The Issue Is the practice of the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to decline Medicaid-funded compensation for emergency medical services provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a point of stabilization an unpromulgated rule? The Petitioners' Proposed Final Order identifies the Agency's use of limited InterQual criteria to determine medical necessity as an issue in this proceeding. But the Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy does not raise this issue. Neither party's pre-hearing statement identifies it as an issue. Consequently, this Order does not consider or determine whether the Agency's limitation on the use of InterQual criteria is an "unpromulgated rule."
Findings Of Fact Proceedings Before the Division of Administrative Hearings and the First District Court of Appeal In the beginning this was an action by the Hospitals aimed at stopping Agency efforts to recoup reimbursement of Medicaid payments to the Hospitals for emergency services provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a point of “stabilization.” The issue of whether the Agency could apply the “stabilization” standard to the Hospital claims for Medicaid payment for services provided indigent aliens recurred in Agency claims against hospitals throughout the state to recoup Medicaid payments. Hospitals challenged Agency claims in individual proceedings under section 120.569, which the Agency referred to the Division for disputed fact hearings. Duane Morris, LLP (Duane Morris), led by Joanne Erde, represented the hospitals in the individual proceedings. The Hospitals collectively engaged Duane Morris to represent them in this proceeding challenging the Agency’s stabilization standard as an unpromulgated rule. Joanne B. Erde, Donna Stinson, and Harry Silver were the Hospital’s lawyers in this proceeding. Ms. Erde is an experienced lawyer who has focused her practice in health care. Ms. Stinson is an experienced lawyer who concentrated her practice in health care and administrative law litigation before the Division. The Agency does not question their expertise. Mr. Silver is an experienced lawyer with no Florida administrative law experience. His role in the case was minimal. Depositions taken in one of the individual reimbursement cases were significant evidence in this proceeding. Those depositions make it clear that the Hospitals’ counsel was tuned into the unpromulgated rule issue and using discovery in that case to gather and identify the evidence that they would need in this case. Representation of the Hospitals in individual reimbursement actions provided Hospitals’ counsel the advantage of preparing with level of detail before filing the petition. The engagement letters recognize this stating: “We have an understanding of the facts underlying this matter and have substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues in this case.” This well-developed understanding of the facts should have minimized the need for discovery and preparation in this proceeding. Counsel were well positioned to prosecute this matter efficiently. Likewise, counsel’s “substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues in this case” should have minimized the need for time spent in research. This is not what happened. The pre-existing representation in the reimbursement cases provided another obvious and significant benefit to the Hospitals and their counsel. Since counsel represented the individual hospital in the separate reimbursement matters, the Hospitals could band together to jointly finance one case that would resolve the troublesome point of “stabilization” issue more consistently and more cheaply than if they litigated it in each and every case. As the basically identical engagement agreements between each hospital and counsel state: “Because many hospitals’ interests in [sic] are similar or identical as it relates to the Alien Issue and in order to keep legal costs to a minimum, each of the participants in the [hospital] Group will [sic] have agreed that it wishes this firm to represent them in a Group.” Because of counsel’s pre-existing relationships with the Hospitals, litigating this matter should have continued or enhanced the client relationships. The time required for this matter could not result in lost business opportunities. In fact, by consolidating the issues common to all the clients and their cases, counsel freed up time to work on other matters. Presentation of the issue for resolution in a single case also saved the Hospitals the greater cost of disputing the issue in each case where the Agency sought reimbursement. The Hospitals and counsel dealt with the only possible downside of the representation by including disclosures about joint representation and a waiver of conflict claims in the engagement letters. This was not a contingent fee case. The agreement provided for monthly billing and payment from counsel’s trust account. Each group member made an initial payment of $10,000 to the trust account. Any time the trust account balance dipped below $15,000, each group member agreed to contribute another $10,000 to the trust account. For counsel, this representation was about as risk free as a legal engagement can be. The Hospitals and their counsel knew from the outset that they would have to prove their reasonableness of their fees and costs if they prevailed and wanted to recover fees. The Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy seeks an award of fees and costs. They could have adjusted their billing practices to provide more detail in preparation for a fees dispute. An "unpromulgated rule challenge" presents a narrow and limited issue. That issue is whether an agency has by declaration or action established a statement of general applicability that is a "rule," as defined in section 120.52(16), without going through the required public rulemaking process required by section 120.54. The validity of the agency's statement is not an issue decided in an "unpromulgated rule challenge." Courts have articulated the legal standards for unpromulgated rule challenges frequently. See, e.g., Coventry First, LLC v. Off. of Ins. Reg., 38 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Dep’t of Rev. v. Vanjaria Enters., 675 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); and the cases those opinions cite. The facts proving the “stabilization” standard were easy to establish. Many Agency documents stated the shift to the “stabilization” standard. Documents of Agency contractors did also. Two examples of how clear it was that the Agency was applying a new standard were the Agency’s statements in its 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 reports to the Governor on efforts to control Medicaid fraud and abuse. The reports describe the “stabilization” standard as “more stringent” and certain to recover millions of dollars for the Agency. As the Agency’s reports to the Governor indicate, the stakes were high in this matter. For the Hospitals and other hospitals collectively affected by the Agency’s effort to recoup past payments by applying the “stabilization” standard, $400,000,000 was at stake. This matter did not present complex or difficult issues, legally or factually. The Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions requiring parties to disclose documents and witnesses and update the disclosures alleviated the discovery demands present in other litigation. The Agency’s failure to fully comply with the pre- hearing instructions and unfounded Motion in Limine added some additional time demands for the Hospital’s counsel. Nonetheless the issues were narrow, and the facts were essentially undisputed, if not undisputable. This matter did not require extraordinary amounts of time for discovery or preparation. Ordinarily challenges to rules or unpromulgated rules impose time pressures on the attorneys because of the requirement in section 120.56 that the hearing commence within 30 days of assignment to the Administrative Law Judge. The time constraint was not a factor in this case. The Hospitals requested waiver of the time requirement to permit more time for discovery. The Agency agreed, and the undersigned granted the request. Thus the Hospitals had the time their counsel said they needed to prepare for the hearing. The appeal imposed no time constraints. Both parties received extensions of time for their filings. Seventeen months passed between filing the notice of appeal and oral argument. Time for the Administrative Proceeding The total number of hours claimed for the services of the three lawyers, their claimed hourly rate, and the total fees claimed appear below. Joanne B. Erde 458.20 hours $550.00 rate $252,010.00 Donna Stinson 136.20 hours $455.00 rate $61,971.00 Harry Silver 93.40 hours $550.00 rate $51,370.00 Total 687.80 hours $365,351.00 The Hospitals’ counsel’s billing records are voluminous. For the proceeding before the Division, the Hospitals’ counsel’s invoices list 180 billing entries for the work of three lawyers. A substantial number of the entries are block billing. In block billing, all of a lawyer’s activities for a period of time, usually a day, are clumped together with one time total for the entire day’s service. It is an acceptable form of billing. But block billing presents difficulties determining the reasonableness of fees because a single block of time accounts for several different activities and the invoice does not establish which activity took how much time. Here are representative examples of the block billing entries from the Division level invoices: August 20, 2012 (Erde) – Conference call with ALJ; telephone conference with AHCA attorney; telephone conference with newspaper reporters – 2.0 hours September 16, 2012 (Erde) – Review depositions; prepare opening remarks; develop impeachment testimony – 5.50 September 27, 2012 (Erde) – Intra-office conference; finalize interrogatories; work on direct – 8.50 October 2, 2012 (Stinson) – Review and revise Motion in Limine; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde and Harry Silver; review emails regarding discovery issues - `2.60 October 19, 2012 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss proposed order; Research Re: other OIG audits; research on validity of agency rules – 2.10 hours November 9, 2012 (Erde) – Conference with ALJ; Intra-Office conference to discuss status; further drafting of proposed order – 7.70 hours. November 19, 2012 (Stinson) – Final Review and Revisions to Proposed Final order; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde to Review final Changes and comments; Review AHCA’s proposed order and revised proposed order – 3.20 hours. Many of the entries, block or individual, do not provide sufficient detail to judge the reasonableness of the time reported. “Prepare for deposition and hearing,” “review depositions,” “review new documents,” “review draft documents,” “intra-office conference” and “attention to discovery” are recurrent examples. Senior lawyers with more expertise and higher billing rates are expected to be more efficient. This, the fact that the matter was not complicated, the relative simplicity of the issue, and the fact that the Hospitals’ counsel already had a great deal of familiarity with the facts and law involved, all require reducing the number of hours compensated in order for them to be reasonable. For this matter, in these circumstances, the claimed number of hours is quite high. The claimed 687.80 hours amounts to working eight hours a day for 86 days, two of which were the hearing. This is not reasonable. A reasonable number of hours for the proceedings before the Division is 180. That is the equivalent of 22.5 eight-hour days. That is sufficient to handle the matter before the Division from start to finish. The number includes consideration of the worked caused by the needless difficulties presented by the Agency in discovery and with its Motion in Limine. Time for the Appellate Proceeding The fees that the Hospitals seek for the appeal are broken down by hours and rates as follows: Joanne B. Erde 255.10 hours $560.00 $142,856.00 Joanne B. Erde 202.80 hours $580.00 $117,624.00 Donna Stinson 88.50 hours $460.00 $40,710.00 Donna Stinson 67.10 hours $500.00 $33,550.00 W.D. Zaffuto 48.30 hours $435.00 $21,010.50 Rob Peccola 10.90 hours $275.00 $2,997.50 Rob Peccola 17.50 hours $300.00 $5,250.00 L. Rodriguez- Taseff 6.20 hours $520.00 $3,224.00 L. Rodriguez- Taseff 19.50 hours $545.00 $10,627.50 Rachel Pontikes 38.20 hours $515.00 $19,673.00 Total 754.10 hours $397,522.50 For the appellate proceeding, the invoices present 341 entries, a substantial number of which are block billing for work by six lawyers. Here are representative examples from the appellate level invoices: May 16, 2013 (Erde) – Reviewed AHCA’s initial brief; intra- office conference to discuss; preliminary review of record – 2.90 May 24, 2013 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss response to brief; preparation to respond to brief – 2.50 May 30, 2013 (Erde) – Attention to Appeal issues; finalize request for extension; brief research re jurisdictional issues – 1.60 June 18, 2013 (Peccola) – Strategy with J. Erde regarding research needs; review/analyze case law cited in answer brief; conduct legal research regarding documentary evidence and exhibits on appellate review; write email memo to J. Erde regarding same – 2.00 July 19, 2013 (Zaffuto) – Revise/draft Answer Brief; discuss extension of time with H. Gurland; research appellate rules regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending ruling on motion; review appendix to answer brief; instructions to assistant regarding edits and filing of answer brief and appendix prepare answer brief for filing; call to clerk regarding extension of time review initial brief by AHCA and final order by ALJ – 5.50 August 14, 2013 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss brief; further revised brief – 5.80 August 15, 2013 (Stinson) Reviewed appellees' answer brief; discussed language in answer brief with Joanne Erde – 2.50 October 9, 2013 (Stinson) – Review draft motion to relinquish regarding admission of exhibit; exchange e-mails with Joanne Erde; telephone conference with Joanne Erde – 1.60 October 10, 2013 (Erde) – Attention to new motion re relinquishing jurisdiction; review of revisions; further revisions – 6.00 October 30, 2013 (Erde) – Research re: AHCA’s current behavior; intra-office conference to discuss status of action at DOAH - .70 November 7, 2013 (Peccola) – Strategy with J. Erde regarding Appellees’ response in opposition to Appellant’s motion for supplemental briefing; conduct research regarding same; draft same; look up 1st DCA local rule on appellate motions and email same to J. Erde – 3.60 December 5, 2013 (Erde) – Research Re: supplemental briefing issues; research to find old emails from AHCA re: inability to produce witnesses -.90 January 21, 2014 (Rodriguez-Taseff) – Working on Supplemental Answer Brief – legal argument re authentication and cases distinguishing marchines [sic]; editing facts – 6.70 February 3, 2014 (Erde) – Review and revise response to motion for further briefing; intra-office conference to discuss same – 2.20 May 2, 2014 (Pontikes) – Continue to review relevant case law regarding the definition of an unpromulgated rule; continue to analyze the briefs and the arguments; continue to draft an outline of the argument discussed – 5.00 June 5, 2014 (Erde) – draft email to group regarding AHCA’s settlement offer; reviewed supplemental settlement offer from AHCA; draft email to group re same – 1.70 June 11, 2014 (Erde) – Attention to finalizing response to AHCA’s notice of dismissal and filing of fee petition; memo to members of group – 8.00 July 21, 2014 (Erde) – completed motion for rehearing re: fees as sanctions; drafted status report for DOAH regarding status of DCA opinion; drafted status report in companion case; emails with AHCA re: withdrawing pending audits – 6.90 July 21, 2014 (Peccola) – Strategy with D. Stinson and J. Erde regarding motion for rehearing; revise/edit same; review/revise edit notices in trial court 1.20. The descriptive entries in the invoices for the appellate representation also lack sufficient detail. Examples are: “begin preparation to respond to AHCA”s brief,” “attention to appeal issues,” “preparation to draft answer brief,” and “research and draft answer brief.” For the appellate proceedings, Duane Morris added four lawyers, none with experience in Florida administrative or appellate matters. W.D. Zaffuto, L. Rodriguez-Taseff, and Rachel Pontikes are senior level lawyers in Duane Morris offices outside of Florida. Rob Peccola is a junior level lawyer from a Duane Morris office outside of Florida. The apparent result is those lawyers spending more time on issues than the more experienced Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson would. One example of this is a July 19, 2013, billing entry where a lawyer spent time researching “appellate rules regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending ruling on motion.” The two lawyers primarily responsible for this matter, both laying claim to Florida appellate expertise, would only need to quickly check the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to confirm their recollection of the rules, something that would probably take less time than it took to make the time entry and review the draft bill. Hospitals’ also filed a puzzling motion that presents a discreet example of needless attorney time billed in this matter. The Hospitals expended 21.8 hours on a Motion for Rehearing of the court’s order awarding them fees and costs. The court’s opinion and the Final Order stated that fees and costs were awarded under section 120.595(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Yet the Hospitals’ motion fretted that fees might be assessed under section 120.595(4)(b), which caps fees at $50,000. The court denied the motion. Two things stand out when reviewing the invoices for the appellate proceeding. The first is that the appeal took more hours than the trial proceeding. A trial proceeding is generally more time-consuming because of discovery, a hearing much longer than an oral argument, witness preparation, document review, and preparing a proposed order. The second is the sheer number of hours. Hospitals’ counsel seeks payment for 754.10 hours in the appellate proceeding. This is 66.3 more than for the Division proceeding. It included a two day hearing, trial preparation, research, and preparing a 37 page proposed final order. In eight-hour days the claimed hours amount to a staggering 94.26 days. That amounts to one lawyer working on the appeal for eight hours a day for three months. Of this time, 613.5 hours were spent by Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson, lawyers with expertise in the subject area, who had prepared the case for hearing, who participated in the hearing, who closely reviewed the entire record for preparation of their proposed final order, who researched the issues before the hearing and for the proposed final order, and who wrote the proposed final order. With all this knowledge and experience with the record and the law, handling the appeal should have taken less time than the proceeding before the Division.2/ One factor supports the appellate proceeding taking as many hours, or a few more hours, than the administrative proceeding. It is the Agency’s disputatious conduct over a scrivener’s error in the Final Order which erroneously stated that the Agency’s Exhibit 1 had been admitted. The Agency’s conduct increased the time needed to represent the Hospitals in the appeal. The Agency relied upon the exhibit in its initial brief, although it twice cited page 359 of the transcript where the objection to the exhibit was sustained. Also the Agency’s and the Hospitals’ proposed final orders correctly stated that Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The Hospitals’ Answer Brief noted that Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The transcript of the final hearing and both parties’ proposed final orders were clear that the exhibit had not been admitted. Yet the Agency argued in its Reply Brief that it had been. This required the Hospitals to move to remand the case for correction of the error. The Agency opposed the motion. The court granted the motion. The Final Order was corrected and jurisdiction relinquished back to the court. The Agency used this as an opportunity to trigger a new round of briefing about whether Exhibit 1 should have been admitted. This has been considered in determining the reasonable number of hours for handling the appeal. A reasonable number of hours for handling the appeal is 225. Converted to eight-hour days, this would be 28.13 days. For the appeal, Duane Morris attributes 28.4 hours of the work to a junior lawyer. This is 3.8 percent of the total time claimed. Applying that percentage to 225 hours, results in 8.6 hours attributed to the junior lawyer with the remaining 216.45 hours attributed to senior lawyers. Attorneys and Fees Each party presented expert testimony on the issues of reasonable hours and reasonable fees. The Agency presented the testimony of M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire. The Hospitals presented the testimony of David Ashburn, Esquire. As is so often the case with warring experts, the testimony of the witnesses conflicts dramatically. Mr. Bryant opined that a reasonable rate for senior lawyers, such as Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson, ranged between $350 and $450 per hour. The reasonable rate for junior lawyers was $200 per hour. Mr. Ashburn opined that the reasonable hourly rate for senior lawyers ranged between $595 and $700 and the reasonable rate for junior lawyers was between $275 and $300. The contrast was the same for the opinions on the reasonable number of hours needed to handle the two stages of this litigation. Mr. Bryant testified that the administrative proceeding should have taken 150 to 170 hours and that the appeal should have taken 175 to 195 hours. Mr. Ashburn testified that the Hospitals’ claimed 687 hours for the proceeding before the Division and 754.10 hour for the appellate proceeding were reasonable. The Hospitals argue that somehow practicing in a large national law firm, like Duane Morris justifies a higher rate. The theory is unpersuasive. A national law firm is nothing special. There is no convincing, credible evidence to support a conclusion that lawyers from a national firm in comparison to smaller state or local firms provide better representation or more skilled and efficient lawyering that justifies a higher rate. Based upon the evidence presented in this record, a reasonable rate for the senior lawyers participating in this matter is $425 per hour. A reasonable rate for the junior lawyer participating in this matter is $200.00. Fee Amounts A reasonable fee amount for representation in the proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings is $76,500. A reasonable fee amount for the proceeding before the First District Court of Appeal is $93,701.25. Costs Hospitals seek $6,333.63 in costs. The evidence proves these costs are reasonable. The Agency does not dispute them.