Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
FRANK L. ZORC vs FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION, 01-003999 (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Vero Beach, Florida Oct. 17, 2001 Number: 01-003999 Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2025
# 1
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs OASIS CAFE AT KEY BISCAYNE, 13-003847 (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Oct. 02, 2013 Number: 13-003847 Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2013

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 Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Certified U.S. Mail to Oasis Cafe at Key Biscayne, c/o Carlos Flores, 19 Harbor Drive, Miami, Florida 33149; by regular U.S. Mail to the Honorable Darren A. Schwartz, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 3060; and by hand delivery to Marc Drexler, Chief Attorney, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, 1940 North Monroe Styeet, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202, this |@¥day of Yezember , 2013. msn For the Division of Hotels and Restaurants 7196 4008 G11) 4516 1240 | SENDERS, RECORD

# 2
3M COMPANY vs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 07-005722BID (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Dec. 18, 2007 Number: 07-005722BID Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2025
# 4
GRANT MALOY vs FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION, 01-002572 (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Orlando, Florida Jun. 29, 2001 Number: 01-002572 Latest Update: Jun. 16, 2004

The Issue Whether Petitioner, Grant Maloy, willfully violated Subsection 106.143(4)(a), Florida Statutes.

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Grant Maloy, is a Seminole County Commissioner. In September 2000, as an incumbent Republican, he won the Republican primary for his commission district which, in Seminole County, is tantamount to election. In November 2000, he was reelected in the general election. In the same September 2000, primary election, Bob West ("West") was the top vote-getter in a three-way primary for Commission District 5 which included incumbent Commissioner Daryl McLain, who finished second. West did not have a majority of the votes; consequently, he and Daryl McLain were in an October second primary. West sought Petitioner's endorsement and, as a result, Petitioner authored a letter endorsing West over the incumbent Commissioner Daryl McLain, seeking campaign contributions for West. Petitioner's endorsement letter stated, in part, "Enclosed is a letter from Bob [West] and a return envelope for your contribution." The endorsement letter was typed by Petitioner's wife, Althea Maloy, on a personal computer. She created a letterhead similar to the Maloy campaign letterhead and, with the permission of Petitioner, signed "Grant" to the endorsement letter. The endorsement letter also contained the following political disclaimer: "PD POL ADV PAID FOR AND APPROVED BY THE GRANT MALOY CAMPAIGN FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY COMMISSION DIST 1, REPUBLICAN." West paid for all paper, envelopes and postage for the endorsement letter mailing. Althea Maloy and other campaign volunteers "stuffed" the endorsement letter and an undated letter from West into the envelopes provided by West. Petitioner's wife, Althea Maloy, was acting as a West campaign volunteer as it relates to her activities regarding the endorsement letter. The undated letter sent by West stated, in part, " . . . Commissioner Grant Maloy would like to join together with me to ask for your financial support in my bid to defeat Daryl McLain." This letter also contained the following political disclaimer: "Pd. pol. adv. approved by Bob West, Paid for by the campaign account of Bob West for County Commissioner, Dist 5, Rep." During the investigation, Respondent requested the envelope in which the endorsement letter and West's undated letter were mailed. The complainant faxed the envelope to the Respondent. The facsimile of the envelope received by Respondent did not contain a political disclaimer. West is a computer software consultant. He testified that every envelope used in his campaign was programmed to have an appropriate political disclaimer on its face; he testified that the envelope used for the endorsement mailing was a oversized envelope. He opined that the facsimile copy of the envelope received by Respondent was too large for the fax machine and, therefore, the political disclaimer did not copy or was turned under to allow transmission and, as a result, was not copied. This testimony is accepted as credible. Mrs. Phyllis Hampton, General Counsel, Florida Elections Commission, was qualified as an expert witness on Florida elections law. Mrs. Hampton opined that Subsection 106.143(4)(a), Florida Statutes, would be satisfied if either the envelope in which the letters were sent contained the appropriate political disclaimer or the September 11, 2000, endorsement letter was sent with another letter which contained the appropriate political disclaimer. Her testimony is accepted as credible. Other than his support, as reflected in the endorsement letter, Petitioner contributed nothing of value to the West campaign. On April 28, 1999, Petitioner signed a Statement Of Candidate indicating that he had received, read, and understood Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Petitioner knew his endorsement letter would be mailed with a West letter as reflected by the reference to the West letter in the endorsement letter and, therefore, believed that the sponsor of the letter would be clear to the recipient. Petitioner believed that West would ensure compliance with in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and had a "good faith" belief that Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, had been complied with.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Grant Maloy, did not violate Subsection 106.143(4)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged and dismissing the Order of Probable Cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric M. Lipman, Esquire Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Frederick Nelson, Esquire The Law Offices of Frederick H. Nelson 1110 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1002 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Patsy Rushing, Clerk Florida Elections Commission The Capitol, Room 2002 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Florida Laws (5) 106.021106.143106.25106.265120.57
# 5
FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION vs SAVE OUR SCHOOLS AND MICHAEL SAHM, 08-006385 (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Lauderdale Lakes, Florida Dec. 22, 2008 Number: 08-006385 Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2009
Florida Laws (2) 120.57120.68 Florida Administrative Code (1) 28-106.204
# 7
LINDA YATES vs KATHY SCHURE, 17-001593F (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Sarasota, Florida Mar. 16, 2017 Number: 17-001593F Latest Update: Aug. 17, 2017

