21-001192EC In Re: Daphne Campbell vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, November 19, 2021.

Summary: Respondent violated Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution, and section 112.3144, Florida Statutes, by filing an inaccurate CE Form 6: Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests in 2013, 2015, and 2017.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

I N R E : D APHNE C AMPBELL , Case No. 21 - 1192EC

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

Administrative Law Judge (ÑALJÒ) Brittany O. Fi nkbeiner conducted the final

hearing in this case for the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÑDOAHÒ) on

August 1 1 , 2021, by Zoom conference.

A PPEARANCES

For Advocate : Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

Plaza Level 01

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

For Respondent: James Jean - Francois, Esquire

Law Offices of James Jean - Francois

Suite 211 - A

6100 Hollywood Boulevard

Hollywood, Florida 33024

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE S

The issues to be determined in this case are whether R espondent violated Article

II, Section 8, Florida Constitution ( Ñ Article II, Section 8 Ò ) , and section 112.3144,

Florida Statutes, by filing an inaccurate CE Form 6: Full and Public Disclosure of

Financial Interests (ÑForm 6Ò) in 2013, 2015, or 2017; and , i f so, what penalty should

be imposed.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

The Florida Commission on Ethics (ÑCommissionÒ) filed an Order Finding

Probable Cause (ÑOrderÒ) on July 31, 2019, which was based on the preliminary

investigation of a complaint. The Order found probable cause to believe that

Respondent, Daphne Campbell (ÑRespondentÒ), in her capacity as a member of the

Florida Senate ; a candidate for the Florida Senate ; and a member of , and/or

candidate for , the Florida House of Representatives , filed an inaccur ate Form 6 in

2013, 2015, and 2017, in violation of Article II, Section 8 and section 112.3144. On

April 1, 2021, the Commission requested a public hearing on the matter at DOAH.

The final hearing took place on August 11, 2021. At the hearing, the Advoca te for

the Commission (ÑAdvocateÒ) offered the live testimony of Respondent; legal liaison

for Miami - Dade Code Compliance Division, Cindy Hoskin; and Bail Bondsman Joe

Brennan. Respondent offered the live testimony of Senator Jason Pizzo and Certified

Publ ic Accountant Hudson Robillard.

During the hearing, Joint Exhibits 2, 4, and 6 were entered into evidence.

AdvocateÔs Exhibits 3, 5, 7, 11 through 20, and 26 were entered into evidence.

RespondentÔs Exhibits 15 and 17 through 19 were entered into evidenc e. The one -

volume Transcript was filed with DOAH on September 20, 2021. On September 29,

2021, Respondent filed an unopposed motion entitled RespondentÔs Motion for

Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Final Order (ÑMotionÒ). The

undersigned gran ted the Motion; and thereafter both parties filed proposed

recommended orders, which were duly considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Introductory Stipulated Facts

1. Respondent was a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives,

District 108, in 2010.

2. Respondent served in the Florida House of Representatives on behalf of

District 108 from 2010 through 2016.

3. Respondent was a candidate for the Florida Senate, District 38, in 2016.

4. Respondent served in the Florida Senate on behalf of District 28 from 2016

through 2018.

5. Respondent was a candidate for the Florida Senate, District 28, in 2018.

6. Respondent was required to file a true and accurate Form 6 in each year from

2010 through 2018.

7. Respondent read and understood the instructions to the Form 6 for 2013, 2015,

and 2017 prior to completing and filing the forms.

2013 Form 6

8 . On June 17, 2014, Respondent filed her 2013 Form 6. By her signature on the

face of the Form 6, Respondent affirmed under oath that the information disclosed ,

thereon , was Ñtrue, accurate, and complete.Ò

9. Instructions for the 2013 Form 6, Part A, for calculating net worth , include the

following relevant directives:

In order to determine your net worth, you will need to to tal

the value of all your assets and subtract the amount of all

your liabilities. Simply subtracting the liabilities reported

in Part C from the assets reported in Part B will not result

in an accurate net worth figure in most cases. (emphasis in

original) .