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether, because of a prior regulatory and criminal history, the Petitioner is entitled to licensure in Florida as a nonresident life, health and variable annuity agent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Eugene P. Kent, at times pertinent hereto was a licensed insurance agent in South Dakota. He was apparently an agent or broker for the Independent Community Banker's Association of South Dakota and engaged in the insurance business with regard to the various group benefits coverage for that association. Apparently in 1995, he become involved in a dispute between the Independent Community Banker's Association of South Dakota and United of Omaha Life Insurance Company. This dispute, the exact nature of which is not of record in this case, resulted in the Petitioner being charged with mail fraud by the United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota. He was prosecuted for mail fraud and ultimately was convicted by jury verdict on or shortly after October 26, 1996. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The Petitioner believed that evidence existed in the home office of United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, which would exonerate him, and that his counsel during the criminal prosecution had, for unknown reasons, failed to subpoena and obtain such evidence for use in his criminal trial. He obtained new counsel who was successful in obtaining the evidence in question, which indeed proved to be exculpatory. It resulted in the presiding judge in the criminal case vacating the order of conviction, resulting in the Petitioner's release from incarceration. Because of his conviction, the insurance departments of South Dakota, as well as North Dakota and Nebraska, had revoked his insurance licenses, based upon the criminal conviction. On October 26, 1996, during the progress of the criminal trial referenced above, the Petitioner and his wife became concerned that she would not have funds to pay for his counsel, to operate her home and the business and to pay for her son's alcohol rehabilitation expenses if the jury returned a guilty verdict resulting in his incarceration. Consequently, on that day, the Petitioner made a withdrawal from his business account, drawn upon the Kent Insurance, Inc., account in the amount of $9,900, by writing a check on that account. On the same day, the Petitioner went to a different branch of the same bank and negotiated a second check on this same account also made payable to him, again, in the amount of $9,900, drawn upon the Kent Insurance, Inc., business account. The bank officer upon the occasion of the second withdrawal that same day told him that a currency transaction report would have to be filed. The Petitioner readily agreed to file the report and assisted the bank officer in completing and executing the transaction report. Thereafter, the United States Attorney secured an indictment of the Petitioner, during his incarceration for the earlier criminal conviction, before it was vacated by the trial judge. He prosecuted the Petitioner for "attempting to cause a financial institution not to file a report." During the pendency of this second criminal proceeding, the Petitioner remained incarcerated from the earlier proceeding, which was later vacated. Because of this, his counsel in the second criminal proceeding advised him to plead guilty to the second charge in return for a light penalty, because his counsel believed that if he attempted to litigate the second criminal matter to trial, he would have difficulty convincing a jury of his innocence because he was already incarcerated on the earlier mail fraud charge. Consequently, on May 20, 1998, the Petitioner pled guilty to attempting to cause a financial institution not to file a report. He was sentenced to five months' imprisonment as a result of that plea, which ran concurrently with the sentence imposed on February 24, 1997, regarding the mail fraud charge. After release, he was sentenced to supervised release for a period of approximately two years. The preponderant evidence in this proceeding shows that the Petitioner did not attempt to defraud the federal government or to prevent the bank involved from filing the report. Upon being informed of the requirement of filing the report, he freely consented and helped execute the report form involved at his bank. The funds he withdrew with the two checks were his funds from an account over which he had ownership and signatory authority. There is no evidence that the funds in the account withdrawn by the Petitioner had been obtained through an criminal alleged enterprise or that the Petitioner contemplated using them for such a purpose. The post-conviction evidence that was obtained by the Petitioner and his counsel resulted in the judge vacating the first conviction for mail fraud. This new evidence was also the basis for the South Dakota Insurance Regulatory Agency reinstating his licensure. Ultimately, the other states which had revoked his licensure reinstated his licenses. The Petitioner is now similarly licensed in 17 or 18 states. He applied for licensure as a non-resident life, health, and variable annuity agent in Florida and that application was denied by the Department due to his criminal history and the prior administrative actions against his licensure in the other states. That denial resulted in this proceeding. The other states which have since either reinstated his licensure or licensed him did so with knowledge, as reported by the Petitioner, of his prior criminal and administrative proceedings. The Department has a rule listing various crimes (in Classes A, B, and C) such that, if a petitioner has been so convicted, then that petitioner cannot be licensed for periods of times stated in that rule. Class A crimes listed in that rule carry the longest period of time during which licensure is prohibited with a waiting period extending as much as 15 years. The Division of Licensing of the Department decided that the crime involved herein was a "Class A crime." The rule allows the Department to analogize the crime of which a petitioner or applicant has been convicted with one of the crimes listed in this rule if the crime, of which an applicant was convicted, is not itself listed in the rule. The Division of Licensing thus decided to classify the crime of "attempting to cause a financial institution not to file a report" as analogous to "defrauding the government" or "obstruction of justice." The Petitioner was not charged with either defrauding the government or obstruction of justice and was not convicted of those crimes. Although the stipulation of facts between the Petitioner and the United States Attorney, attendant to the Petitioner's plea in the second federal criminal case (Petitioner's Exhibit G), shows that the Petitioner knowingly attempted to avoid the reporting requirement imposed by Title 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a) on the bank for currency transactions of more than $10,000 in one day, there is no persuasive evidence that he did so for any illegal purpose or fraudulent intent, or intent to in any way "obstruct justice," or engage in dishonest conduct. There was no demonstrative harm to the public nor was there any "victim" of his purported crime. If the Petitioner had truly wanted to conceal the transaction or induce the bank to fail to report it, he could simply have presented the second $9,900 check on another day for cashing, or had his wife negotiate such a check on a different business day. Instead, when told by the bank employee, on presenting the second check, that a currency transaction report would have to be filed, he freely assented and assisted in the preparation of the report form; even the above-referenced stipulation of facts attendant to his criminal plea shows this. There was no requirement that a report be made until the second check was negotiated on the same day. The Petitioner's testimony in evidence, including the fact that 18 states have licensed him or re-instated his licensure since the criminal and administrative proceedings at issue herein, with knowledge of those proceedings, shows preponderantly