22-000053EC In Re: Jeffrey M. Siskind vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, August 3, 2022.

Summary: Clear and convincing evidence did not support a finding that Respondent violated article II, section 8 of the Florida Constitution, and section 112.3144, Florida Statutes.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

I N R E : J EFFREY M. S ISKIND ,

Case No. 22 - 0053EC

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was conduc ted in this case by video conference

via Zoom on March 16, 2022, before Administrative Law Judge June C. McKinney of

the Division of Administrative Hearings ( Ñ DOAH Ò ).

A PPEARANCES

For Advocate : Melody A. Hadley, Esquire

Office of the Attorney Genera l

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

For Respondent: Jeffrey Marc Siskind, Esquire

Siskind Legal, PLLC

3465 Santa Barbara Drive

Wellington, Florida 33414

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE S

The issue s in this case are whether Respondent Jeffrey M. Siskind ( Ñ Respondent Ò

or Ñ Siskind Ò ) violated a rticle II, s ection 8 of the Florida Constitution , and

s ection 112.3144, Florida Statutes, by filing an inaccurate CE Form 6, Ñ Full and

Public Disclosure of Financial Inter ests, Ò for the year 2017 ; and, if so, what is the

appropriate penalty.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On October 30, 2019, the Florida Commission on Ethics ( Ñ Commission Ò ) issued an

Order Finding Probable Cause Ñ that there is probable cause to believe that the

Resp ondent, as a candidate for Attorney General, violated Article II, Section 8,

Florida Constitution, and Section 112.3144, Florida Statutes, by filing an inaccurate

2017 CE Form 6, Ó Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests. Ô Ò

The Order Finding Prob able Cause against Respondent was referred to DOAH on

January 6, 2022.

On January 19, 2022, the case was scheduled for hearing on March 16, 2022. The

final hearing proceeded as scheduled.

On March 8, 2022, Advocate for the Commission ( Ñ Advocate Ò ) and Res pondent

jointly filed a Joint Prehearing Stipulation, in which they identified stipulated facts

for which no further proof would be necessary, and the relevant facts stipulated

therein are accepted and made part of the Findings of Fact below.

At the hear ing, the Advocate presented the testimony of two witnesses: Siskind

and Robert Furr. Advocate Exhibits numbered 12, 13, 18, and 19 were admitted into

evidence.

Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Joshua

Angell. Responden t Ô s Exhibits numbered 1 through 6 , 8 , and 9 were admitted into

evidence .

During the hearing, J oint Exhibits 1 and 2 were entered into evidence.

At the close of the hearing, the parties requested an extended deadline of 30 days

following receipt of the hearing transcript by DOAH to file post - hearing submittals. 1

1 By agreeing to an extended deadline for post - hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of

the transcript, the parties waived the 30 - day timeframe for issuance of the Recommended Order. S ee

Fla. Admin. Code R. 28 - 106.216.

The proceedings were transcribed , and the one - volume Transcript was filed at

DOAH on May 2, 2022 .

That same day, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Case. On May 3, 2022,

Advocate filed a res ponse. On May 5, 2022, the undersigned denied the Motion to

Dismiss Case.

On June 1, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File

Proposed Recommended Orders ( Ñ Motion Ò ). The undersigned granted the Motion.

Both parties filed their proposed recommended orders, which have been carefully

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the versions in effect at the

time of the alleged violations.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. Resp ondent was a candidate for Florida Attorney General in 2018.

2. As a candidate for Florida Attorney General in 2018, Respondent was subject to

a rticle II, s ection 8 of the Florida Constitution, and was subject to the requirements

of c hapter 112, part III, Code of Ethics. 2

3. Respondent was required to file a CE Form 6, Ñ Full and Public Disclosure of

Financial Interests , Ò for the year 2017.

4. On June 21, 2018, Siskind utilized the wrong form by submitting the 2016 CE

Form 6.

5. On or about June 22, 2018, S iskind corrected the form filed in error on June 21,

2018, and filed the correct version, 2017 CE Form 6 ( Ñ Form 6 Ò ) , for the year 2017. By

2 Respondent stipulated in paragraph 2 of the Joint Prehearing Stipulation th at he is subject to

a rticle II, s ection 8 of the Florida Constitution , and the requirements of c hapter 112 , part III , Code of

Ethics , by virtue of his position as a candidate for Florida Attorney General in 2018 .

his notarized signature on the form, Respondent affirmed under oath that the

information disclosed, therein, was Ñ tr ue, accurate, and complete. Ò

6. Form 6 has instructions to assist with the completion of the form.

7. Respondent read and understood the instructions for Form 6 prior to

completing and filing the form.

8. Respondent prepared and filled out his Form 6.

9 . Form 6 comprises six parts: Part A, Net Worth; Part B, Assets; Part C,

Liabilities; Part D, Income; Part E, Interests in Specified Businesses; and Part F,

Training .

10. The instructions for Part A , under the heading Ñ Net Worth , Ò provide , in

relevant par t:

Report your net worth as of December 31, 2017, or a more

current date, and list that date. This should be the same

date used to value your assets and liabilities. In order to

determine your net worth, you will need to total 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 ne t worth figure in most cases.

11. On Form 6 , under Ñ Part A Ï Net Worth, Ò Respondent listed his net worth as

$2,120,035.77.

12. Respondent used June 20, 2018, as his reporting date for Form 6.

13. The instructions for Part B , under the heading Ñ ASSETS WORTH MORE

THAN $1,000 , Ò provide , in relevant part:

Describe, and state the value of, each asset you had on the

reporting date you selected for your net worth in Part A, if

the asset was worth more than $1,000 and if you have not

already included that asset in the aggregate value of your

household good and personal effects. Assets include, but

are not limited to, things like interests in real property;

cash; stocks; bonds; certificates of deposit; interests in

businesses; beneficial interests in trusts; money owed you;

bank accounts; Deferred Retirement Option Program

(DROP) accounts; and t he Florida Prepaid College Plan È .

How to Value Assets:

- Value each asset by its fair market value on the date used

in Part A for your net worth.

* * *

- Trusts: You are deemed to own an interest in a trust

which corresponds to your percentage interest in the trust

corpus.

* * *

- Closely - held businesses : Use any method of valuation

which in your judgment most closely approximates fair

market value, such as book value, reproduction value,

liquidation value, capitalized earnings value, c apitalized

cash flow value, or value established by Ñ buy - out Ò

agreements . It is suggested that the method of valuation

chosen be indicated on the form.

14. On Form 6, Respondent disclosed the following assets and values: Western

Credit Resolution Trust ( Ñ Trust Ò ) $5,574,554.20; Loan $5,500.00; Bank Account Ð

Florida Community Bank $2,000.00; and Bank Account Ð Wells Fargo $2,311.55.

15. Respondent included the value of the Trust in his computation of the net

worth . However, Respondent did not list the method us ed to value the Trust as

suggested by the form Ô s instructions.

16. Respondent created a Trust on or about June 10, 2018.

17. CannaMed Pharmaceuticals, LLC ( Ñ CannaMed Ò ) , is the only asset of the

Trust . The Trust formation document provides:

The Trust Corpu s shall be the property, both real and

personal, and rights to property which the Settlor has or

shall fund into the Trust, net of any and all debts

appertaining thereto ( Ñ Property Ò ), which Trust Property

shall initially consist of Property which the Settl or conveys

to the Trust. The Settlor hereby irrevocably assigns to the

Trust all the Settlor Ô s title and interest in CannaMed

Pharmaceuticals, LLC ( Ñ CannaMED Ò ), a Maryland limited

liability company, equal to five percent (5%) of the member

interest in Cann aMED, and all of the Settlor Ô s one hundred

percent (100%) title and interest in Chance & Anthem,

LLC, a Florida limited liability company ( Ñ C&A [Ò ]), which

in turn owns seventy percent (70%) of the member interest

in CannaMED.

18. CannaMed is a Maryland li mited liability corporation formed to pursue a

medical cannabis license in response to a request for applications from the Maryland

Medical Cannabis Commission.

19. CannaMed was denied a medical cannabis license by the State of Maryland.

20. After being de nied a license by Maryland, CannaMed filed for a United States

Drug Enforcement Administration ( Ñ DEA Ò ) cannabis license . The DEA application

was still pending at the time of the hearing in CannaMed Ô s current name, NuCanna

Pharmaceuticals, LLC.

21. As of Ju ne 20, 2018, CannaMed did not have a Maryland or any other state

license to enter into a business regarding medical cannabis.

22. A Maryland cannabis business cannot conduct business legally without a

license in Maryland.

23. As of June 20, 2018, CannaMed did not have a DEA license to enter into a

business regarding medical cannabis.

24. A cannabis business cannot conduct business legally on the federal level

without a license issued by the DEA.

25. As of June 20, 2018, CannaMed Ô s business transactions inc luded an appeal to

the denial of the Maryland license and the pending DEA cannabis license application .

Chance & Anthem, LLC

26. Respondent owns Chance & Anthem, LLC, a company used as funding for two

profits.

27. On or about January 29, 2018, Chance & An them, LLC , filed for bankruptcy

in the State of Maryland.

28. In May 2018, the bankruptcy case was transferred to the Southern District of

Florida.