10. Instructions for the 2013 Form 6, Part C, for calculating liabilities , include the

following relevant directives:

List the name and address of each creditor to whom you

were indebted on the reporting date chosen for your net

worth (Part A) in an a mount that exceeded $1,000 and list

the amount of the liability. Liabilities include: accounts

payable; notes payable; interest payable; debts or

obligations to governmental entities other than taxes

(except when the taxes have been reduced to a judgment);

and judgments against you.

* * *

You do not have to list on the form any of the following:

credit card and retail installment accounts, taxes owed

(unless the taxes have been reduced to a judgment),

indebtedness on a life insurance policy owed to the

c ompany of issuance, or contingent liabilities. A

Ñcontingent liabilityÒ is one that will become an actual

liability only when one or more future events occur or fail

to occur, such as where you are liable only as a partner

(without personal liability) for partnership debts, or where

you are liable only as a guarantor, surety, or endorser on a

promissory note. If you are a Ñco - makerÒ on a note and have

signed as being jointly liable or jointly and severally liable,

then this is not a contingent liability. (e mphasis supplied).

11. Respondent submitted her Form 6 with a reported net worth of $417,094 in

Part A, as of her chosen reporting date, June 12, 2014.

Mortgage Note

12. Joseph Brennan, bail bondsman and owner of Coral Gables Bail Bonds, Inc.,

testified that in his business he is typically contacted by either a defendant, or a

friend or family member of a defendant, to assist in obtaining a bail bond to secure

the defendantÔs release from custody after the personÔs arrest. When a friend or

family member s igns for the defendant, Mr. Brennan requires them to pay 10 percent

of the bond amount, which is also known as a premium. The premium is a non -

refundable payment. It is common in Mr. BrennanÔs business for a customer to sign a

mortgage note to secure a bon d.

13. Respondent and her then - husband, Hubert Campbell, used Coral Gables Bail

Bonds to obtain a bail bond for their son, Gregory Campbell, following his arrest.

14. In June of 2011, Gregory Campbell had a bond of $250,000 following his

arrest. In order to post a bond for Gregory, Respondent was required to pay a

premium of $25,000. Respondent paid $10,000 of the premium, which left an unpaid

balance of $15,000. To secure the remaining $15,000, Respondent and her husband

executed a mortgage obligating the ir property as collateral. The property that was

mortgaged to secure the bond had an address of 14625 NE 4th Ave., Miami, Florida,

33161 ( Ñ Miami Property Ò ) . The mortgage was recorded in the public records of

Miami - Dade County on June 30, 2011, at book 2774 0, pages 4740 through 47 41.

15. Respondent and her husband also executed a mortgage note, which includes a

requirement to remit payment of $400 on the first of each month beginning August 1,

2011. The mortgage note reflects that Respondent and her husband promised Ñjointly

and severallyÒ to pay the $15,000 premium balance to Coral Gables Bail Bonds. This

means, as Mr. Brennan explained in his testimony, that Respondent would still be

responsible for payment of the full $15,000 to Coral Gables Bail Bonds, e ven if her

husband passed away. Respondent stipulated to th e fac t that she was responsible for

repayment on a $15,000 mortgage, dated June 29, 2011, from Coral Gables Bail

Bonds.

16. The $25,000 premium payment was not refunded to Respondent after her son

appeared in court. As Mr. Brennan explained, in his business, the premium amount

is owed regardless of whether the defendant subsequently appears in court.

17. A satisfaction of the mortgage was signed on June 18, 2018; and was recorded

on August 7, 2018, in the public records of Miami - Dade County at book 31091, page

1561.

18. When applying the clear instructions on the face of the Form 6 to the equally

clear terms of the mortgage note, it is decidedly obvious that the mortgage note was

not a contingent li ability exempt from disclosure. RespondentÔs testimony that she

believed that the mortgage note was a contingent liability within the meaning of the

Form 6 instructions is not credible when balanced with the overwhelming weight of

evidence to the contrary. The mortgage note was a reportable liability that should

have been disclosed on RespondentÔs 2013 Form 6.

19. Respondent did not disclose the mortgage note as a liability on her 2013

Form 6.

Code Enforcement Lien

20. Cindy Hoskin, legal liaison for the Miami - Dade County Code Compliance

Division, handles the interactions between governmental agencies and the County

AttorneyÔs Office on escalated code enforcement matters.

21. As stipulated by the parties, RespondentÔs home was cited for code

enforcement violations in July of 2011.

22. There are two components to correcting a code enforcement violation: one is

payment of the citation; and the other is physical correction of the violation.

23. When a code violation citation is issued, an inspector will as sess the property

and issue an affidavit of noncompliance if he or she finds that the source of the

citation is left uncorrected or the fines due under the citation remain unpaid.

24. Through a ÑNotice of Assessment of Continuing Penalties,Ò dated March 6 ,

2012, Respondent was notified that she owed an assessment stemming from the code

enforcement citation on the Miami Property .

25. Respondent had 20 days from March 6, 2012, to appeal the assessment.

Respondent submitted an untimely appeal, which was sign ed and dated on

September 18, 2012, and date - stamped as having been received by Miami - Dade

County on September 19, 2012.

26. As stipulated by the parties, Respondent did not fulfill payment on the code

enforcement fines; and subsequently, a lien was placed on the Miami Property by

Miami - Dade Code Enforcement in October of 2012.

27. On October 17, 2012, a lien in the amount of $10,590.16 was recorded against

RespondentÔs Miami P roperty in the public records of Miami - Dade County at book

28317, page 1429.

28. When a lien is recorded against real property, the purpose is to notify the

public that there is a cloud on the propertyÔs title based on an outstanding debt. The

lien on RespondentÔs Miami P roperty is evidence that she owes a debt to Miami - Dade

County.

2 9. At the time of the final hearing, the lien remained unsatisfied.

30. Based on the credible testimony of Ms. Hoskins, Miami - Dade County

generally does not consider it necessary to reduce liens to judgments because the lien

itself is evidence of the debt . The lien against RespondentÔs Miami P roperty is not a

contingent liability as that term is defined by the Form 6 instructions , because it is

an existing debt that does not require any future event to occur or fail to occur before

it attaches. Rather, it clearly fits within the definition of liabilities on the face of the

Form 6, which includes as an example: Ñdebts or obligations to governmental entities

other than taxes.Ò The code enforcement lien was a reportable liability that should

have been disclose d on RespondentÔs 2013 Form 6.

31. Respondent did not disclose the code enforcement lien as a liability on her

2013 Form 6.

Federal Tax Lien

32. Respondent testified that she owes a federal tax lien, which was in existence

as of the reporting date for her 2013 Form 6, and that was still outstanding in an

amount of at least $10,000 at the time of the final hearing. The lien had not been

reduced to a judgment, meaning that it was not required to be specifically disclosed

as a liability on RespondentÔs 2013 F orm 6 based on the instructions. Respondent

was required, however, to include the tax lien in the calculation of her net worth.

Respondent testified that she did not include the federal tax lien in the calculation of

her net worth on her 2013 Form 6 .

Ultim ate Finding of Fact

33. Respondent did not file a full and public disclosure of her financial interests

with respect to her 2013 Form 6.

2015 Form 6

34. The relevant instructions for the 201 5 Form 6, Part A, for calculating net

worth; and Part C, for cal culating liabilities, are identical to the 2013 Form 6.

35. On her 2015 Form 6, Respondent reported a net worth of $199,091.21, as of

June 6, 2016. By her signature on the face of the Form 6, Respondent affirmed under

oath that the information disclosed w as Ñtrue, accurate, and complete.Ò

36. Although the mortgage note may have remained a reportable liability with

respect to RespondentÔs 2015 Form 6, the evidence did not conclusively establish

whether the balance exceeded the $1,000 threshold specified in the instructions.

Even if the balance left on the mortgage w as below $1,000, however, the mortgage

had not yet been satisfied as of RespondentÔs reporting date. Thus, the mortgage was

still required to be included in the calculation of RespondentÔs net wor th regardless of

the amount. Respondent testified that she did not include the mortgage note when

calculating her net worth.

37. The code enforcement lien against RespondentÔs Miami P roperty remained

unsatisfied at the time of the final hearing in this c ase. Accordingly, the lien should

have been reported as a liability on RespondentÔs 2015 Form 6.

