Findings Of Fact In December, 1982, DABT issued an alcoholic beverage license (Lic. no. 15-1163, Series 4-COP SRX) under its SRX classification to respondent to operate a restaurant with liquor sales on the premises. The restaurant was known as "Thee Doll House Beach," at 199 East Cocoa Beach Causeway, in Cocoa Beach, Florida. A requirement of the license was that revenue from sales of alcoholic beverages equal or exceed 51 percent of gross sales. Respondent opened "Thee Doll House Beach" for business in January, 1983. The business operated as a buffet restaurant, with a fixed-price, "all- you-can-eat" menu. Meals consisted of a hot entree, chosen from baked ham, roast beef and turkey; a selection of four or five hot vegetables; a large salad bar; two soups; and a desert tray, with pies, pastries and cakes. The business also offered alcoholic beverages for sale in the restaurant and at a bar. A "Las Vegas-style" show was presented nightly at eight o'clock, although the restaurant opened at noon. The first month's (January 1983) sales of food only reached 40.6 percent of gross sales, and subsequent efforts of the respondent to reach 51 percent were never successful. The initial price of a buffet meal was $4.95 per person, which attracted a sizeable number of patrons, many of them senior citizens. However, the respondent found that due to the extensive food menu and the cost of preparation and service, it was losing money on each meal sold. So it increased its meal price to $5.95, which resulted in a drastic drop in business, apparently due to the inability of senior citizens to pay the higher price. It was in this particular group that the most noticeable decrease in attendance occurred. The respondent took various steps to increase its food sales. "Early- bird" specials were introduced at a lower price; extensive newspaper, radio and television advertising was utilized to promote the buffet. Nevertheless, at the end of 1983, the business had shown an overall food sales of only 31 percent. Monthly percentage figures are as follows: DATE FOOD/NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERCENTAGE ALCOHOLIC PERCENTAGE January 1983 40.5 59.5 February 1983 27.1 72.9 March 1983 37.3 62.7 April 1983 33.5 66.5 May 1983 31.9 68.1 June 1983 29.1 70.9 July 1983 27.5 72.5 August 1983 23.9 76.1 September 1983 24.1 75.9 October 1983 23.4 76.6 November 1983 23.6 76.4 December 1983 23.3 76.7 The respondent's problems were compounded by the fact that it was operating in a difficult, if not depressed market, where financial conditions had limited the discretionary income available to restaurant-going consumers. Other restaurants in the area were having to cut back operations or terminate business altogether. During the year in question, the respondent held itself out to be a restaurant, not a lounge, and its primary emphasis in advertising, in its internal business operation and in its physical layout, emphasized food sales as opposed to liquor sales. During the time period in question the price of a meal at Thee Doll House Beach was significantly below its fair market value. The respondent attempted to increase its food sales by lowering prices, which, in turn, decreased the percentage of gross food sales. According to the evidence, a reasonable price for the menu offered, based on a comparison with other restaurants in Central Florida, would have been $8-$10. Using those price figures, the percentage of food sales to gross revenues at Thee Doll House Beach would have exceeded 60 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's beverage license be revoked but that such action be vacated if respondent surrenders its license for cancellation within 10 days of entry of DABT's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent Bisayne Menage Club, Inc., trading as Chantel Menage on the Bay, located at 2333 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida held 4-COP-SRX alcoholic Beverage license No 23-4231. The Respondent being a corporation, records of the Division of Business Regulation reflected that the sole corporate officer was Mitchell J. Segal who was president, secretary, and treasurer. On October 22, 1982, pursuant to an ongoing investigation, Officer Jonas Sears, in an undercover capacity, entered the Respondent's club where he met with Jose' Carballea (Coco), who he knew from some other narcotic transactions prior to this time which occurred off the licensed premises. At this time, Coco took Sears back into the kitchen area and, from a small metal key container which he had in his pocket, removed two small plastic bags containing a white powdery substance, one of which he sold to Sears for $80.00. The substance purchased by Sears then was subsequently identified as cocaine. From the access that Carballea had to all areas of the club, utilizing keys in his possesssion, and from the fact that he had advised Sears that his nephew owned the club, Sears concluded, and the evidence clearly establishes, that Core was, in some form or fashion, substantially high in the management of the operation. Sears, accompanied by Detective Ramirez, went back to the club on October 26, 1982 in the afternoon. As on the previous visit, the club was not open to the public at this time and the two officers met with Coco in the office area and then walked into the lounge. At this point Sears advised Coco he was there to buy another gram of cocaine. Coco took him to one of the offices off the kitchen where from a desk he removed a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance from the metal container he had used previously. He gave this bag to Sears in return for which Sears gave him $80.00. Before leaving, Sears was served a beer by Coco. The white powder substance purchased by Sears on this occasion was subsequently identified as cocaine. On November 9, Sears, again accompanied by Ramirez and another officer went to the club at 3:45 p.m. and met Coco in the kitchen. After a short discussion there, Coco took Sears into his office where he removed two plastic packages of white powder from the three that were in his metal key container. Sears gave Coco $160.00 for the two packets which were subsequently identified as containing cocaine. On this occasion, Coco indicated to Sears that consistent with the previous conversation they had had, he was interested in buying "Club" which was another name for Canadian Club whiskey. He took a piece of paper from a legal pad and wrote thereon the words, Canadian Club" and several other liquors including "J&B," "Amaretto," "Tia Maria," and "Red/Black" asking Sears if he could get the liquor the same day. This conversation transpired after Sears had asked Coco if his boss still wanted liquor. Coco had previously asked if Sears could get filet mignon. On November 18, 1982, in the afternoon, Sears, Ramirez, and a U.S. Customs agent, all in an undercover capacity, entered the club, When they arrived there, they were advised that Coco was not there. After a short wait, the officers left, returning approximately 40 minutes later. At this time, Sears came in by himself, meeting Coco in the lounge area. When Coco asked about the meat, Sears replied that none was available. However, he had the requested liquor in a friend s car parked outside. The liquor in question was liquor which had been purchased by the Miami Police Department for this operation and consisted of various liquors in case lots. It included some whiskeys that Coco had not mentioned. Coco negotiated