that his crime did not "involve moral turpitude" and that he is fit and trustworthy for engagement in the practice of insurance. The crime to which he pled did not involve any significant, rational relationship or nexus to the two "analogized crimes" involving "obstruction of justice" or "defrauding the government" for purposes of the Department's rule cited below. Two affidavits, admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits J and K, as corroborative hearsay, in accordance with Section 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes, bear out this finding and are worthy of quotation. The first affidavit is that of attorney James L. Volling, the Petitioner's counsel for purposes of appeal and post-conviction challenge to his first conviction, and his counsel for purposes of the second criminal case. Mr. Volling practices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is admitted to practice by the Minnesota Supreme Court, as well as by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and for the District of North Dakota. He is also admitted to practice in the courts of appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Eighth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit, as well as the United States Supreme Court. He testified in pertinent part as follows: Following Mr. Kent's conviction on two counts of mail fraud, I was retained to represent him for purposes of appeal and post-conviction challenge to the conviction as well as in connection with a second case brought against him. Upon reviewing the facts and the law in Mr. Kent's case, I became convinced that his conviction was defective and inappropriate. Ultimately, the trial court agreed and his petition for post-conviction relief was granted and his conviction and sentence were vacated. The government chose not to appeal that decision which I believe clearly would have been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. During the pendency of post-conviction proceedings in Mr. Kent's case, the government brought a second case against Mr. Kent involving allegations of an attempt to avoid currency transaction reporting requirements. In my view, these allegations were petty at best, especially considering that the bank involved did file a currency transaction report and Mr. Kent expressly permitted them to do so. Mr. Kent was simply withdrawing his own money and there was no claim that those funds were the product of any illegal activity [or for any illegal purpose]. The government's second case was only technical in nature and, in my view, would not have been charged in any other jurisdiction with which I am familiar. Indeed, the assistant United States attorney representing the government told me that the only reason the government brought the second case was their concern that Mr. Kent's conviction in the first case would ultimately be overturned, which of course it was. With regard to the currency transaction reporting matter, Mr. Kent elected to enter a plea bargain to avoid further expense and burden, and which did not augment the punishment that had been given to him in the first case. I have no doubt that, if Mr. Kent, had not been convicted in the first case so that he would not have had that stigma at the time of the second case, he would have elected to try the currency transaction reporting case rather than to enter into a plea agreement. It was after that plea agreement, that the conviction and sentence in Mr. Kent's first case were vacated. I have known and dealt with Eugene Kent for approximately five years now. During that entire time, he has always been a man of his word. He has done exactly what he said he would do and has told me the truth in every respect. I have great respect and admiration for Mr. Kent as person and as a client. I believe he has suffered unfairly throughout this entire ordeal, but he has remained steadfast and persevered through some truly difficult times. I have been proud to serve as his legal counsel, and I would recommend him unhesitatingly to anyone in terms of employment or any business relationship. The second affidavit is by Mark F. Marshall. Mr. Marshall is now a lawyer and at times pertinent hereto has been admitted to the practice of law by the South Dakota Supreme Court. He has been in the active practice of law since 1981. At times pertinent hereto from January 1, 1996, until August 1, 2000, Mr. Marshall served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota. Mr. Marshall testified pertinently as follows: From January 1, 1996 until August 1, 2000, I served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota. In my capacity as a United States Magistrate Judge, I conducted the initial appearance and detention hearings in a matter styled the United States of America v. Eugene P. Kent, CR. 96-40002-01. Over the objection of the United States, I ordered Mr. Kent released on conditions. A copy of the Order Setting Conditions of Release, as well as Mr. Kent's Appearance Bond in the Amount of $100,000.00 is attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively. [released on a non-surety bond requiring no security.] In my capacity as a United States Magistrate Judge, I conducted a hearing on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in a matter styled the United States of America v. Eugene P. Kent, CR. 97-40111. [the currency transaction prosecution.] I denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as I believed that an issue of fact existed as to the Defendant's intent. While I believed that it would be improper to dismiss the case because of that issue, I also know that if I had been the finder of fact I would have found the Defendant not guilty of all of charges in the indictment. Perhaps more so than any defendant who appeared before me, Mr. Kent comported himself with grace, dignity, and the utmost of integrity with regard to both criminal cases. Since being exonerated from all underlying criminal counts regarding this matter, Mr. Kent has asked me to submit an affidavit on his behalf. Initially, I was reluctant to do so not because Mr. Kent was unworthy of support, but because I was concerned about whether doing so would reflect adversely on my former judicial office. I have concluded that the interests of justice compel me to provide this affidavit on behalf of Mr. Kent. I am firmly of the belief that Mr. Kent committed no criminal acts in either of the cases venued in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota and as such he should not bear the stigma of any criminal record. I have been a member of the South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles since July of 2002. During my tenure as a member of the Parole Board, I have reviewed hundreds of applications for pardons. I have reviewed all public filings in Mr. Kent's civil actions arising from his conviction as well as all filings in the criminal action itself. Based on my experiences as a Parole Board member, my knowledge of Mr. Kent individually and professionally, and as well as my knowledge of the role that pardons serve in the state and federal judicial system, I believe that Mr. Kent is an unusually worthy applicant for such extraordinary relief. It is my personal belief that Mr. Kent poses no threat to society whatsoever. Society's interests, as well as those of Mr. Kent, would be well served by granting him the relief he seeks . . . . Dated this 11th day of November, 2003.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner be granted licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Eugene P. Kent 1209 West 37th Street Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57105
