13-001172EC In Re: Erik Fresen vs. * Status: Closed Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Tuesday, July 30, 2013.

DAT·E FILED

BEFORE THE JAN 2 9 2014

STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS

COMMISSION ON ETHICS

In re ERIK FRESEN, )

) Complaint Nos. 12-084, 12,085,

) & 12-234 (Consolidated)

Respondent. )

)

Final Order No. 14-002

FINAL ORDER AND PUBLIC REPORT

The State of Florida Commission on Ethics, meeting in public session on January 24,

2014, adopted the Joint Stipulation of Fact, Law, and Recommended Order entered into between

the Advocate for the Commission and the Respondent in this matter.

In accordance with the Stipulation, which is attached hereto and incorporated by

reference, the Commission finds that the Respondent, as a member of the Florida House of

Representatives, violated Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly

calculate and disclose his net worth, assets, and liabilities, on his 2008 CE Form 6, Full and

Public Disclosure of Financial Interests; finds that the Respondent violated Article II, Section 8,

Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and disclose his net worth, assets, and

liabilities, on his 2009 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests; finds that

the Respondent violated Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly

calculate and disclose his net worth, assets, and liabilities, on his 201 0 CE Form 6, Full and

Public Disclosure of Financial Interests; and finds that the Respondent violated Article II,

Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and disclose his net worth, assets,

and liabilities, on his 2011 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests.

ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on

January 24, 2014.

Chair

cc: Mr. J. C. Planas, Attorney for Respondent

Ms. Diane L. Guillemette, Commission Advocate

Ms. Alice Mensch, Complainant

Ms. Barbara Garcia, Complainant

Mr. Eugene H. Benson, Complainant

DEc 3 o 2073

BEFORE THE

STATE OF FLORIDA

COMMISSION ON ETHICS

In re: Erik Fresen,

Complaint Nos.: 12-084

Respondent. 12-085

12-234

-··

JOINT SIIPYLATION OF FACT, LAW, AND RECOMMENDED ORDER

Respondent, Erik Fresen, and the Advocate for the Florida Commission on Ethics enter

into this Joint Stipulation of Fact, Law, and Recommended Order with respect to the above­

styled Complaints. Subject to acceptance by the Commission on Ethics, the parties agree to

enter into this stipulated settlement in -lieu of further hearings in this cause. The parties stipulate

as follows:

STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time the Complaints were filed, Respondent served as a member of the

Florida House of Representatives, and as such was subject to the provisions of the Code of

Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Part ill, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes.

2. On June 21, 2012, and June, 25. 2012, swom Complaints were filed with the

Commission on Ethics alleging violations of the Code of Ethics.

3. Pursuant to Section 112.322, Florida Statutes, the Executive Director of the

Commission on Ethics found that the Complaints were legally sufficient and Ordered a

Preliminary Investigation for a Probable Cause Determination into whether Respondent had

violated the Code of Ethics.

4. The cases were consolidated and an Order for Supplemental Investigation of Facts

Materially Related to Complaint was issued September 17, 2012.

5. The Report oflnvestigation was released on September 17, 2012.

{00050394. I }

6. On December 5, 2012, the Commission on Ethics entered an Order. Finding

Probable Cause to believe Respondent had violated Article IT, Section 8, Florida Constitution as

follows:

a. Article IT, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and

disclose his net worth, assets, and liabilities on his 2008 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure

of Financial Interests;

b. Article ll, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and

disclose his net worth, assets, and liabilities, on his 2009 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure

ofFinancial Interests;

c. Article IT, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and

disclose his net worth, assets, and liabilities, on his 2010 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure

ofFinancial Interests;

d. Article n, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and

disclose his net worth, assets, and liabilities, on his 2011 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure

of Financial Interests;

7. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

8. On November 13, 2012, an additional Complaint related to similar activity was

filed.

9. The Executive Director issued an Determination of Investigative Jurisdiction and

Order to Investigate. A Report of Investigation was filed and on May 1, 2012. The Respondent

agreed to consolidate the case with the other matters and the Commission on Ethics found

probable cause to believe Respondent had violated Article n, Section 8, Florida Constitution

regarding his 2011 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests.

10. The additional Complaint was referred to DOAH and consolidated in to the

existing multi-count complaint

11. The omissions to the CE Form 6s from all 4 years can be identified as separate

items:

a. Ethics Commission fine. Respondent was fined $1,500 which was assessed by

the Ethics Commission in October 2004, subsequent to the Respondent's employment as a

{00050394. I } 2

Legislative Aide and prior to his election as a member of the Florida House. The fine was

eventually placed with a collection agency. Respondent maintains that he had no knowledge of

the fine until it was reported by the news in 2012. Respondent states that he does not intend to

pay the Commission on Ethics fine because it is no longer enforceable.

b. Elections Commission Fine. Respondent was assessed $10,141.41 by the Florida

Elections Commission in 2009, but did not report it as a liability on his 2009 CE Form 6.