with Ramirez in Spanish during which Ramirez allowed himself to be beaten down considerably in price from the original asking figure. Once the par ties struck the bargain the officers were instructed by Coco to carry and stack the cases in the rear office previously mentioned. This office was occupied by Letitia Thomas who was seated at a desk in the office. It was Ms. Thomas who took $245.00 from the pile of cash on her desk and paid Ramirez. Ms. Thomas was obviously an employee of the club. On the way out, Coco called Sears and Ramirez over and asked if Sears wanted to buy any more cocaine. When Sears said he did not have enough money with him, Ramirez offered to pay and Coco removed a small plastic bag containing a white powder from the small metal key container he carried and sold it to Sears for $80.00. This substance was subsequently identified as cocaine. When Sears and Ramirez went into the club again on December 3, 1982, to meet with Coco as per a prior arrangement, Coco again asked Sears if he wanted to buy cocaine. At this point, Sears said he wanted he grams. On this occasion, Coco sold Sears two packages of a substance subsequently identified as cocaine for $70.00 per package instead of the normal $80.00 per package. On December 8, 1982, Sears and Ramirez again went to the Respondent's club. They had previously discussed with Coco not only the sale of liquor and meat but also video recorders which the officers had clearly represented as being stolen. On this occasion, Coco said that his nephew wanted a recorder for his home and when this nephew, identified as Roberto Carbajal, arrived at the club, they discussed the video recorder with him. During this conversation, Carbajal indicated that he knew that the merchandise was stolen. After discussion back and forth, the parties arrived at a purchase price of $120.00 for the brand new unit. The officers were instructed by Carbajal to put the recorder in Coco's office and Carbajal paid Ramirez from his pocket. Carbajal, at this time, was a management employee of the license holder. On December 16, 1982, Sears and Ramirez went to the licensed premises as instructed by Coco. At that time, they had 56 cases of Dom Perignon champagne. Coco had told them to bring the champagne, which, he had indicated, was to be used by the club management. Their understanding with Coco was that he would buy the champagne upon delivery and would also sell them larger amounts of cocaine. When they arrived, Coco was not there and they dealt with other people in the club's employ. The man who approached them was identified as Mario Cordoves, who indicated that neither Coco nor Carbajal were there. Cordoves went off for a moment and returned a few moments later with an individual identified as John Radney who, he indicated, would be interested in buying the champagne. Radney agreed to take all 56 cases but stated that he could not take delivery at the club. He asked them to put some of it in his car. He also indicated that part of the 56 cases could be sold to someone else through his arrangement which was all right with Ramirez so long as the price remained the same. While this was going on, another individual, identified as George Kovacs, approached Ramirez and Sears, and negotiated to buy 18 of the cases of champagne for $100.00 per case. Kovacs left and came back with another individual who was to help him load the champagne into his car. All of this took place on the licensed premises attended by a bartender and two kitchen helpers in addition to Cordoves, Radney, Kovacs, and Kovacs assistant. When the deal was set, all the parties moved out into the parking lot and part of the champagne was placed into Kovacs vehicle. When this was done, Ramirez and Sears identified themselves as police officers and placed Kovacs under arrest. While this transaction was unfolding, Sears was told by Kovacs or someone at the club that the champagne would be sold in the club as part of a "Dom Perignon special" at $100.00 per bottle instead of the normal $200.00 per bottle they usually got. At the time of their arrest, Kovacs and Radney indicated they were up-front operators for the licensed club through an arrangement with Mr. Carbajal but were having difficulty with him. They indicated that Carbajal was the actual owner of the club while Mr. Segal was referred to as an attorney who was acting as registering agent for the corporation which he had set up. Neither Sears nor Ramirez ever saw Segal at the club on any of the visits they made there. Regardless of who was the beneficial owner of the stock in the corporation, Segal was listed as the sole officer and as such, was responsible for the operation.
Findings Of Fact Charles J. Evans and Inez P. Hamer, t/a Nezzers, hold beverage license No. 52-00669 and held this license at all times relevant hereto. On July 13, 1983, Beverage Agents Brown and Rozar, following up on a complaint of gambling at Nezzers, visited Nezzers around 7:30 p.m. It was a quiet night in the bar. Upon entry they observed two men playing pool at Table A (Exhibit 2), which is the nearest to the bar of the four pool tables in the room. Table A is a time table and the players pay based on the time the table is used. The other three tables are coin tables which are activated for play by depositing $.50 in coins in the table for each game. Brown and Rozar each bought a beer and commenced playing pool on Table D (Exhibit 2). Some 15 to 30 minutes later two other men started playing pool at Table B (Exhibit 2). At this time, in addition to the six pool players, the only people in the bar were the bartender, Marjorie Hamer, and two or three other patrons. Brown and Rozar observed the men at Table B, later identified as Valencourt and Mosely, flip a coin to see who would break. Thereafter, the agents several times observed Valencourt and Mosely exchange money at the conclusion of a game. One would toss a bill on the pool table and the winner [presumably] would pick it up and put it in his pocket. Hayman and Foreman playing at Table A were overheard to say one or the other was "one down" or "two down" and were seen putting a bill on the end of the bar away from the cash register from where it was picked up by the other player. On several occasions the players were observed getting change from Marjorie Hamer. Table A is closer to the bar than to Table D. Accordingly, Marjorie Hamer, setting behind the bar, was in as good or better position to observe the exchange of money as were agents brown and Rozar. Marjorie Hamer, the 22-year- old daughter of Inez Hamer, has worked at establishments dispensing alcoholic beverages and is generally familiar with beverage laws prohibiting gambling at a licensed establishment. Two large signs are conspicuously posted in the room which say "NO GAMBLING." On July 13, 1983, neither of the owners was present during the time the agents were in Nezzers. Inez Hamer had worked until 6:00 p.m. when she was relieved by Marjorie. Marjorie had earlier told her mother that she did not feel well and would like not to come in on July 13, but Inez told her it would be a quiet night without much business and Marjorie came in. Marjorie Hamer concurred with the testimony of Brown and Rozar that there were three pool tables occupied and few other people were in the bar. Marjorie spent most of the evening reading the paper and testified she did not see any of the pool players give money to his opponent at the end of a game or overhear any conversation that would lead her to believe gambling was going on.