38. Respondent did not disclose the code enforcement lien as a liability on her

201 5 Form 6.

39. Respondent testified that she owes a federal tax lien that w as still outstanding

in an amount of at least $10,000 at the time of the final hearing. The lien had not

been reduced to a judgment, meaning that it was not required to be specifically

disclosed as a liability on RespondentÔs 2015 Form 6 based on the instr uctions.

Respondent was required, however, to include the tax lien in the calculation of her

net worth. Respondent testified that she did not include the federal tax lien in the

calculation of her net worth on her 2015 Form 6.

Ultimate Finding of Fact

40. Respondent did not file a full and public disclosure of her financial interests

with respect to her 2015 Form 6.

2017 Form 6

41. The relevant instructions for the 201 7 Form 6, Part A, for calculating net

worth; and Part C, for calculating liabilities, are identical to the 2013 Form 6 and the

2015 Form 6.

42. On her 2017 Form 6, Respondent reported a net worth of $416,642 as of

June 15, 2018. By her signature on the face of the Form 6, Respondent affirmed

under oath that the information disclosed was Ñtrue , accurate, and complete.Ò

43. Although the mortgage note may have been a reportable liability with respect

to RespondentÔs 2017 Form 6, the evidence did not conclusively establish that there

was any balance left on the mortgage, which was recorded in the public records as

being satisfied three days after RespondentÔs reporting date. Respondent testified

that she did not include the mortgage when calculating her net worth for her 2017

Form 6, but it is uncertain whether she was required to do so.

44. The co de enforcement lien against RespondentÔs Miami P roperty remained

unsatisfied at the time of the final hearing in this case. Accordingly, the lien should

have been reported as a liability on RespondentÔs 2017 Form 6.

45. Respondent did not disclose the cod e enforcement lien as a liability on her

201 7 Form 6.

46. Respondent testified that she owes a federal tax lien that was still outstanding

in an amount of at least $10,000 at the time of the final hearing. The lien had not

been reduced to a judgment, meani ng that it was not required to be specifically

disclosed as a liability on RespondentÔs 2017 Form 6 based on the instructions.

Respondent was required, however, to include the tax lien in the calculation of her

net worth. Respondent testified that she did not include the federal tax lien in the

calculation of her net worth on her 2017 Form 6.

Construction Lien

47. Pierre Richard Raymond is a contractor and owner of MPR Construction.

48 . Respondent, who was the property owner at the time, contracted with M PR

Construction to complete a project to repair water damage at RespondentÔs Miami

Property .

4 9 . While Mr. Raymond expected RespondentÔs insurance company to pay MPR

Construction for its work on the project, Respondent was still liable for payment

under th e contract if the insurance company did not pay.

50 . After the construction project was complete, Mr. Raymond filed a claim of lien

for $41,000 against RespondentÔs Miami P roperty on March 2, 2018, which was

recorded in the public records of Miami - Dade Co unty, at book 30881, page 1013.

5 1 . The construction lien was satisfied on August 7, 2018.

5 2 .The construction lien was a reportable liability that should have been reported

on RespondentÔs 2017 Form 6 because it was a note payable to MPR Construction in

an amount exceeding $1,000 as of the reporting date, June 15, 2018.

5 3 . Respondent did not disclose the construction lien as a liability on her 2017

Form 6.

Quit Claim Deeds

5 4 . RespondentÔs son, Gregory Campbell, changed his name to Mikel Mittal.

5 5 . A quit claim deed prepared by ÑMITTAL 2018 BUSINESS HOLDING

TRUST,Ò dated May 19, 2018, was recorded in the public records of Miami - Dade

County at book 30987, pages 294 through 2 96. The deed conveyed RespondentÔs

Miami Property from Respondent and Hubert Ca mpbell to an entity identified as

Ñ14625 NE 4th AVE MIAMI LLC.Ò The deed included the notarized signatures of

Respondent and Hubert Campbell, as well as the signatures of four witnesses.

Respondent confirmed that the driver license number attributed to her in the notary

block was accurate.

5 6 . Respondent is not a member of the business entity, 14625 NE 4th AVE

MIAMI LLC.

5 7 . A second quit claim deed, dated June 20, 2018, was recorded in the public

records of Miami - Dade County at book 31026, pages 2331 thro ugh 23 32. The second

deed conveyed the Miami Property from 14625 NE 4th AVE MIAMI LLC to

RespondentÔs son, Mikel Mittal.

5 8 . Instruments filed in a countyÔs public records, such as the quit claim deed s at

issue in this case, plainly fall within the catego ry of Ñevidence of a type commonly

relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs,Ò which is

the applicable evidentiary standard under section 120.569(2)(g), Florida Statutes.

59 . It is undisputed that the quit claim deeds conve ying RespondentÔs Miami

P roperty were recorded in the public records of Miami - Dade County. It is further

undisputed that the driver license number on the first quit claim deed belongs to

Respondent. Respondent, however, dispute d that she executed the first quit claim

deed or had any contemporaneous knowledge of its existence, despite the fact that a

notarized signature purporting to be hers appears on the document. Upon testifying

to her ignorance of the two quit claim deeds conveying her property up until she saw

it on the news, Respondent was questioned as to whether she ever reported the

fraudulent conveyance of her property or asked her son about it. Respondent evaded

the questions and ultimately did not articulate any direct answers. The inherent

reliab ility of a recorded instrument cannot be overcome by RespondentÔs vague and

illogical denial of its authenticity.

6 0 . RespondentÔs Miami P roperty was returned to her through a third quit claim

deed on August 27, 2018.

6 1 . As of RespondentÔs reporting dat e for her 2018 Form 6, the Miami Property

was not in RespondentÔs name. Therefore, it was not an asset belonging to her and

should not have been included in the calculation of RespondentÔs net worth. However,

Respondent listed the property as an asset valu ed at $471,642, and included it in the

calculation of her net worth.

Ultimate Finding of Fact

6 2 . Respondent did not file a full and public disclosure of her financial interests

with respect to her 2017 Form 6.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

6 3 . DOAH has jurisdictio n over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

6 4 . Section 112.322 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 34 - 5.0015 require the

Commission on Ethics to conduct investigations and make public reports on

complaints concer ning violations of Chapter 112, Part III, (the Code of Ethics for

Public Officers and Employees).

6 5 . Respondent, by virtue of her position as a candidate or member of the Florida

House of Representatives and the Florida Senate from 2010 through 2018, was

subject to Article II, Section 8, and the requirements of Chapter 112, Part III, at all

times material to this case.

6 6 . The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the

party asserting the affirmative. Balino v. DepÔt of HRS , 3 48 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA

1977). In this proceeding, the Commission, through its Advocate, is asserting the

affirmative. Proceedings that seek recommended penalties against a public officer or

employee require proof of the alleged violation(s) by clear a nd convincing evidence.

See Latham v. Fla. CommÔn on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

6 7 . Clear and convincing evidence Ñrequires more proof than a Ópreponderance of

the evidenceÔ but less than Óbeyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. ÔÒ In re

Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). As stated by the Florida Supreme Court:

Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence

must be found to be credible; the facts to which the

witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and lacking in confusion as to

the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such a weight

that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief

or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought t o be established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(quoting, with approval, Slomowitz v.

Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). ÑAlthough this standard of proof

may be met where the evidence is in conflict, it seems to preclude evide nce that is

ambiguous.Ò Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros . , 590 So. 2d 986, 98 8 (Fla.

1991).

6 8 . Article II, Section 8 , under which Respondent is charged, provides in pertinent

part:

A public office is a public trust. The people shall have the

right to secure and sustain that trust against abuse. To

assure this right:

(a) All elected constitutional officers and candidates for

such offices and, as may be determined by law, other public

officers, candidates, and employees shall file full and public

disclosure of their financial interests.

* * *

(1) Full and public disclosu re of financial interests shall

mean filing with the custodian of state records by July 1 of

each year a sworn statement showing net worth and

identifying each asset and liability in excess of $1,000 and

its value together with one of the following:

a. A copy of the personÔs most recent federal income tax

return; or

b. A sworn statement which identifies each separate

source and amount of income which exceeds $1,000. The

forms for such source disclosure and the rules under which

they are to be filed shall be prescribed by the independent

commission established in subsection (f), and such rules

shall include disclosure of secondary sources of income.

69 . Section 112.3144 states, in pertinent part:

(1)(a) An officer who is required by s. 8, Art. II of the

S tate Constitution to file a full and public disclosure of his

or her financial interests for any calendar or fiscal year, or

any other person required by law to file a disclosure under

this section, shall file that disclosure with the Florida

Commission on Ethics.

* * *

(6)(a) With respect to reporting, assets valued in excess of

$1,000 which the reporting individual holds jointly with

another person, the amount reported shall be based on the

reporting individualÔs legal percentage of ownership in the

property. However, assets that are held jointly, with right

of survivorship, must be reported at 100 percent of the

value of the asset. For purposes of this subsection, a

reporting individual is deemed to own a percentage of a

partnership which is equal to the reporting individualÔ s

interest in the capital or equity of the partnership.

(b)1. With respect to reporting liabilities valued in excess

of $1,000 for which the reporting individual is jointly and

severally liable, the amount reported shall be based on the

reporting individualÔs percentage of liability rather than

the total amount of t he liability. However, liability for a

debt that is secured by property owned by the reporting

individual but that is held jointly, with right of

survivorship, must be reported at 100 percent of the total

amount owed.

7 0 . RespondentÔs 2013 Form 6 was inac curate because she failed to disclose a

mortgage note and a code enforcement lien, which were reportable liabilities; and a

federal tax lien, which should have been included in the calculation of her net worth.

Accordingly, Respondent did not file a full a nd public disclosure of her financial

interests with respect to her 2013 Form 6, in violation of Article II, Section 8 and

section 112.3144. The Commission proved the violation by clear and convincing

evidence.

7 1 . RespondentÔs 2015 Form 6 was inaccurate because she failed to disclose a

mortgage note and a federal tax lien, both of which should have been included in the

calculation of her net worth. Accordingly, Respondent did not file a full and public

disclosure of her financial interests with respect to her 2015 Form 6, in violation of

Article II, Section 8 and section 112.3144. The Commission proved the violation by

clear and convincing evidence.

7 2 . RespondentÔs 2017 Form 6 was inaccurate because she failed to disclose a

construction lien, which was a reportable liability; and a federal tax lien, which

should have been included in the calculation of her net worth. Further, Respondent

disclosed property as an asset that was not in her name on the reporting date.

Accordingly, Respondent did not file a fu ll and public disclosure of her financial

interests with respect to her 2017 Form 6, in violation of Article II, Section 8 and

section 112.3144. The Commission proved the violation by clear and convincing

evidence.

7 3 . Section 112.317(1)(a) specifies pena lties applicable to Ñ[a]ny violation of this

part,Ò which include Ñ[p]ublic censure and reprimand Ò ; and Ñ[a] civil penalty not to

exceed $10,000.Ò

7 4 . The Commission has a duty to Ñrecommend appropriate action to the proper

disciplinary official,Ò with re spect to this case, under section 112.324(8) . In

accordance with that duty, the Commission has recommended that Respondent

receive a public censure and reprimand along with a civil penalty of $15,000 ($5,000

per violation), which the undersigned finds appr opriate and within the CommissionÔs

authority under the facts of this case.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that

Respondent, Daphne C ampbell, violated Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution,

and s ection 112.3144, Florida Statutes, on three separate occasions and

recommending the imposition of a public censure and reprimand, and a civil penalty

of $15,000 ($5,000 per violation).

D O NE A ND E NTERED this 19th day of November, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

B RITTANY O. F INKBEINER

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.stat e.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 19th day of November, 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Millie Wells Fulford, Agency Clerk Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Florida Commission on Ethics Office of the Attorney General

Post Office Drawer 15709 Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709 The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

James Jean - Francois, Esquire Caroline Marsh Klancke, General Counsel

Law Offices Of James Jean - Francois Florida Commission on Ethics

Suite 211 - A Post Office Box 15709

6100 Hollywood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

Hollywood, Florida 33024

Christopher Anderson, III

Executive Director

Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317

N OTICE OF R IGH T T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date

of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be

filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.