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a limited surety agent should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for the reasons alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, is the agency of the State of Florida which, pursuant to Chapter 648, Florida Statutes, is vested with jurisdiction to regulate licensure of limited surety (bail bond) agents. Respondent, Edward Leon Bolding, Jr., is a licensed limited surety agent, which license is currently under suspension by emergency order issued by Petitioner on June 23, 1997. Petitioner's official licensing data reflect that Respondent, Edward Leon Bolding, Jr., is a white male, born June 26, 1953, Social Security number 265-08-1197, whose address is 13803 Lake Village Place, Tampa, Florida 33624-4414. On April 21, 1997, Edward Leon Bolding II, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault in violation of Section 784.021, Florida Statutes, a third degree felony, in Case No. 97-00004536, Criminal Division, Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. The criminal information describes Edward Leon Bolding II as a white male, born June 6, 1953, Social Security number 265-08-1197. The criminal report affidavit filed in criminal Case No. 97-4536 further lists Edward Leon Bolding II with an address of 13803 Lake Village Pl. 33624. The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, Detention Department's arrest records for Edward Leon Bolding II describe the defendant as a white male, born June 26, 1953, Social Security number 265-08-1197, and whose address is listed as 13803 Lake VL PL, TAMPA 33624. The arrest records further list next of kin as Edward Bolding, Sr., whose relationship to Edward Leon Bolding II is father. On June 23, 1997, Petitioner filed an Emergency Order of Suspension and an Administrative Complaint against Respondent Edward Leon Bolding, Jr., alleging that Respondent was charged in Case No. 97-00004536 with two counts of aggravated assault, each a felony, in violation of Section 764.021, Florida Statutes. On July 3, 1997, Respondent Edward Leon Bolding, Jr., filed an Answer to the Administrative Complaint which admitted that Respondent was a licensed limited surety agent, born June 6, 1953, Social Security number 265-08-1197, whose address was 13803 Lake Village Place, Tampa, Florida 33624. On July 14, 1997, Edward Leon Bolding II pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, each count a felony in violation of Section 784.021, Florida Statutes, in the above- described Case No. 97-00004536, Criminal Division, in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. On August 28, 1997, Petitioner filed an Amended Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondent Edward Leon Bolding, Jr., pled guilty to two felony counts of aggravated assault. On October 3, 1997, Respondent filed an Answer to the Amended Administrative Complaint which, as set forth above, denied all allegations except that Petitioner has jurisdiction over limited surety licenses. The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office's arrest records, the criminal court records in Case No. 97-00004536 of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and the Petitioner's licensure records, all identify Edward Leon Bolding II, defendant, who pled guilty in Case No. 97-00004536, and Edward Leon Bolding, Jr., Respondent in this administrative proceeding, as one and the same person.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, enter a Final Order denying the licenses and eligibility for licensure of Respondent, Edward Leon Bolding, Jr. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD A. HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dickson E. Kesler, Esquire Division of Legal Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-321 Miami, Florida 33128 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Manuel Angel Huerta (Huerta), was a real estate broker licensed by the Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate. He was the broker/officer for M A Huerta & Company, a broker corporation located in Miami, Florida. M A Huerta & Company had listed a house for sale on Granda Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida. The house was offered through multiple listing, and the advertised commission was three percent of the selling price. Pedro Garay (Garay), a real estate broker with another company, showed the house to Andrew Labbie, a prospective buyer. Mr. Labbie indicated that he would make an offer for the house through his attorney. Garay was to pick up the offer when it was put together. Garay called Huerta to schedule a meeting with the sellers, but Huerta told him that he did not want Garay to present the offer to the sellers. Huerta called Garay the day after the offer was presented to the sellers and told Garay that the house was being withdrawn from the market. The house was later sold to Mr. Labbie on November 8, 1993. Garay learned of the sale and called Huerta, who stated that the sale had been between the sellers and buyer and that he had not been involved in the transaction. Huerta said that his office had received a real estate commission in the mail for $16,000 and that he was surprised that the commission had been sent to him. Garay demanded part of the commission. Garay was a member of the Miami Board of Realtors, which had a procedure to arbitrate disputes among realtors. Garay requested that the dispute over the commission be arbitrated. Garay and Huerta participated in the arbitration and were represented by counsel at the arbitration. On April 18, 1994, the Award of Arbitrators was entered, awarding $16,000 to Garay. The award was to be paid within 30 days. Garay demanded that Huerta pay the $16,000, but Huerta refused. Garay retained counsel and went to circuit court to enforce the arbitration. On January 17, 1996, a final judgement was entered enforcing the arbitration award and awarding $16,800 to Garay. After the final judgement was entered, Huerta still did not pay Garay. Counsel for Garay attempted to collect the judgment. In October, 1996, Garay filed a complaint with Petitioner based on Huerta's failure to pay the commission. Petitioner assigned one of its investigators, Kenneth Rehm, to investigate the complaint. Mr. Rehm interviewed Huerta, who stated that he was not going to pay Garay because Garay did not deserve it and he did not care if the court had ordered him to pay. Apparently Huerta changed his mind about paying because on February 10, 1998, Garay and Huerta entered into a Stipulation Regarding Execution. Huerta agreed to pay the judgment amount with interest in monthly installments of $1,056.72 for 24 months beginning February 17, 1998. Huerta began making payments in February 1998 and continued to do so through December 1998. Huerta sent Garay a check for the January 1999 payment, but the check was returned for insufficient funds. As of the date of the final hearing no further payments had been made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Manuel Angel Huerta violated Section 475.25(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $500, placing Respondent on probation for two years, and suspending Respondent's license during the probation period until such time Respondent pays Pedro Garay the portion of the judgment still outstanding. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Geoffrey Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Robert Flavell, Esquire First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 4600 Miami, Florida 33131-2310