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 20th day of January, 1976 the Respondent, Franklin D. Boockholdt, licensed under the Beverage Laws as a vendor did unlawfully make a false statement, to wit: said premises sought to be licensed, contains and will maintain at all times all necessary equipment and supplies for serving full course meals regularly, on an affidavit for special restaurant license, in violation of Section 837.012, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, Franklin D. Boockholdt, was and is the holder of License No. 55-11, a Series 2- COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On January 20, 1976, Beverage Officer, George Sterling, arrived at the licensed premises of the Respondent known as Gibbs Night Club, located at 511 South Wood Street, Callahan, Nassau County, Florida. The purpose of this visit was to inspect the aforementioned premises as an element in considering the application which the Respondent, Franklin D. Boockholdt, had made for a special restaurant license to be held with the Division of Beverage. Prior to the time that Officer Sterling arrived at the subject premises, the Respondent had gone to the Airway's Facility of the Federal Aeronautics Administration at Hilliard, Florida and picked up a number of dishes from the cafeteria on that facility. These dishes were owned by a vendor whose name is Jet Services. The racks in which the Respondent carried the dishes away were the property of the Federal Aeronautics Administration. The Respondent then took the dishes, which would include flatware, to the subject premises and these dishes and flatware were part of the inventory which was shown to Officer Sterling in the course of an inspection held on January 20, 1976 at the subject premises. While checking the subject premises on January 20, 1976, Officer Sterling, among other things, was looking to establish that there were sufficient accommodations for serving 200 or more patrons at tables. His inventory on January 20, 1976 revealed 150 sectional trays, 50 plates, and sufficient forks, knives, spoons and glasses to serve the 200 people. Once Officer Sterling had completed his inventory he gave the Respondent Boockholdt an affidavit which was to be completed by the Respondent and given back to Officer Sterling as one of the preconditions to approval of the license application for a special restaurant license. The Respondent took the affidavit and completed its parts and appeared before a notary public to have the affidavit sworn and subscribed to by the notary public. The notary public was Dorothy Beasley. She notarized the subject affidavit and witnessed the signature of the Respendent. This activity took place on January 20, 1976. In addition, she read the document in full orally in the presence of the Respondent and asked the Respondent if he would swear to the affidavit. The Respondent replied "yes". The Respondent then signed his name to the affidavit. The affidavit in question is Petitioner's Exhibit #2 admitted into evidence. Within the affidavit is the statement under the number seven (7). Number seven (7) says: "Said premises sought to be licensed has, and will maintain at all times, accommo- dations for serving 200 or more patrons at tables;" The numerals 200 had been placed in the blank with the knowledge of the Respondent. The affidavit was then returned to Officer Sterling on January 20, 1976, at which time he affixed his signature as having checked the above described restaurant and found the statements in the affidavit to be true. Two hours after the Respondent had picked up the dishes and flatware at the Airways Facility of the Federal Aeronautics Administration at Hilliard, Florida, he returned these items to that facility and they were inventoried in their entirety. Acting on a complaint filed with the Division of Beverage by Douglas M. Messick, the Manager of the Federal Aeronautics Administration at Hilliard, Florida, Officer Sterling returned to the licensed premises on February 9, 1976. When he arrived at the licensed premises, he made an inventory of the dishes and flatware. Among other things, he found 140 sectional trays, plates of sizes of from 10" to 12" in diameter, some of which had not been present in the January 20, 1976 inventory, miscellaneous knives, forks and spoons, and glasses and cups. There were sufficient numbers to meet the service for 200 of all items with the exception of glasses which were deficient in number. There were not sufficient numbers of cups, but there is a question about whether it was intended that coffee and tea be served with the meal at the time that the affidavit was being filled out on January 20, 1976. After inventorying the accommodations for serving on February 9, 1976, a report was made and the subject charges were placed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the License No. 55-11, Series 2-COP, held by the Respondent, Franklin D. Boockholdt, to trade at Gibbs Night Club at 511 South Wood Street, Callahan, Florida, be revoked.* * RO issue date of 2/22/77 was obtained from the docket sheet. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Franklin D. Boockholdt P. O. Box 433 Hilliard, Florida 32046
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license Number 39-01036, Series 4-COP, for the premises located in the 900 block of Franklin Street in Tampa, Florida, should be disciplined in some manner because of the matters alleged in the Notice to Show Cause entered herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Petitioner, DABT, was the state agency responsible for the issue of alcoholic beverages licenses in Florida and the regulation of the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in this state. Respondent, Bay Entertainment, Inc., now known as Freedom Rings Entertainment, Inc., operated a night club, Solar, in the 900 block of Franklin Street in Tampa. There is some disagreement as to whether the facility was located at 911 Franklin Street or at 913 Franklin Street. The confusion is irrelevant to the issues for consideration since there is no indication a different club was operating at the second location, and there is no question regarding the identity or the licensure of the facility where the indicated misconduct was alleged to have taken place. The operation was licensed by the Petitioner under alcoholic beverage license number 39-01036, 4-COP. DABT S/A Elaine Paven first went to Solar on December 13, 1996 at approximately 11:55 p.m.. At the time, she was accompanied by S/A Murray and a confidential source. After paying the cover charge to the doorman, the party was directed to the second floor of the facility where the bar was located. From that location, they could look down to the first floor where another bar and the dance area were located. When Paven and her party went to the bar, she observed Tiffany Middlesexx, a transvestite and known narcotics user, sitting on the bar against the wall. Several male dancers, either wearing only a G-string or nude with a towel over their privates were performing. Paven and Murray went up to Middlesexx and asked to buy cocaine. Middlesexx asked them how much they wanted, and Paven gave the confidential source twenty dollars to buy some. The source gave the money to Middlesexx who, in return, gave the source a white powder which, in turn, was delivered by the source to Paven. All during this transaction, employees of the