The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to section 106.265(6), Florida Statutes (2016),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 2B-1.0045.

Findings Of Fact Linda Yates is an elected member of the city commission for North Port, Florida. Ms. Yates was first elected to the North Port city commission in 2010, and was re-elected to the same office in 2014. On August 22, 2016, Kathy Schure, who at all times relevant hereto was a resident of the City of North Port, filed a Complaint with the Elections Commission alleging, in material part, the following: Sunshine Law and Ethics Violations by City of North Port Commissioner Linda M. Yates covering the period June 1, 2012 to July 20, 2016. * * * This writing is to bring a formal complaint and a request for investigation into illegal and unethical activity of Commissioner Linda M. Yates through the use [of] personal email servers, Tor Browsers, relay internet list servers, and intermediaries to knowingly violate FL 286 – Open Meetings Law and FL 119 – Florida Public Records Law. Additionally, Commissioner Jacqueline Moore appears to have participated in “secret meetings and communications” with Commissioner Yates as recipient of emails and texts directly and through intermediaries. On the complaint form, Ms. Schure identified Ms. Yates as a “candidate” for the city commission for the City of North Port. Although Ms. Yates was a member of the city commission on August 22, 2016, she was not a candidate for this office as noted by Ms. Schure in the Complaint. The complaint form used by Ms. Schure to assert her allegations against Ms. Yates directs the complainant (Ms. Schure) to “[p]lease list the provisions The Florida Elections Code that you believe the person named above may have violated [and that] [t]he Commission has jurisdiction only to investigation [sic] . . . Chapter 104, Chapter 106, and Section 105.071, Florida Statutes.” The Complaint filed by Ms. Schure makes no reference to chapter 104, chapter 106 or section 105.071. The Complaint does, however, reference chapters 286 and 119, Florida Statutes, and case law dealing with Florida’s open government laws.2/ By correspondence dated August 25, 2016, the Elections Commission informed Ms. Yates that Ms. Schure filed a complaint against her and that she had “14 days after receipt of the complaint to file an initial response,” and that the Elections Commission would “not determine the legal sufficiency of the complaint” until expiration of the referenced 14-day response period. On August 28, 2016, Ms. Yates hired Douglas A. Daniels, Esquire, an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, to represent her before the Elections Commission. Mr. Daniels charged Ms. Yates $400.00 per hour for work related to the Complaint filed by Ms. Schure. By correspondence dated October 20, 2016, the Elections Commission informed Ms. Schure of the following: The Florida Elections Commission has received your complaint alleging violations of Florida’s election laws. I have reviewed your complaint and find it to be legally insufficient. This complaint was received by the Florida Elections Commission on August 22, 2016. The cover page, which was an FEC complaint form, named Linda Yates as the Respondent. Attached to the complaint form was [a] second complaint form indicating a different Respondent (Jacqueline Moore), as well as a narrative of the allegations against Ms. Yates. You did not indicate anywhere in the documents that you intended to file two complaints, so the Commission accepted the entire document as a complaint against Respondent Linda Yates. The essential allegations of your complaint are that Respondent violated Florida’s open meetings and public records laws, Chapter 286 and 119, Florida Statutes, respectively. The jurisdiction of the Florida Elections Commission is limited to alleged violations of Chapter 104 and 106, Florida Statutes. As such, I find your complaint to be legally insufficient. If you have additional information to correct the stated grounds(s) of insufficiency, please submit it within 14 days of the date of this letter. If we do not receive additional information that corrects the stated grounds of insufficiency, this case will be closed. For your convenience, enclosed is a form for your use in submitting additional information. If you submit an additional statement containing facts, you must sign the statement and have your signature notarized. In addition, any additional facts you submit to the Commission must be based on either personal information or information other than hearsay. Ms. Schure offered no additional information in support of her allegations and the Elections Commission, by correspondence dated December 30, 2016, informed Ms. Yates that the Complaint was dismissed due to legal insufficiency.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Elections Commission enter a final order denying the Petition for Costs and Attorney’s Fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2017.

Florida Laws (7) 105.071106.265112.31112.313112.317120.569120.57
# 8
# 9
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer