Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Randy Lee Pomerantz, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in the State of Florida as a general lines, property, casualty, surety, and miscellaneous lines insurance agent. On or about May 30, 1989, the Respondent, along with one of his former employees, was charged by Information in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida, in Case No. 89-20405, with fifteen felony counts and three misdemeanor counts. The fifteen felony counts included one count of a RICO violation, one count of scheme to defraud, three counts of grand theft in the second degree, and ten counts of grand theft in the third degree. On or about July 13, 1990, the Respondent entered a plead of nolo contendere to Count VIII of the information, which was one of the counts charging grand theft in the third degree in violation of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes. The prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi as to all other counts insofar as they related to the Respondent. Adjudication of guilt was withheld on Count VIII. The Respondent was placed on probation for three years and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,325.03. The Respondent's plea of nolo contendere to Count VIII of the Information was a plea of convenience. The Respondent did not commit the acts alleged in Count VIII of the Information. As the Respondent explained at the hearing, at the time of his plea his wife was about to give birth and he did not feel he could take a chance on a "roll of the dice" with a jury trial.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer issue a Final Order in this case dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of February 1991. MICHAEL PARRISH 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 27th day of February 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-4430 The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 4: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Although it is likely that the facts alleged in Count VIII of the Information related to the transaction of insurance business in this state, such is not established by clear and convincing evidence. And, in any event, the matter is irrelevant in light of the findings that the Respondent's plea was a plea of convenience and that the Respondent was not guilty of the crime charged. Findings proposed by Respondent: COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Bossart, Esquire Department of Insurance 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ted Crespi, Esquire 110 Tower, Suite 815 110 S.E. 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tom Gallagher Bill O'Neil State Treasurer and General Counsel Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level and Treasurer Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should grant the applications of the Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, for a Class "C" Private Investigator License and for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. Specifically, under Section 493.6118(3), Fla. Stat. (1991), the issue as to each application is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the Petitioner lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, was a municipal law enforcement officer from approximately 1975 through the middle of 1977. He was a deputy sheriff and, later, a detective with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office from approximately June, 1978, through April, 1979, and from May, 1980, through August, 1992. Background checks when he was employed with the Sheriff's Office revealed no evidence of facts that would establish a personal history of dishonesty, unfairness, or disrespect for the rights and property of others or for the laws of Florida or of the nation. Nor is there any evidence, during the course of his employment through approximately May, 1992, that the Petitioner had a personal history of dishonesty, unfairness, or disrespect for the rights and property of others or for the laws of Florida or of the nation. During the summer of 1992, and for some time before, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office was involved in a substantial multiple-law-enforcement- agency investigation. In approximately June or July, 1992, the law enforcement agencies involved learned that the subjects of the investigation not only knew about it but had been given copies of four pages of notes made by members of the Sheriff's Office involved in the investigation that listed, by name and in some cases additional identifying information, some 15 "suspects" and 22 "possible targets." The disclosure seriously compromised the investigation, to say the least. An internal investigation was launched to determine the source of the damaging disclosure. It was revealed that a copy of the notes had been in the copying room of the identification and records section of the Sheriff's Office for approximately six to eight weeks prior to the disclosure. An employee recalled: seeing it on a work table in the copying room at the beginning of that time period; looking at it and realizing it was something important that should not be made public; thinking that whoever put it there would be back for it soon; and finishing his business in the copying machine, leaving the notes where he had found them. He also recalled returning to the copying room the next day and not seeing the notes where he had left them. He assumed at the time that whoever had put them there had returned and removed them. But later, in July, 1992, he read in the local newspapers that copies of documents sounding much like what he had seen in the copying room had been given to the suspects under investigation. He returned to the copying room and found the notes in a stack of miscellaneous papers. Several people, including the Petitioner, were questioned under oath during the course of the internal investigation. The Petitioner was questioned in a deposition conducted by an assistant state attorney on or about July 30, 1992. During the deposition, the Petitioner was shown copies of the four pages of notes that were recovered from the copying room and was asked whether he had ever seen a copy of them. The Petitioner looked at all four pages carefully (the deposition transcript indicates a pause in the proceedings) and answered, "no." After the deposition, the four pages of notes recovered from the copying room were processed for latent fingerprints. The Petitioner's left thumb print appeared on the left side of one of the pages, labeled at the top "Possible Targets," about two-thirds of the way up the page. On the list of 14 "possible targets" on that page were the names Vincent Loscalzo, who the testimony indicates is reputed to be involved in organized crime in the Tampa area, and several others whom the Petitioner either knew personally or whose names he would have recognized. The Petitioner's left thumb print also appeared on the left side of the next page of the list of "possible targets," also about two-thirds of the way up the page. On the list of eight names on that page were at least two names the Petitioner would have recognized. One was the husband of the mayor of the City of Tampa. The Petitioner knows Vincent Loscalzo personally. While employed with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, the Petitioner also was in business for himself distributing an oil re-refiner. The Petitioner is concentrating on that business now that he has "retired" from the Sheriff's Office. (The Petitioner tried to give the false impression that his "retirement" in August, 1992, had nothing to do with the internal investigation and that the Petitioner had been planning for some time to retire in August, 1992, to concentrate on his business.) The product was manufactured by a company in which Vincent Loscalzo has an ownership interest. Loscalzo has an office above a lounge he owns in Tampa, called the Brothers Lounge, and the Petitioner has had conversations with him there. It is found that the Petitioner testified falsely on his deposition that he had never before seen copies of the four pages of notes recovered from the copying room. Many people, besides the Petitioner, had access to the copying room during the six to eight weeks that the notes were there. Most had legitimate Sheriff's Office business to conduct, and they would not have been questioned or supervised. Others, not having legitimate Sheriff's Office business to conduct, also could have entered the copying room unquestioned and unsupervised during that time period. Two other person's fingerprints were identified on the notes- -the person who brought the notes into the copying room and left them, and the person who saw the notes and recovered them after reading about them in the newspaper. Not all people who touched the notes necessarily would have left fingerprints that could be lifted and identified. Many factors would enter into the question whether someone who touched the notes would leave prints that could be lifted and identified. In addition to those identified, some unidentifiable prints were left on the notes. Under these facts, the Respondent concedes in its proposed recommended order that it was unable to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Petitioner criminally disclosed the existence of a substantial criminal investigation to the subjects of the investigation. On or about January 23, 1993, the Petitioner was stopped for driving a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol consumption. As the arresting officer approached the Petitioner's vehicle, from the rear, the Petitioner opened the driver-side door and got out. As he did, his left pant leg got caught on an object that appeared to be under the pant leg at the Petitioner's ankle, and the pant leg bunched up and bulged. The Petitioner identified himself to the arresting officer as a retired deputy sheriff. Based on the arresting officer's experience and knowledge, particularly that off-duty law enforcement officers often concealed their firearms under the pant leg in an ankle holster, the arresting officer asked if the bulge he saw under the pant leg was a firearm. The Petitioner acknowledged that it was. In answer to the officer's question whether the Petitioner had a permit to carry a concealed firearm, told the officer that he did. In fact, the Petitioner did not even apply for a concealed firearm license until March 30, 1993, and one was not issued to him until April 6, 1993. It is found from the clear and convincing totality of the evidence in this case, taken as a whole, that the Petitioner lacks a personal history of honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying the applications of the Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, for a Class "C" Private Investigator License and for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2048S To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Rejected as not proven that the resignation was totally voluntarily. Also, no party questioned about it at the hearing knew the procedures for licensure by a former law enforcement officer. In any event, the procedures are matters of law, not fact, and are set out in Section 790.06, Fla. Stat. (1991). Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. Rejected in part as not proven and as being conclusions of law. Fact of the pendency of criminal proceedings, a ruling suppressing evidence, and the State's appeal accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the firearm was visible. (It was only detectable.) Part of the rest is rejected as being conclusions of law, and the other part of the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary that the Petitioner has been charged but not convicted. The rest is rejected as being argument and conclusions of law. Accepted (the questions to the witnesses excluded reference to the charges leveled in this case) and subordinate to facts found. Rejected in part as being argument and conclusions of law and in part as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected in part as being argument but otherwise accepted but in part subordinate to facts contrary to those found and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third sentence, rejected as being argument and not proven and contrary to facts found and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected for the same reasons as in 3., above. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. 3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 11.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 15.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 17. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellis Faught, Jr., Esquire 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(6), 943.1395(7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a),2 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and 11B-20.0012(2)(f),3 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Taylor was certified by the Commission on March 21, 1990 and was issued Correctional Certificate No. 75624. On May 12, 1999, Mr. Taylor was issued Instructor Certificate No. 212961. On August 7, 2005, Mr. Taylor went to the house where his sister, Michelle Taylor (Ms. Taylor), and her boyfriend, Dean Radney (Mr. Radney), were living. Mr. Taylor owned the house and was allowing his sister to live in the house. Mr. Taylor had been drinking heavily and was intoxicated when he went to his sister’s home. An argument ensued between Mr. Taylor and Ms. Taylor. Ms. Taylor called 911 and requested the Holmes County Sheriff’s Department to intervene. Ms. Taylor felt that if she called the sheriff that Mr. Taylor would leave. Mr. Taylor did leave the house. Deputy Michael Raley came to the residence in response to Ms. Taylor’s call. When Deputy Raley arrived, James Taylor, the brother of Mr. and Ms. Taylor, was at the home. James Taylor told his sister not to press charges against Mr. Taylor. Deputy Raley asked James Taylor to leave, and James Taylor complied with the request. When Deputy Raley arrived at the home of Ms. Taylor, she was upset and told him that there had been a family dispute. Deputy Raley asked Ms. Taylor to walk him through the house, and she did. At the back door, Deputy Raley observed that the back door facing had been damaged. He saw a nine millimeter shell casing lying on the floor of a rear room. There was a bullet hole in the bathroom door and a fragmented bullet in the laundry hamper. Ms. Taylor told Deputy Raley that there was a bullet hole in the living room/kitchen area. He went to that part of the house and saw a nine millimeter shell casing lying on the kitchen floor and a hole in the window. Deputy Raley took a sworn statement from Ms. Taylor, but the statement was not submitted for introduction into evidence. Although Ms. Taylor called 911 to summon assistance, the tape of the 911 call was not submitted for introduction into evidence. At the final hearing, Ms. Taylor stated that she had just come home from a drug rehabilitation facility when Mr. Taylor came to her home, that she was under a lot of stress, and that she did not remember what happened except that she and her brother argued, and she called 911 for assistance. At the final hearing, Mr. Taylor testified that on the day of incident in question, he was too drunk to remember what happened. Other than hearsay testimony, there is no evidence to support the allegations that Mr. Taylor committed assault and battery against his sister or Mr. Radney or that he fired a gun in his sister’s home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Taylor did not violate Subsections 943.1395(6), 943.1395(7), and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(a), 11B-27.0011(4)(b), and 11B-20.0012(1)(f), and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 January, 2008.
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
Findings Of Fact In 1932, Respondent was driving one of three cars involved in an automobile accident in Ohio. Respondent was approximately 18 years old. Two females in one of the automobiles not driven by Respondent died in the accident. They were Ms. Clara Shaw and Ms. Betty Montgomery. In January, 1933, Respondent was indicted for manslaughter of Ms. Montgomery. 2/ Respondent was also indicted for "failure to stop in case of an automobile accident" ("failure to stop"). Manslaughter was a felony in Ohio in 1933. Failure to stop was not a felony. 3/ Respondent initially pled not guilty to both manslaughter and failure to stop. Pursuant to a plea bargain between Respondent's attorney and the state attorney, Respondent subsequently changed his plea and entered a plea of guilty to both manslaughter and failure to stop. In exchange for Respondent entering a guilty plea, Respondent was sentenced to six months in the county jail and placed on probation for one year. Respondent served only 37 days of his sentence. The balance of his sentence and the imposition of court costs was suspended during the court's April term. Respondent successfully completed his probation. Respondent was not found guilty of manslaughter in Ohio in 1933. There is no adjudication of guilt in the court file for either manslaughter or failure to stop. Only a certificate of sentence appears in the court file. A certificate of sentence was entered only for failure to stop. No certificate of sentence was entered for manslaughter. In 1933, Section 12404 of the Ohio General Code required a person who was found guilty of manslaughter to be: . . . imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than twenty years. The court had no authority to find Respondent guilty of manslaughter and then either impose a sentence of less than one year or allow Respondent to serve out that sentence anywhere except the state penitentiary. 4/ The court sentenced Respondent to six months in the county jail. Respondent served only 37 days of his six month sentence. None of those days were served in the state penitentiary. Respondent remained in Ohio until he moved to Florida in 1940 or 1941. The state of Ohio never prevented Respondent from exercising his civil rights. Once Respondent reached the age of 21, he voted in local, state, and national elections in Ohio. Respondent also voted in local, state, and national elections in Florida for 50 years. 5/ Respondent served in the U.S. military for 2 1/2 years after his criminal conviction in Ohio. Thereafter, Respondent was employed in the defense industry by North American Aviation and by Martin Marietta from 1951 through 1977. Respondent had a confidential security clearance at North American Aviation and a secret security clearance at Martin Marietta. 6/ Respond disclosed his Ohio criminal record during security checks required for both North American Aviation and Martin Marietta. Respondent has been licensed to carry a concealed weapon in Florida for approximately seven years. He is applying for the third renewal of that license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of being "found guilty" of a felony in another state, within the meaning of Section 790.23(1)(d), and granting Respondent's request for the license at issue in this proceeding. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of July, 1995.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer.
Findings Of Fact On December 11, 1995, Petitioner, GEORGE S. BARNES, filed an application for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer with Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING. Petitioner has been employed in the security business since 1988. Petitioner is also an ordained minister and works with Earth Mission, Inc., a community organization assisting troubled juveniles. Petitioner currently resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. Petitioner's application was filed with the Respondent's Tampa Regional Office. Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, is the agency of the State of Florida having statutory authority for the administration of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, including the licensure of Class "D" Security Officers. Petitioner's application reflected that in October of 1993, Petitioner had previously been issued a license as a Security Officer in the State of Florida. The application stated that Petitioner was employed by Weisser Security beginning in 1993. Petitioner's application further reflected that Petitioner had been convicted of possession of marijuana in 1987 in Pinellas County, that Petitioner had been convicted of battery in 1994 in Pinellas County, and that Petitioner was currently on probation. Petitioner signed the application affirming that the information contained in the application was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Petitioner's signature was notarized by Cyndi Lynn Cutchall, a Notary Public of the State of Florida, Commission No. CC511419. Petitioner has a criminal record evidencing three misdemeanor convictions. On February 15, 1988 Petitioner pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Case No. CTC 87- 27269, County Court, Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner was ordered to pay a $250 fine. On May 25, 1995, Petitioner pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor battery. Case No. 94-33011MMF, County Court, Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner was placed on probation for one year, ordered to participate in the Family Violence Program, pay a fine of $150, and to have no contact with the victim, or with his step-daughter Starleetha Williams. On December 6, 1995, Petitioner pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor battery. Case No. CRC-95-021199CFANO-K, County Court, Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner was placed on probation for one year, ordered to undergo mental health counseling, successfully complete all treatment, and to have no further contact with his step-daughter, Starleetha Williams. Petitioner was at the time of the filing of his application for licensure, and is currently, on probation. On December 11, 1995, Petitioner went to Tampa, Florida for the purpose of filing an application for licensure as a security officer with Respondent. Petitioner had obtained a computer printout of his criminal record from Pinellas County. The computer printout reflected his prior convictions for possession of marijuana and his first conviction for misdemeanor battery. The printout did not at that time reflect Petitioner's second conviction for misdemeanor battery which had occurred only five days earlier on December 6, 1995. Petitioner sought the assistance of Cyndi Lynn Cutchall in completing the application. The record indicates that Cyndi Lynn Cutchall was a Notary Public in the State of Florida. Petitioner assumed that Ms. Cutchall, who was located in the state office building, was employed by the Respondent; however, Ms. Cutchall was not called as a witness, and there is no evidence indicating that she was an employee of Respondent. Petitioner partially completed the application himself; however Section V of the application was completed by Ms. Cutchall. Section V indicates that Petitioner was convicted of possession of marijuana in 1987, and battery in 1994. Petitioner testified that he informed Ms. Cutchall of his second conviction for battery, but that she instructed him that because his second battery conviction was not yet on the computer printout, it was not necessary to include the second battery conviction on his application. Petitioner knew that his application was inaccurate, but nonetheless signed his application affirming the truth and correctness of the information contained therein. Ms. Cutchall notarized Petitioner's signature. Petitioner's misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana occurred in 1988. This conviction resulted from an incident in which Petitioner was stopped while driving a relative's car in which a marijuana cigarette was discovered. Petitioner paid the fine imposed by the court. It appears that Petitioner obtained a license as a security officer in October 1993, subsequent to this offense. Petitioner's two convictions for misdemeanor battery in 1995 arose from family problems. The first incident resulted from a domestic dispute between Petitioner and his wife in which his wife slipped and fell on their kitchen floor during the dispute. The second incident initially involved very serious felony child sexual abuse charges; however, during Petitioner's trial, the charges were reduced to misdemeanor battery to which Petitioner pled nolo contendere. Petitioner denies both battery charges, and specifically denies any inappropriate contact with the child in question. Petitioner and his wife are currently separated, and Petitioner has no contact with the child involved in the second battery case. Although it appears that Petitioner may have had previous contact with the victim of the second battery, it now appears that Petitioner is complying with the terms of his probation in accordance with the order of the court. There is no evidence that Petitioner's probation was ever revoked for a violation. Petitioner is not employed as a security officer, pending resolution of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer with leave for Petitioner to reapply for licensure upon successful completion of Petitioner's current probation. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON 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) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Ted J. Starr, Esquire Post Office Box 12827 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Michelle Guy, Esquire Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Wortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