facility were routinely working in the immediate area. Other patrons appeared to be buying from Middlesexx as well, though Paven drew this conclusion only from her observation of individuals who approached Middlesexx as her source did. Paven has no direct knowledge of whether cocaine or any other proscribed drug was transferred from Middlesexx to the other patrons or whether money was transferred. In addition, however, as Paven and her party were leaving the club that night, she observed another known cocaine dealer, not further identified, enter the club. Paven next went to Solar on December 21, 1996. Tiffany Middlesexx was again sitting on the bar as before. Paven approached Middlesexx and asked for cocaine. In response, Middlesexx asked how much Paven wanted, and Paven transferred twenty dollars to Middlesexx. With that, Middlesexx took a packet of white powder out of the purse he/she was carrying and gave it to Paven. Paven saw several other similar transactions by Middlesexx that evening, during which Solar employees were present and could have observed them, and at no time did any club employee attempt to interfere with or prevent the purchases. That same evening, up on the second floor of the bar, Paven overheard a conversation between two other patrons who were discussing obtaining Ecstasy, also a proscribed narcotic. In addition, she observed patrons exiting the rest rooms snuffing and rubbing their noses which, to her, based on her training and experience, was indicative of drug use. Paven next went to the club on the evening of January 10, 1997, arriving just before 10:00 p.m. and staying until after midnight. During that period, however, she left for a short while and returned. Sometime that evening, during a conversation with Dennis, a bartender on the second floor, he told her that the club took a liberal and permissive approach toward drugs, and that the owner usually stayed on the first floor. Paven also went to the first floor that evening and, while in the restroom, notwithstanding signs posted prohibiting more than one person in a stall at a time, observed patrons go into the stalls in groups, and heard snuffing sounds coming from them which to her, under the circumstances, indicated the use of narcotics, usually cocaine. She did not observe and use however, nor did she confiscate for testing any of the substances involved. On her return to the second floor that evening, Ms. Paven met with another patron, identified as Darren, who spoke in general of the use of narcotics in clubs. She recalls no specific reference to the use of narcotics at Solar, however. Before she left the club that night, in another conversation with Dennis, the bartender, she mentioned she was going to get “party favors,” and he used the word, “stuff.” Both, in the vernacular of the drug milieu, relate to narcotics. That same night, though early in the morning of January 11, 1997, Paven additionally saw Tempo, also a transvestite male and a known cocaine dealer, on the second floor of the club. Another transvestite male, Gilda, was also there, at the bar, with Tony, who identified himself as an off-duty employee there, at the time, as a patron. Paven approached Tempo and offered him/her $20.00 for which, in return, she received a plastic bag of a substance later identified as cocaine. Dennis, the bartender, was standing behind the bar right there and, in Paven’s opinion, could not have failed to observe the transaction occur. Tony was, in fact, not an employee. He had been employed at the club as a bar back before the club opened for business but was injured within the first few minutes on the job and never returned to work. Agent Paven again went to the club at 10:45 p.m. on January 17, 1997, but left shortly after arriving and did not return until early on the morning of January 18, 1997. At that time Dennis was on duty as bartender and a group of individuals, known to Paven as drug dealers, including Tempo, Tony, and Brittany, were also present. At approximately 1:15 a.m. that morning, while up on the second floor, Paven was approached by Tony who told her he was leaving and offered to get her “something” before he left. Paven gave Tony $20.00, after which he went over to a group at the end of the bar and immediately came back with a bag of a powdered substance which he gave to her. He then asked her to save him a “bump,” which, in the drug culture, means a hit of cocaine. That same evening, Paven observed three male dancers performing down on the first floor. Two of these were nude. As she watched, she saw patrons approach the dancers and give them tips to be allowed to fondle their private parts. Dennis came downstairs while this was going on, jumped on the bar, and removed his shirt, and lowered his pants to reveal his buttocks and, presumably, his genitals, to the patrons. Dennis admits to climbing on the bar, removing his shirt, and displaying his buttocks, but denies revealing his genitals. Paven also observed some of the dancers leave the stage and approach patrons who would then touch the dancers’ genitals. Galiano, a known cocaine user, was there that night, going back and forth from Tempo to Brittany, and into a back room reserved for employees. Paven observed her at the time, snuffing and rubbing her nose, though she did not observe any direct use of any substance. Later that evening, in a discussion with Paven at the bar on the second floor, Galiano denied having any cocaine to sell but offered Paven a line of cocaine if she would come downstairs to the restroom. When Paven went downstairs with Galiano, she was given the line of substance, thereafter pretending to use it but in reality not doing so. While on the first floor, Paven asked Tempo if she had any coke. In response, Tampo said she was out, but had an order for more in and was waiting for delivery. On January 25, 1997, Paven was in Solar looking for Tiffany Middlesexx. Tony approached her and asked if she wanted any cocaine. Paven said she did and gave Tony $20.00. Approximately five minutes later, Tony came back and gave her a bag with a substance in it which was purported to be cocaine. He then suggested he and Paven go somewhere for a “bump.” Taking Paven upstairs, Tony then poured some of the substance out onto the back of her hand for her to snort it. He did the same for himself and actually ingested it, while Paven dumped hers out. That same night Tony told Paven not to go to a second bar mentioned because a raid was planned. Also the same night, Tiffany Middlesexx and Tempo were present at the club, as was the club’s chief of security, Tim, who was known to Paven as a drug dealer. Paven also observed nudity by the dancers, and sexual fondling of the male dancers for tips by some patrons, and she heard discussions between patrons about getting cocaine from elsewhere, but she did not observe any transfers take place. Agent Paven returned to the club on January 28, 1997, a slow night for business. She observed one of the male dancers dancing on top of the first floor bar and witnessed several instances where the dancer squatted in front of a patron who, it seemed to Paven, committed fallatio on him in front of other patrons. This was repeated with several patrons while Paven, as well as Agent Murray, who was also present, watched. Paven brought this to the bartender’s attention, but the bartender denied seeing anything untoward. On February 1, 1997, at approximately 1:34 a.m., Paven again entered Solar and proceeded to the first