The Issue An administrative complaint dated October 23, 1997, alleges that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, when he falsely indicated on his licensure application that he had never been convicted of a crime nor pled guilty or nolo contendere. The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether the violation occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ibrahim Z. Gonzalez, is, and has been at all relevant times, a licensed Florida real estate broker-salesperson, having been issued license no. 3003291 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On February 17, 1984, in San Diego, California, Respondent pled guilty to one count of sexual battery- a felony, and was jailed, fined, and placed on probation. Respondent's court-appointed attorney told him the conviction would only affect him if he sought employment with the federal government or law enforcement. On August 3, 1989, after a plea of guilty, Respondent was convicted in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of making false statements on a government application. Specifically, in 1985, Respondent withheld disclosure of the 1984 California conviction described above when he applied for employment with the U. S. Postal Service. For the federal conviction, he was placed on probation and fined $1,000. By 1989, Respondent had obtained a real estate license in New York. His court-appointed lawyer advised him to "stick to real estate" because, as the California lawyer told him, he would never be able to work for the federal government or in law enforcement. In May 1995, Respondent applied for licensure as a real estate broker in Florida. On the application form he answered "no" to this question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "YES", attach the details including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. The affidavit that Respondent executed at the end of the application form states: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as real estate broker under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that s(he) is the person so applying, that s(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that s(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and s(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. Respondent contends that he did not disclose his prior convictions when he applied to practice real estate in New York and Pennsylvania and he remains licensed in those states. He claims that because real estate has nothing to do with law enforcement or federal employment, he did not have to reveal the convictions on his application. Respondent has practiced his real estate profession in Florida for 3 years without any disciplinary incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order finding Ibrahim Z. Gonzalez guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and revoking his Florida real estate brokers' license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Legal Section, Suite N 308 Zora Neale Hurston Building North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1771 Francisco Colon, Jr. 341 North Maitland Avenue Suite 360 Maitland, Florida 32751 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition herein. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 12th day of June, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner may be granted an exemption from employment disqualification, pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes, which would allow him to work in a position of special trust (i.e. youthful offender counseling) for the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Findings Of Fact On February 16, 1999, a request for a Preliminary Florida Criminal Information Center/National Criminal Information Center (FCIC/NCIC) and Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle (DHSMV) Screening Check was submitted on behalf of Petitioner by Dawn Torres of Youth Service International, Cypress Creek Academy. The screening package contained an Affidavit of Good Moral Character signed by Petitioner and notarized on January 11, 1999, in which Petitioner indicated that he did not have a disqualifying criminal history. There is every reason to believe that this affidavit was actually signed by Petitioner on January 8, 1999, at the same time he signed a consent to background screening and a job application which described a prior "misdemeanor" of assault on an ex-girlfriend. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1). This means the affidavit was notarized improperly. Cypress Creek Academy is a youth rehabilitation facility located in LeCanto, Florida. On February 19, 1999, Petitioner's preliminary screening was rated as "favorable" based upon an FCIC (Florida) check only. Petitioner was therefore employed by Cypress Creek Academy on April 12, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). An FBI Identification Record dated May 9, 1999, indicated Petitioner had pled guilty to, and been found guilty of, assault on June 30, 1994, and that he had been sentenced to six months' jail time (suspended), 12 months' probation, and attendance at the Mens' Anger Program. In a letter dated May 17, 1999, Petitioner was asked by DJJ to provide, within 30 days of receipt of the letter, certified copies of arrest reports and judicial dispositions referencing the assault charge. Petitioner submitted the requested information to DJJ. It showed that Petitioner was arrested on June 3, 1994, by the Fairfax, Virginia, Police Department for abduction and assault and battery on a minor (17 years of age). On June 30, 1994, Petitioner pled guilty to assault and battery in the Fairfax County, Virginia, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court and was then found guilty. He was sentenced to a six months' jail sentence (suspended) and 12 months' active probation; ordered to attend the Mens' Anger Program; and instructed to have "no violation towards victim." A Show Cause Summons (Criminal) was issued by Fairfax County, Virginia, on June 23, 1995, to Petitioner concerning his failure to attend the Mens' Anger Program and his failure to contact his probation officer from September 26, 1994, to March 20, 1995. On September 21, 1995, the Fairfax County, Virginia, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court found Petitioner guilty of contempt based upon his plea of guilty. He was sentenced to a jail term of 60 days (with 57 days suspended), placed on probation for an additional 12 months, and again ordered to attend the Mens' Anger Program. By departmental letter of June 22, 1999, DJJ notified Petitioner of his ineligibility for continued employment and his right to request a departmental exemption hearing. Simultaneously, Cypress Creek Academy was notified that Petitioner was ineligible/disqualified from employment as a youth counselor and that he must be immediately removed from direct contact with juveniles. However, according to Petitioner's evidence presented at hearing, Petitioner only worked at Cypress Creek Academy from April 12, 1999, until June 3, 1999. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Also, the Academy's director was unable to assess Petitioner's performance fully, since he had worked there less than two months, but the director felt Petitioner would be an asset, and if exempted, that Petitioner would be eligible for rehire. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Petitioner timely requested an exemption, which was denied by DJJ. He then timely requested this disputed-fact hearing. The circumstances surrounding the June 3, 1994, incident giving rise to disqualification were described by Petitioner as follows: In 1994, Petitioner, who was barely 21 years old, was living with his 17-year-old girlfriend and her mother. He and the girlfriend got into a dispute and she kicked him in the stomach. He instinctively lashed out and hit her, even though intellectually, he knew it was wrong to hit a woman. Petitioner believed that his girlfriend also should have been criminally charged, but that did not happen. Petitioner claimed that although his girlfriend bailed him out of jail and wanted to drop the charges, his public defender made him plead guilty against his own better judgment. Petitioner maintained that his "instinctive" reaction to hit back was due to having been a battered child. His sister confirmed a dysfunctional and abusive family history. Petitioner's NCCI report does not reveal any criminal charges against Petitioner since 1994. Petitioner completed the Mens' Anger Program in Virginia as of June 26, 1996, pursuant to the Court's 1995 suspended sentence, by attending 22 out of 24 sessions. His only excuse for his delay in attending this program (see Finding of Fact 10, above) was that he was trying to straighten himself out. Petitioner testified that he has completed his probation in Virginia, but he presented no corroboration thereof, either from his probation officer or from any other Virginia authority. This defect in Petitioner's presentation is of concern because he has had nearly 10 months since the exemption process began in which to obtain these records, if they exist. Petitioner denied that he attempted to camouflage his prior criminal record from either Cypress Creek Academy or DJJ. He reasonably pointed-out that if he had been actively attempting to hide his prior criminal record when he signed the January 11, 1999, affidavit stating that he had no prior criminal record, he would not also have signed a consent to background screening on January 8, 1999 and on the same date disclosed the details of the assault on his ex-girlfriend to his potential employer, describing it as a misdemeanor. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1). I have weighed the fact that Petitioner is a high school graduate who has completed one year of college (Respondent's Exhibit 1) against his representation that he just did not read the good moral character affidavit he signed, and I have compared the lengthy and complex single-spaced disclosure forms involved, including the affidavit, which lists a variety of felonies by their Florida Statute numbers. I have also considered the detail of Petitioner's disclosure of the facts of the assault but mischaracterization of it as a "misdemeanor" rather than a felony. I accept that Petitioner's failure to disclose that his prior criminal history in Virginia was a disqualifying felony was careless and irresponsible rather than a deliberate attempt to conceal his criminal record from the employer and DJJ. On the other hand, his carelessness and lack of responsibility with regard to the affidavit/oath do not speak favorably for his current good character when it applies to a position of counseling young offenders. Since 1995, Petitioner has married and fathered a child. Since leaving Virginia, Petitioner has worked as a security guard in Reno, Nevada, dealing with cash, personal safety of casino patrons, and safety of patrons' vehicles. Currently, Petitioner is a regular church-goer and is working 52 hours a week to support his family. Petitioner's wife testified that he is non-violent toward her, even if she hits him; that he "scares me because he's so religious"; that she gets mad because he does so much for others; and that he is a "real caring person" and a "good father." Petitioner's sister testified to Petitioner's being entirely non-violent since he became a church-goer.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a final order denying Petitioner an exemption at this time and clearly stating therein upon what date it will consider a new application for exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 30 day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2000.
Conclusions For Claimant: Daniel Harwin, Esquire Freedland Harwin Valori, P.L. 110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2300 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 For Defendant: S. William Fuller, Jr., Esquire Hall Booth Smith, P.C. 200 West Forsyth Street, Suite 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of administrative appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the district court of appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or as otherwise provided by law.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alton Lynn Gillen, Jr., is a licensed Surety Agent doing business in the State of Florida. Respondent was charged by information, on or about December 23, 1980, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, with a violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and with conspiracy to traffic in cannabis. On February 5, 1981, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charges contained in the information. On May 13, 1981, an Order was entered in the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida, adjudicating Respondent guilty of a violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and of conspiracy to traffic in cannabis. Respondent was sentenced by the same order to state prison for a period or term of ten years. Respondent, having reserved his right to appeal as a condition of the nolo contendere plea, thereafter appealed this conviction and is currently awaiting its determination. Respondent, through his attorney, contacted Petitioner to ascertain whether or not he would be permitted to continue operating under his license after adjudication of guilt and while his appeal was pending. In a telephone conversation between Respondent's attorney and Onez O'Neill, Chief of Bureau of Licensing, on February 20, 1981, Respondent was advised that once the Department received formal notice of the convictions, a revocation proceeding would probably be instituted, but that his license would be reinstated upon receipt by the Department of certified copies of the information, judgment and sentence, and notice of appeal. Within a few days after being adjudicated guilty (May 13, 1981), Respondent obtained certified copies of those documents, as well as certified copies of notice of appearance by the appellate attorney, motion for supersedeas bond, and the supersedeas bond. On or about May 20, 1981, Respondent personally delivered those documents to O'Neill's office with a cover letter from his attorney (R-Ex 1). Since O'Neill was not in her office that day, Respondent gave the documents to the assistant chief, Joe Crutchfield. Respondent explained the nature of the problem and the reason for the delivery of the documents. Crutchfield assured him that everything appeared to be satisfactory and that he would personally discuss the matter with O'Neill the next day. On or about June 1, 1981, Petitioner caused a letter to be sent to Respondent by John Rich, a licensing specialist employed by Petitioner (R-Ex 2). This letter advised that Respondent could "continue operating as a bondsman under his current license until such time as the legal appeal process has been finalized...", subject to approval by the surety company underwriting Respondent. Based on the affirmative representations of Petitioner, by telephone and by its letter of June 1, Respondent continued to write bonds and incur financial obligations as a result thereof. Respondent also continued making contributions to a "build-up fund" held in trust for his underwriter. The buildup fund is money generated out of bond premiums which is held in an escrow account for the underwriter if it becomes legally liable for an estreature of a bond written by Respondent. On September 30, 1981, Petitioner renewed Respondent's license with full knowledge of his convictions (P-Ex 3). On April 5, 1982, Petitioner filed its Administrative Complaint seeking to revoke Respondent's license based on his adjudication of guilt of the two criminal charges to which he pleaded on February 5, 1981.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint, subject to refiling if Respondent's appeal is denied. DONE and ORDERED 30th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Yon, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Burton C. Conner, Esquire 207 N.W. Second Street Okeechobee, Florida 33472 The Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner & Treasurer Department of Insurance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
