to DHRS. In a letter received by DBF on February 5, 1993, Petitioner requested a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order upholding the application of Petitioner's lottery winnings in the amount of $1,000 in partial payment of the outstanding debt that Petitioner owned to DHRS. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 7th day of May, 1993. Copies furnished: Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Elsie Golden 6611 Hampton Road Pensacola, FL 32505 Leslie A. Meek, Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Katrina Saggio Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Louisa H. Warren Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-4000
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative action, as amended, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material herein, respondent, Qasem Shahinda d/b/a Ismael and Son Supermarket, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-10720, series 2- APS, for the premises located at 14528 Lincoln Boulevard, Miami, Florida. At all times material hereto, respondent was authorized to receive U.S.D.A. food stamps in exchange for food items, and had received training prior to such authorization from the United States Department of Agriculture as to, inter alia, items of merchandise which could or could not be exchanged for food stamps. In December 1992, U.S.D.A. Investigator William Bethel (Bethel) and U.S.D.A. Investigative Aide Mary Pierce (Pierce) commenced an investigation of the licensed premises to ascertain whether nor not persons associated with the premises were complying with State and Federal law regarding the acceptance of U.S.D.A. food stamps. In each instance, Bethel accompanied Pierce to the premises and provided her with the U.S.D.A. food stamps used in the investigation. On December 10, 1992, Pierce entered the license premises with $30.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps. At or about 1:20 p.m. that date, a female clerk on the premises accepted food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included the following ineligible items: a six-pack of Old Milwaukee Beer, one pack of Winston cigarettes, one pack of Newport cigarettes, and one Massengill disposable douche. On April 14, 1993, Pierce entered the licensed premises with $65.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps. At or about 12:30 p.m., another female clerk accepted $32.79 worth of food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included the following ineligible items: a six-pack of Old Milwaukee Beer and one pack of Newport cigarettes. 1/ On April 14, 1993, Investigator Bethel entered the licensed premises with $45.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps in furtherance of the above described investigation. At or about 12:35 p.m., the same female clerk accepted $38.97 worth of food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included the following ineligible items: a six-pack of Old Milwaukee Beer, one box of Cheer detergent, and one box of Clorox dry bleach. 2/ On April 28, 1993, Pierce entered the licensed premises with $55.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps in furtherance of the above described investigation. At or about 11:40 a.m., the same female clerk she had encountered on April 14, 1993, accepted $53.85 worth of food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included the following ineligible items: a six-pack of Old Milwaukee Beer, one pack of Winston cigarettes, one pack of Newport cigarettes, one roll of Reynolds Foil, and one box of Hefty kitchen bags. 3/ Pierce returned to the premises on April 28, 1993, with $65.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps. At or about 11:55 a.m., Pierce met with the same female clerk and sold her the $65.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps for $25.00 in United States currency. 4/ On July 19, 1993, Pierce entered the licensed premises with $140 in U.S.D.A. food stamps in furtherance of the above described investigation. At or about 12:45 p.m., a male clerk accepted food stamps in exchange for merchandise which, in addition to eligible items, included an ineligible pack of Winston cigarettes. Moreover, the same male clerk purchased from Pierce $130.00 in U.S.D.A. food stamps (two full $65.00 books) for $70.00 in United States currency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of the aforesaid violations and assessing a $2,000.00 civil penalty. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of March 1995. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 8th day of March 1995.
The Issue Do the Respondents operate a food establishment as that term is defined in Section 500.03(1)(j), Florida Statutes? If so, are the Respondents, under the circumstances of this cause, required to obtain a food permit from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) in accordance with Section 500.12, Florida Statutes, in order to continue operating their food establishment located within the premises of International Market World, Inc. (Market World) located at 1052 Highway 92 West, Auburndale, Florida? If the Respondents are required to obtain a food permit from the Department, should the Respondents be required to: (a) purchase a permit for each and every year or partial year of operation since being notified by the Department of such requirement; (b) pay a late fee for their failure to renew a permit that was never issued or; (c) pay an administrative fine for failing to obtained a food permit upon being notified of that requirement by the Department?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Department is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for the administration and enforcement of Chapter 500, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder relating to permitting, food safety and the sale of food to the consuming public. Janet M. Robbins and Gerald A. Robbins (Respondents) operate a stall within the confines of a flea market owned and operated by Market World located on Highway 92 West in Auburndale, Polk County, Florida. The Respondents lease the stall from Market World. Respondents receive all proceeds from the sale of items from their stall in Market World. Respondents' business mailing address is listed as 1026 Biltmore Drive, Northwest, Winter Haven, Polk County, Florida 33881. Respondents did not, at any time pertinent to this proceeding, possess an occupational license issued in their name from Polk County, Florida for operating their stall in Market World. Instead, Respondents operated under a blanket occupational license issued to Market World by the Tax Collector of Polk County, Florida in accordance with Polk County Ordinance No. 95-27 which covered all flea market vendors within the confines of Market World. However, had Market World elected not to purchase this blanket occupational license, Respondents would have been required under this ordinance to obtain a Polk County occupational license from the Tax Collector in order to operate their stall in Market World. In accordance with Department of Revenue Rule 12A-1.098, Florida Administrative Code, flea market vendors are required to collect sales tax on their sales but are not required to register with the Department of Revenue in order to remit those taxes. Instead, the rule allows the flea market vendor to remit the taxes collected under the registration of the flea market operator, manager, lessor or owner. Respondents have in the past used this method of remitting the sales tax collected by them to the Department of Revenue. However, the Respondents are presently remitting sales tax directly to the Department of Revenue. On May 6, 1994, Jimmy D. Daugherty, a Department Sanitation and Safety Specialist, visited the Respondents' stall at Market World and observed that Respondents were offering food for sale. Daugherty advised Janet Robbins that a food permit was required to sell food from Respondents' flea market stall. On this same date, Daugherty inspected Respondents' facility and issued a Food Safety Inspection Report and gave the facility an overall rating of good. Also, the report indicated that this was a new firm and that a food permit application was attached. The food permit application had been filled out by Janet Robbins with Daugherty's assistance. Subsequent to filling out the Food Permit Application, Janet Robbins discussed the matter with her husband, Gerald Robbins, who advised the Department that he disputed the requirement that Respondents' establishment must obtain a food permit. While it appears from the record that Respondents' application was submitted to the Department along with Daugherty's Food Safety Inspection Report, there was no evidence that Respondents tendered the proper fee for a permit or that a permit was ever issued to Respondents. On January 17, 1995, the Department issued Notice Number 95R-69185 concerning Respondents' 1995 Food Permit Renewal Notice. The Notice advised Respondents that they had failed to remit their 1995 Food Permit Renewal Fee, the reminder for which had been mailed to them on November 15, 1994. The November 15, 1994, notice was not introduced as evidence. The January 17, 1995, notice also advised Respondents that a late fee of $37.50 would be added if the food permit renewal fee was not paid by January 31, 1995, and that the late fee would be increased to $100.00 if the food permit renewal fee was not paid by February 28, 1995. On February 15, 1995, and again on April 26, 1995, the Department advised Respondents that the 1995 Food Permit Renewal Fee was past due and that an appropriate late fee had been added. In pertinent part, each of the Notices provided: If you dispute your firm type, the State Agency regulating your business, or if you are no longer in business, please indicate on the application (reverse side), sign and return.. . . . Respondents did not respond in writing to the Department disputing any of the matters set forth in the Notices received by them. Instead, Gerald Robbins made telephone calls to Dr. Martha Rose Roberts, Deputy Commissioner, and to Linton Eason in the legal department. These calls were not returned by the Department. On July 26, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Intent To Impose Administrative Fine against Janet Robbins for operating a Food Establishment without a Food Permit in violation of Section 500.12, Florida Statutes. Respondents requested a formal hearing, and this matter was referred to the Division for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the conduct of a hearing. Respondents moved to dismiss the matter which was unopposed by the Department. A Recommended Order of Dismissal was entered by the Hearing Officer and jurisdiction relinquished to the Department for final agency action. The Department entered an "Order" overruling the Recommended Order of Dismissal and further ordered that the Department intended to issue an immediate cease and desist order and to impose an administrative fine. The matter was again referred to the Division and this hearing ensued. On May 6, 1994, the Respondents were selling food, as defined in Section 500.03(1)(h), Florida Statutes, from their stall in the flea market known as Market World and have continued to sell food from their stall in the flea market since that date. Respondents' establishment within Market World is of a semi-permanent nature. This finding is based on the photographs entered into evidence as Respondents' Exhibits 5 and 6 and the unrebutted testimony of Gerald Robbins that certain pieces of Respondents' equipment located within the Respondents' stall at Market World were bolted to the floor. Several other flea market vendors within Market World have applied for and were issued food permits by the Department after paying the necessary fee. Because flea market vendors can move from one flea market to another, any flea market vendor who is issued a food permit for one location may operate under that same food permit at another flea market location provided the vendor does not operate at two or more flea market operations simultaneously. There was no evidence as to the annual gross food sales generated by Respondents' stall located within Market World. On May 5, 1995, Daugherty visited and inspected Respondents' stall at Market World. The Food Safety Inspection Report submitted by Daugherty for this inspection indicated an overall rating of good as did the report of May 6, 1994. Respondents have not interfered with, or attempted to interfere with, the Department's inspection of their food establishment even though they disagree with the requirement of having to obtain a food permit from the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring the Respondents to obtain a food permit for the partial year of 1994, and for a full year for 1995 and 1996, and assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. It is further recommended that no late fees be assessed for failure to renew a food permit that was never issued. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 30th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-1154 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 4 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 17. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 - 4, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 17. Proposed findings of fact 5 and 6 are neither material nor relevant. Proposed finding of fact 7, as stated, is argument rather than a finding of fact. Proposed findings of fact 8 - 10 and 15 are unnecessary as findings of fact. However, they are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed finding of fact 16 is covered in the Conclusions of Law rather than in the Findings of Fact. The first two sentences of proposed finding of fact 19 are adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 14. The balance of proposed finding of fact 19, as stated, is argument rather than a finding of fact. There was no proposed finding of fact 12 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Gerald A. Robbins Qualified Representative 1026 Biltmore Drive, Northwest Winter Haven, Florida 33881
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent was operating a public food service establishment without a license, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Green was operating a mobile food service vehicle at the corner of Hogan Street and West Union Street (the “Site”) in Jacksonville, Florida. By his own admission, Green did not possess a food service license from the State of Florida. The Division is the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of public food service establishments, pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, food inspector Huckaba was conducting a callback inspection of a restaurant in the downtown Jacksonville, Florida, area. As he was leaving a food service establishment, he noticed a mobile food service establishment (the “Food Trailer”) at the Site. Huckaba observed Mr. Green preparing food--a hotdog--and serving it to a customer; the customer paid for the food with cash. Huckaba noticed there was not a valid food service license posted on the Food Trailer. When asked by Huckaba, Green stated that he did not have such a license. On the next day, April 2, Huckaba and his supervisor, Fielder, revisited the Site for the purpose of determining whether Green had a valid license to operate the Food Trailer and whether the establishment was being operated in accordance with provisions of Florida law and rules. It was again determined that Green did not have a license to operate the Food Trailer. Upon further inspection, Huckaba determined that the following food service violations existed (with corresponding sections from the U.S. Public Health Service/FDA Food Code, a description of the violation, and the level of violation): 08B-38-4 Food stored on the floor--Basic 12A-07-4 Employee failed to wash hands before putting on gloves to work with food--High 28-10-4 Sewage holding tank less than 15% larger in capacity than water supply--Basic 31A-03-4 Handwash sink not accessible for employee due to items stored in sink-- Intermediate 31B-04-4 No handwashing sign provided at sink used by employees--Basic 50-08-4 Operating without a license--High 51-10-4 Interference/obstruction with inspector’s right to entry--Intermediate Huckaba issued a Food Service Inspection Report setting forth his findings. Green did not sign the report but was furnished a copy. The report was assigned “license number” D05- 04-26; and a “rank”--MFDV. D05 is the designation for district 5, i.e., Jacksonville. 04 is inspector Huckaba’s area number. 26 is the designation for Duval County. MFDV stands for mobile food dispensing vehicle. The Division then conducted a search of its data base for the purpose of determining whether a food service license had ever been issued to Clinton Green. No such license was discovered. The Division thereafter issued an Administrative Complaint, precipitating the instant matter. The Administrative Complaint cited Green for operating a food service establishment without a license and for the other enumerated violations set forth above. (No evidence was presented at final hearing as to the issues other than the failure to have a license; the other issues are not addressed further in this Recommended Order.) At the final hearing held in this case, Green readily admitted that he did not hold a license issued by the State of Florida for operating a public food service establishment. Due to that admission, there is no disputed issue of material fact to be considered by the undersigned. However, inasmuch as the hearing was conducted and evidence was taken, it is appropriate to set out Green’s stated justification, rationale, and bases for his actions before applying the law to the undisputed facts. Rationale for not having a license Green says he is a human being and is entitled to provide for his family and work as he sees fit. This is a God- given right, he asserts, that cannot be restricted by man. The State of Florida is the only “entity” which can require Green to have a license. However, Green believes the State is a nebulous, ephemeral “thing” that does not actually exist. He claims the so-called agents of the State are not the State, per se, thus their words have no force or effect. Green issued affidavits to an agent of the State (Steve Budungen, district manager of the Division) in 2008 setting forth his beliefs about licensure, State actions, etc. In the affidavits, Green demanded certain documents and information from Budungen. Inasmuch as Budungen did not respond to his affidavits, Green believes that his statements therein have the force and effect of law and are “the truth.” As support for Green’s position vis-à-vis the affidavits, he cites to Morris v. National Cash Register, 44 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Ct. Civ. App. Tex. 1931). That case, while it does address an affidavit attached to a motion to vacate a judgment, does not stand for the proposition alleged by Green, i.e., that once an affiant makes a statement, it becomes the truth for all purposes. Green’s reading of the law is flawed. Green also asserts that U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (5th Cir. 1977), stands for the proposition that “Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak, or when inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” Green did not explain why this proposition was relevant to the facts of the instant case. The Tweel case had to do with the Internal Revenue Service intentionally withholding from the plaintiff’s lawyer the fact that plaintiff was about to undergo a criminal investigation. This intentional deception then lulled plaintiff into a false sense of security and kept him from preparing for his criminal investigation. While Green made a general allegation that the Department had “clearly been intentionally deceptive” concerning its dealings with him, he provided no evidence to support the allegation. Green also seems to suggest that he was “cunningly coerced” into waiving his right to due process, citing U.S. v Minker, 350 U.S. 179 (1956). There is no support in the record to support Green’s allegation of coercion and it is not relevant to the facts of this case. The holding in the Minker case is not dispositive of any issue in the instant matter. Green states that he is not a chattel to be used and abused by the State as it sees fit. Green says that only if the State of Florida (itself) walks up to him and says, “You need to have a license,” will he believe he has to have one. Otherwise, he doesn’t see any requirement to have a license. And since the State is a fictitious person, unable to speak, he says there is no need to have a license. Lastly, Green says that the only way he would be required to have a license to sell food from his vehicle is if he entered into a contract with the State giving the State permission to govern his actions. Besides, he asserts, the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter lists his name in all capital letters. Only corporations, he asserts, are spelled out in all capital letters; he is, conversely, a natural person. Thus, he reasons, the Administrative Complaint is invalid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500 against Respondent, Clinton Green. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Clinton Green 8117 Colonnade Court, West Jacksonville, Florida 32244 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Yvette Pressley, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