floor bar area. Tiffany Middlesexx was again sitting in his/her regular spot on top of the bar, and Paven asked if he/she had any cocaine for sale. In response, Tiffany Middlesexx offered Paven three bags for $50.00 or single bags for $20.00 each. When Paven handed over $50.00, Middlesexx opened up his/her purse and took out three bags of cocaine which was transferred to Paven. All this time, another patron was waiting and made a purchase when Paven was through. Paven also observed several other identical transactions take place with other patrons that same evening though she cannot say with certainty what substance was passed. Since the procedure was the same, it is likely the substance transferred to the other patrons was also cocaine, and it is so found. Middlesexx subsequently left the premises while Paven was still there. On February 8, 1997, Paven went back to Solar, arriving at 12:45 a.m. She went to the first floor and again observed Tiffany Middlesexx sitting in the regular spot on the bar. Paven approached Middlesexx and asked for cocaine and subsequently gave Middlesexx two $20.00 bills, in return for which she received two bags of cocaine. At this time, other employees of the Respondent were present behind the bar, and in Paven’s opinion heard and observed the transaction. Paven also watched a white male buy four bags of apparent cocaine from Middlesexx from no more than five feet from where the transaction took place. After making his purchase, that same white male showed the bags he had purchased to his friends and the group departed. Later that evening, on the second floor of the club, Paven purchased one zip-lock bag of what appeared to be cocaine from Tempo because Tempo did not want to deal on the first floor. Paven paid Tempo $20.00 for it. At no time during any of the above mentioned visits did any of the Respondent’s employees or management try to stop the purchases. The only warnings Paven heard were to watch out for the police. Paven claims she didn’t see any signs prohibiting drug activity in the club, nor did she observe club employees prohibit sales to other patrons. On any given night she was there, Paven would observe six or seven individuals on the premises who were known to her, from prior buys or sales, some of which took place within Solar, to be drug dealers. The parties stipulated that the substances purchased by Paven from individuals inside the club was cocaine. While Paven denied seeing any signs prohibiting the use or sale of drugs in the club other than in the restroom, she admits there were some signs at the entry, but even then, she cannot be sure of what the signs there said. Another sign in the bathroom prohibited more than one person in a stall at the same time. There is no doubt that the noise level in the club when the music was playing and the club was full was considerable. Club employees contend that it would have been impossible for them to hear any of the conversations between Paven and any of the individuals from whom she bought drugs because of it, because they even had to bend over the bar to hear patrons’ orders for drinks. However, Paven and Murray both insist they were able to hear and contend the bartenders, while possibly not able to hear the exact conversations taking place during the buys, could not have failed to observe what was going on. The noise certainly did not dissuade anyone from buying or selling. In addition, Paven observed security personnel hired by management passing through the club from time to time. These individuals would stop and talk to patrons and would attempt to prevent patrons from jointly occupying the restroom stalls. This served to halt drug sales while the security officer was present, but the activity resumed when the officers left. Most of the drug transactions which took place between Agent Paven and Middlesexx or Tempo were witnessed from three to four feet away by Agent Murray as well. Murray notes that whenever Paven tried to make a buy from Middlesexx, there was always someone in line before them, and Murray also observed what appeared to be drug purchases by other patrons from Middlesexx. Usually a bartender was in the immediate area of the purchase transaction. Murray cites, by way of exception, the incident on January 25, 1997, when Tony took Agent Paven to another area of the bar. Though Murray observed anywhere from six to seven drug dealers on the premises, known to her as such from prior investigations, at no time did she ever see an employee of the club, or a member of management, try to interfere with a transaction, nor did anyone ever state that such activity was illegal. It seemed as though the only concern expressed by anyone employed by the club related to the potential for the use of undercover police. Murray also observed male dancers at the club engaged in conduct which, it appeared to her, was salacious and obscene. It appeared to her than some patrons committed actual acts of fellatio on the dancers who would squat on the bar or dance floor in front of them. On at least one occasion, Murray changed her location at the bar so as to be able better to see what was going on. In her opinion, there was no doubt as to the nature of the activity. Notwithstanding the allegations of both Paven and Murray regarding the obscene activity, Diane M. Smith, the owner of the dance group which performs at Solar, categorically denies that any such activity took place involving her employees. Normally, she claims, she was present whenever her dancers performed. At any given time, she had three dancers active. One was on the center podium, one on one of the bars, and one was on break. Her dancers would wear jeans for the first set and shorts, or possibly a T-back, for the second set. She adamantly asserts there was no nude dancing or lewd or lascivious conduct permitted. She would not permit it, and management knew that. Her dancers performed from approximately 11:30 p.m., until 2:00 a.m., and at all times, there were two chaperones present. She was also often present before and after the show, and she never saw any conduct as described by Paven or Murray. This relates to drug activity as well as activity regarding the dancers. In fact, she claims, management made it very clear that drug activity was not permitted in the club. Jeffery Winemiller, who has a college degree and who attended medical school for two years before personal commitments brought him back to the Tampa area from California, was working at Solar as a bartender the night the Emergency Order of Suspension was entered. Mr. Winemiller has attended Responsible Vender training several times and is aware of how to check among patrons for drug use and abuse. He usually worked on the first floor at the rectangular bar on Friday and Saturday nights, and occasionally on other nights as well. Mr. Winemiller contends that while he worked at Solar, he never witnessed any drug activities or any oral sex being conducted on the premises. He claims there were signs at the front door and in the rest rooms warning against the use of drugs in addition to signs prohibiting entrance to persons under age and prohibiting more than one person in a restroom stall at any one time. Neither the men’s nor the women’s restroom had entry doors. Only the women’s restroom had doors on the stalls. Tiffany Middlesexx is a known drag queen - a performer in his/her 50’s, who is very well known in the transvestite community. Whenever he/she comes into Solar, he/she would have an entourage of from three to six people with him/her. Middlesexx would usually position himself/herself on the L-shaped bar on the first floor across from the dance podium on a space which was cleared for him/her. According to Winemiller, normally a bartender would not be working in that immediate location. As Winemiller recalls, Friday nights are rather quiet until after midnight, when up to seven hundred people might be in the club. During the period from midnight to club closing, a bartender might serve several hundred drinks and would be too busy to note what any particular patron was doing. In addition, as he described it, the noise level was high, and he would not be able to overhear any patron conversations. Specifically, Winemiller contends, he did not see Middlesexx or any of the other dealers described by Paven and Murray sell drugs in the bar, nor did anyone ever tell him anyone was selling drugs. As told to him, ownership policy on drugs was no tolerance. Any drug activity was to be reported to management or to security. By the same token, no lewd sexual activity was permitted either. Mr. Winemille claims he does not know Tiffany Middlesexx, Tony, or Tempo to be drug dealers. He claims not to use drugs himself and professes not to know who does. As a result of this raid and the closing of the club, he is now out of a job. In addition, his loan of $35,000 to Mr. Engerer to start up the operation is in jeopardy, though Winemiller contends he is not concerned about this. Donald Bentz, an employee of the Tampa AIDS Network has been in Solar on several occasions as a part of his work. He knows Mr. Engerer well and was a regular customer from May 1996, when the club opened, until it closed. During that period, he went there at least once a week and claims he never saw drug activity or lewd acts being carried on there. Mr. Bentz goes to several gay-oriented clubs as a part of his job and has put on fund raising functions with some of them. Because of his organization’s non-profit status and the thrust of its activities, it is careful with whom it operates and carefully checks out any operation before becoming involved with it. Mr. Bentz knows Tiffany Middlesexx as a transgendered performer who is popular in the gay/transgender community. On several of the occasions when he has been at Solar, Mr. Bents has seen signs permitting only one person at a time in the rest rooms and recalls seeing a sign stipulating no drugs allowed at the entrance. In addition, he has seen security personnel routinely checking for drugs. Though Bentz has heard rumors that Middlesexx deals drugs, he claims never to have seen it at Solar nor did he ever see anyone do or talk about illicit drugs on the premises. In his opinion, both Mr. Engerer and Mr. Winemiller considered drugs to be out of bounds at Solar. They wanted a long-term, drug-free relationship with the gay community. In Bentz’ opinion, if either member of management heard of drugs or lewdness going on at Solar, it would have been stopped. Dennis Fleming worked part time as a bartender at Solar between August 1996 and February 1997, usually on Friday and Saturday nights, and on a couple of evenings during the week. He, too, took Responsible Vendor training. As he recalls it, the noise level in Solar when it is crowded is very high, which makes it impossible to overhear patrons’ conversations. He knows Tiffany Middlesexx, who usually sat not far from where he worked the bar. During all the time Fleming worked at Solar, he claims, he never saw Middlesexx sell drugs to anyone inside or near the club. Though he knows Tony from that individual’s brief employment at the club and his subsequent patronage, he doesn’t know if Tony deals drugs The same is true for Tim. Fleming claims not to know Tempo. His periodic conversations with management reinforced the explicit no-drug policy which is expressed to the public by the signs posted about the building. Though he admits to having danced at the club, removed his shirt, and unbuttoned his pants, he denies having ever removed his pants or lowered or removed his underpants. Steven Stamberger was employed at night as a security officer at Solar from July 1996 to its closing. His post was at the entrance door where he checked identification for age and searched back packs of patrons to look for contraband. According to Mr. Stamberger, while doing this he never discovered any drugs being carried by any patrons. Mr. Stamberger also contends there were signs posted at the front entrance which indicated that drugs were not allowed on the premises. There were also signs in the bathrooms to that effect. From time to time each night he would walk through the club on the way to the bathrooms, and he claims never to have seen any drug activity during any of those walk-throughs. He also admits to knowing Tiffany Middlesexx and Tempo but denied knowing whether either sold drugs. He claims no one discussed it with him, but he knows that drugs are not tolerated on the premises. Mr. Stamberger recalls having seen an act of oral sex being committed in the VIP room one time. When he saw it, he went over to the parties, interrupted the activity, and put them out of the club for the evening. To his knowledge, they were not barred from the club for this. He denies, however, having ever seen any of the dancers disrobe or allow patrons to touch their genitals for tips in the club. In 1996, Mr. Engerer, the owner and sole officer of the corporation which operates Solar, invested $50,000 the company. This money came from his 401(k) plan and his stock investments. At the time, he claims, he had very little experience in nightclub operation, and when he took over, he hired a firm to provide Responsible Vendor training to him and his staff before he opened. Mr. Engerer worked every Friday and Saturday nights and, in addition, occasionally also went in during the week. On the weekends, he would open the club, set up the bar, and work at bar three as a bartender. Bar three is where Tiffany Middlesexx generally sat. It has two cash registers -- one at the “L,” and one at the far end. He worked at the far end. Engerer knew Tiffany Middlesexx from his/her performances at other clubs, but asserts he had no knowledge of that individual’s dealing in narcotics, either before or after he bought the club. He claims he never saw any drug deals take place in the club. Engerer claims not to have known Tempo or anything about him/her before or after he bought the club, especially about drug activity. Mr. Engerer admits to knowing Tony, who was recommended to work at Solar because of his prior experience at other clubs. However, Tony was injured the first night on the job and never actually worked there. Engerer claims he had no idea Tony dealt drugs, nor did he ever see Tony deal at Solar. Club policy, according to Mr. Engerer, which he claims he expressed to all employees, is that there is a zero tolerance for drugs, and patrons and employees are to be evicted or fired for possession of unlawful drugs on the club premises. With the large crowds they get on the weekends, he claims it was very hard to hear, especially for the bartenders who worked at least three feet from the patrons. Mr. Engerer claims that signs given to him by the Responsible Vendor trainers were posted throughout the club: at the front door, at the top of the stairs to the second floor, downstairs in the bar, and in each restroom. He had several security people on the floor on the weekends to ensure there was no drug activity in either the bar areas or the restrooms. According to Mr. Engerer, he had no prior indication from the Division or other police agencies that they had any suspicion of ongoing drug activity, nor had he heard of any prior complaints about his establishment. Club policy also prohibited lewd activities, and Engerer claims he had no knowledge of such conduct going on there. He did not ignore it nor would he condone it, he claims. Mr. Engerer also claims he was never told by anyone that Tiffany Middlesexx, Tempo, or anyone else, for that matter, was selling drugs in Solar. The first he knew of any of it, he asserts, was when the Emergency Order of Suspension was served. Had he known Tim was selling elsewhere, Tim would have immediately been fired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking Respondent’s 4-COP alcoholic beverage license number 39-01036, for the premises located at 911-913 Franklin Street in Tampa, and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph L. Diaz, Esquire 2522 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Linda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed August 24, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's. As grounds therefor it is alleged that on or about June 29, 1977 Respondent failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course wools had been discontinued. Three witnesses were called by Petitioner, two witnesses were called by Respondent and one exhibit was admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's holds a 4 COP special restaurant beverage license and the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction over the parties and the violations alleged. On or about 12:30 a.m. June 29, 1977 beverage agents Meek and Shepherd entered Pete and Lenny's, seated themselves at the bar and ordered drinks. After finishing their drink they ordered a second drink and inquired of the bartender, Richard Bohan, if they could get food. He replied that they could get sandwiches at the Banana Boat next door. Further questioning by the agents elicited responses that Respondent had stopped serving and the cook had been transferred next door, that the Banana Boat served sandwiches until 1:30 a.m., that Respondent usually offered New York strip steaks but "not this late", and that the Banana Boat and Pete and Lenny's were owned by the same corporation. After identifying themselves as beverage agents and asking for the manager, Meek and Shepherd inspected the kitchen and restaurant area. Inspection of the kitchen revealed the only cooking equipment to be a microwave oven, empty icebox at 420 F, no evidence that food had been prepared in the kitchen for several days, insufficient silver to serve 200 diners simultaneously as required by regulations for special restaurant licenses, and musicians instrument cases occupying a substantial portion of the kitchen floor. Unopened boxes of silver was produced from the storeroom in sufficient quantity to meet the minimum requirements of the regulations. Respondent's witnesses testified that the icebox had been inoperative for a day or two and food had been removed to next door, but that they were not refusing to serve full course meals. The only meal offered appears to have been the New York strip steak either cooked next door or in the microwave oven. No facilities were available in the kitchen with which to prepare vegetables and these witnesses testified potato salad was served as the vegetable. Pete and Lenny's is a night club where the music is loud and continuous. When the live band is on break recorded music is provided. On the evening of the inspection by beverage officers Meek and Shepherd little, if any, food had been served in Pete and Lenny's.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Conduces Club, Inc., is entitled to the issuance of a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Conduces Club, Inc., a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the State of Florida, has applied to the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, for the issuance of a series 11-C alcoholic beverage license. This license is described in Rule 7A-1.13, Florida Administrative Code, as a club license to sell to members and nonresident guests only. The terms and conditions for the issuance of such a license are as set forth in Subsection 561.20(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 565.02(4), Florida Statutes. The Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco has denied the application of the Petitioner premised upon the assertion that the Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements set out in the aforementioned sections of the Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has disagreed with that interpretation and a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing was scheduled and held on April 10, 1979. The crucial language to be considered in determining whether or not the Petitioner should be extended the privilege of operating under a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license is found in the Subsection 561.20(7)(a), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: "(7)(a) There shall be no limitation as to the number of licenses issued pursuant to 565.02(4). However, any licenses issued under this section shall be limited to: Subordinate lodges or clubs of national fraternal or benevolent associations; Golf clubs and tennis clubs municipally or privately owned or leased; Nonprofit corporations or clubs devoted to promoting community, municipal, or county development or any phase of community, muni- cipal, or county development; Clubs fostering and promoting the general welfare and prosperity of members of showmen and amusement enterprises; Clubs assisting, promoting, and de- veloping subordinate lodges or clubs of national fraternal or benevolent associa- tions; and Clubs promoting, developing, and main- taining cultural relations of people of the same nationality." (Although the introductory phrase in the above-quoted Subsection makes reference to Subsection 565.02(4), Florida Statutes, as being involved in the process of issuing a license, Subsection 565.02(4), Florida Statutes, true function is the establishment of the requirement that chartered or unincorporated clubs pay an annual state license tax of $400.00, and it is this Subsection 561.20(7)(a), -- Florida Statutes, which establishes those categories of candidates who may receive a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license.) Of the possible categories for licensure, the one which appears to be the focal point of the controversy is that provision found in Subsection 561.20(7)(a)3., Florida Statutes. In support of its request, the Petitioner presented certain witnesses and items of evidence. Among those items was the testimony of Mrs. E. R. Atwater, Social worker Supervisor with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Management Division, assigned to the Blodgett Community in Jacksonville, Florida. The Blodgett Community is a housing development of some 53 acres which contains 628 housing units with a breakdown of that population containing 301 senior citizens and 1,069 juveniles, with cost of the heads of the households being female. Those persons living in the Blodgett development are described as having a poor economic circumstance. Mrs. Atwater indicated that the Conduces Club, Inc., had on occasion sponsored girls softball teams and boys basketball teams for those young persons living in the Blodgett Community and she had expressed her appreciation in the form of correspondence of January 17, 1979, which is the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. In addition, Mrs. Atwater indicated that the Conduces Club, Inc., had provided transportation for a trip for the residents of the Blodgett Community to Six Gun Territory located near Ocala, Florida. Arrangements were made for three busses; two of the busses which transported residents on July 16, 1977, and the third bus transported them on August 11, 1977. The trips involved both young people and adults as participants. The letters requesting the assistance of the Conduces Club, Inc., and the confirmation of that request may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3, admitted into evidence consecutively. The president of the Conduces Club, Inc., Mr. Cornell Tarver, testified in support of the petition. He indicated that the club had been originally formed as the Pacesetter Club but its name was changed in September, 1976, because of a conflict concerning the utilization of the name, which had been preempted by another club. The club was chartered as a nonprofit corporation by the State of Florida on September 22, 1976, under the name, "Conduces Club, Inc." A copy of the Articles of Incorporation may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Mr. Tarver indicated that the purpose of the club was to help the youth and senior citizens and principally the kids of the Blodgett Community, to include organizing softball and baseball and providing uniforms. He also testified that a certain banquet was hold for these young persons and the parents of those children were invited to attend, and enough food was prepared to food cost of the individuals who reside in the Blodgett Community. He produced certain plaques and trophies awarded to the club. The plague was given by the mothers of the children in the sports programs and the trophy was presented by an unaffiliated club that the Conduces Club had helped to organize. The witness, Tarver, indicated that the club was financed by functions such as dances, fish fries, food sales in their club house, dues of the members and fines. The club itself has twenty-seven members. Other projects the club has participated in, were the contribution of money to local churches and the donation of an organ to one of those churches. On December 16, 1977, the club contributed $500.00 to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The club house is open every day and there are certain activities through the week, to include club meetings and entertainment for the benefit of club members. The members run the club without compensation and the club does not maintain any regular employees. The official statement of the club's purposes may be found in the Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. This is a composite exhibit which contains part of the application for the license and a copy of the Bylaws. The objectives of the corporation may be found in Article II of the Bylaws and the activities of the corporation may be found in Article VIII of the Bylaws. Article II states: "The objectives of this organization shall be as follows: To unite fraternally all persons who the membership may from time to time take into the club. To promote brotherhood, sportsmanship, friendship and charity for the membership and their families. To strive at all times to promote and protect the welfare of every member. To promote a spirit of cooperation between its members and the public. To honor outstanding individuals in the City of Jacksonville for their achievement. To do anything necessary, including, but not limited to, the ownership of property, real and personal, for the accomplishment of the foregoing objectives, or those which may be recognized as proper and legal objectives of this club, all of which shall be consistent with the laws, the public interest and the interest of its mergers. To sue or to be sued as a natural person. To bear a seal to be placed on all of the club's official correspondence." Article VIII states: "COMMITTEES Section 1. The following standing committees and such other committees as the directors may, from time to time deem necessary, shall be appointed by the president of the association. Social Committee Athletic Committee Scholarship Committee The duties of the standing committee shall include the following, which shall not, however, prelude other activities by such committees. Section 2. The social committee shall be composed of six members. It shall be the duty of this canted to supervise the use of club room and to plan such club meetings of a purely social nature as it may deem necessary. These may include parties, picnics, and other such social or athletic events sponsored by the organization. Section 3. The athletic committee shall be composed of three members. It shall be the duty of this committee to supervise and manage all athletic activities for the association, including but not limited to management of various athletic teams sponsored by the club. Section 4. The scholarships committee shall be composed of six members. It shall be the duty of this committee to screen applicants for scholarships and deserving students in Duval County, Florida, and to make recommendations to the general membership of its findings of worthwhile recipients of scholarships, or awards." It can be seen that the Petitioner's members have a commendable concern for the community in which the club has its principal base of operation and this concern has been expressed through the activities of the club members which have been described in the course of this Recommended Order; however, it appears from an examination of the testimony in this hearing and the official statement, that is, the Bylaws of this corporation, that the principal purpose of the club is as stated by the Article II B. of the Bylaws, which language states, "To promote brotherhood, sportsmanship, friendship and charity for the membership and their families," and this attitude carries over to foster good relations between those members and the members of the general public. Therefore, the Petitioner is not perceived as being a club which meets the criterion, "devoted to promoting community, municipal or county development or any phase of community, municipal or county development." See Subsection 561.20(7)(a)3., Florida Statutes. This conclusion is reached in examining the definition of the word "devoted," as found in Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition. That definition states that to be devoted one must be, "1. vowed; dedicated; consecrated. 2. very loyal; faithful." and although the community concern of the Petitioner is very high, it does not reach the level of devotion. Consequently, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco was correct in denying the application for a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco deny the Petitioner, Conduces Club, Inc.'s request for a Series 11-C alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building MAILING ADDRESS 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jennings H. Best, Esquire 3410 North Myrtle Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Francis Bayley, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. M. Ogonowski Richard P. Daniel Building, Room 514 111 East Coast Line Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