Respondent paid the fine by check dated June 3, 2010. Respondent states that the fine was in

negotiation until the time it was eventually paid and believed that he did not have to consider it a

liability until the final amount due was approved by the Commission.

c. Final Judgment of Foreclosure. In August 2009, the home in which Respondent

resides was the subject of Foreclosure a action in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit In

and For County, Florida. A mortgage, like the one at issue, attaches to property, in

this case 1500 SW 45 Avenue, Miami, FL 33134. A promissory note, which is normally

executed concurrent with a mortgage, attaches to a person. Respondent did not sign the

promissory note. Respondent's mother executed the note and later quit claimed her interest in

the property to Respondent. The money owed on the Promissory note is not a liability of

Respondent

d. Bank Accounts. Respondent admits that he failed to properly disclose his

personal checking accounts. Respondent states he believed them to have an average balance of

under $1,000.

e. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company Judgment In October 2000,

Respondent and Respondent's father were jointly and severally ordered by a Court to pay State

{00050394. 1 } 3

Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company $2,521. Respondent denies he knew of the judgment

until after these ethics complaints were filed. Respondent satisfied the Judgment on April 11,

2012;and

f. Net Worth. Respondent computed his net worth by subtracting bis reported

liabilities from bis reported assets. Respondent confinned that he did not subtract assets or

liabilities, such as taxes owed the IRS, that did not need to be listed in his liabilities, as part of

his net worth calculations.

STIPULATED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

12. Respondent is subject to the provisions of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes,

the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.

13. The Commission on Ethics has jurisdiction over the Complaints filed in this

proceeding and over Respondent

14. Respondent violated:

a. Article n, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and

disclose bis net worth, assets, and liabilities on his 2008 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure

of Financial Interests;

b. Article ll, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and

disclose bis net worth, assets, and liabilities, on his 2009 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure

ofFinancial Interests;

c. Article n, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and

disclose his net worth, assets, and liabilities, on his 2010 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure

of Financial Interests;

d. Article ll, Section 8, Florida Constitution, by failing to properly calculate and

disclose his net worth, assets, and liabilities, on his 2011 CE Form 6, Full and Public Disclosure

ofFinancial Interests.

15. Respondent admits the facts as set forth in the Stipulated Findings of Fact above.

{00050394. 1 } 4

STIPULATED RECOMMENDED ORDER

16. The Advocate accepts Respondent's stipulation in this proceeding.

17. The Advocate and Respondent have entered into this Joint Stipulation and urge

the Commission on Ethics to approve it in lieu of further hearings in this cause.

18. Therefore, the Advocate recommends that:

(a) The Commission on Ethics approve this Joint Stipulation, embodying the

stipulations, admissions. and recommendations of the parties; and

(b) The Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report

consistent with this Stipulation finding that Respondent violated Florida Constitution, and refer

the matter to the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives for action consistent with

Section 112.324(4), Florida Statutes.

FURTHER STIPULATIONS

19. Respondent and the Advocate stipulate and covenant that they have freely and

voluntarily entered into this Joint Stipulation of Fact, Law, and Recommended Order with full

knowledge and understanding of its contents. Respondent and the Advocate further stipulate and

covenant that this Joint Stipulation constitutes the full agreement of the parties and that there are

no oral or written understandings between the parties other than those contained in this

Stipulation of Fact, Law, and Recommended Order.

20. Respondent and the Advocate stipulate and covenant that, in considemtion of the

provisions of this Joint Stipulation of Fact, Law. and Recommended Order, Respondent and the

Advocate accept and will comply with the above-referenced Final Order and Public Report of the

Commission on Ethics.

{00050394. 1 } 5

21. Respondent and the Advocate stipulate that tllis Joint Stipulation of Fact, Law,

and Recommended Order is submitted to the Commission on Etllics for its consideration and

ratification. In the event that it is not approved by the Commission on Ethics as written, this

document shall be of no purpose and effect and shall not be deemed an admission by

Respondent.

Signed, dated and entered into Signed, dated and entered into

tllis :2& day of 'U?

:kZ2

Respondent

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, PL-0 I

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Telephone: [phone], Ext. 3702

Facsimilie: [phone]

[e-mail]

Signed, dated and entered into

This __ dayof 2103.

Counsel to Respondent

Florida Bar No.: 0156167

Kurkin Brandes, 1 LLP

18851 NE 29 b Avenue

Aventura, FL 33180

Telephone [phone]

[e-mail]

{00050394. I } 6