29. Robert Furr ( Ñ Furr Ò ) is a Florida Bar member who is a bankruptcy attorney

and bankruptcy panel trustee for the United States Trustees Program for the

Southern District of Florida . Approximately since 1990, Furr has been appointed to

Chapter s 7s, 11s, and 12s as a bankruptcy trustee in South Florida .

30. In bankruptcy cases, Furr is responsible for assets , and , as trustee , he takes

the place of the debtor . Furr is responsible for administering assigned bankruptcy

cases to recover, collect , and sell assets for the benefit of creditors.

31. On or about May 25, 2018, Furr was appointed as bankruptcy trustee a ssigned

to administer the assets of Chance & Anthem, LLC.

32. As part of the bankruptcy case, the debtor is required to file a schedule of its

creditors and a Statement of Financial Affairs.

33. On February 12, 2018, Respondent filed an Official Form 202 in the

bankruptcy case, where he listed CannaMed as an asset and valued it at $1,000. 00.

34. On April 24, 2018, Respondent amended the schedule and changed the value

for CannaMed to $14,000,000. 00.

35. Furr reviewed the value of Chance & Anthem, LLC Ô s , assets , including

CannaMed , while working on the bankruptcy case.

36. On July 9, 2018, at the 341 Meeting of Creditors, Respondent informed Furr

that CannaMed never had income, explained CannaMed had no business operations,

and said it was more or less a shell company.

37. Respondent was also deposed on September 5, 2018, and on December 19,

2019, in the bankruptcy case and questioned about CannaMed.

38. After the 341 Meeting of Creditors and depositions, Furr , with his accountant ,

determined that CannaM ed never had any revenues, expenditures for its employees,

or facilities , and was only a license application . Furr concluded that CannaMed was

worthless and had no value.

Hearing

39. At the hearing, Furr testified that CannaMed was a business that attempt ed

to start but never got off the ground and had no assets.

40. Furr admitted , at hearing , that he could not legally administer any assets for

CannaMed because , if it was a valid cannabis - related business, the policy of the

United States Trustee Office pr ohibits the administration of such assets.

41. Furr also acknowledged on cross - examination that he has never had a

business with a pending application for a license as an asset come up in his

experience as a bankruptcy trustee and testified, Ñ I don Ô t know the value one way or

the other. I have never seen it. Ò

42. Furr further explained , at hearing , that his accountant did not perform a

valuation for CannaMed, but just discussed whether he thought CannaMed had any

value. After CannaMed was reviewed in the b ankruptcy case, it was determined

there was no value to it , and Furr decided Siskind Ô s explanation was pure

speculation.

43. Furr also testified that the no value determination was based on CannaMed Ô s

complete lack of hard assets, business, cash, license, and nothing in existence . Furr

testified that CannaMed was a market projection at the beginning of something that

could have worth if certain things happened.

44. At hearing, Respondent presented expert testimony from Joshua Angell

( Ñ Angell Ò ), the s enior managing director of the Valuation Services and Economic

Damages Group of Ellrich, Neal, Smith & Stohlman . Angell is a Certified Public

Accountant with credentials as a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior

Appraiser, and accredited in business v aluation by the American Institute of

Certified Public Accountants.

45. Angell Ô s job duties include overseeing all valuations done at his firm . Angell

testified that he has been performing valuations since 2009 . He explained that he has

evaluated hundreds of businesses, including early - stage companies similar to

CannaMed.

46. Angell testified that to prepare for the hearing, his CannaMed review

included: Form 6, budgets; pro forma budget prepared for the Maryland Medical

Cannabis Commission; forecasted pro forma operational or projected build - out and

projected full build - out costs; the operation profit and loss statement ( Ñ P&L Ò ) for the

grower facility and the cultivation facility; phase 1 and 2 operational P&L; and the

three - phase operation summary.

47. A ngell also testified that he reviewed the set of instructions attached to

Form 6 , including page 4, which provided directions on how to value assets and

closely - held companies.

48. At the hearing, Angell explained the Form 6 , page 4 , instructions for clos ely -

held businesses in detail . He testified that the instructions direct any method of

valuation be used that most closely approximates fair market value . He detailed that

using the word Ñ approximates Ò in the directions is different from directions that sa y

Ñ estimate value Ò or Ñ determine value Ò because the American Society of Appraisers

standards require limited procedures and review and limited documents to

Ñ approximate fair market value. Ò

49. Angell further testified that fair market value is a standard of value that a

hypothetical buyer would pay a hypothetical seller at a cash equivalent price of the

thing of value.

50. Angell also testified that there are different methodologies for valuation , and a

different methodology might be used for different sc enarios based on what is trying to

be determined.

51. Angell admitted , at hearing , that he did not appraise CannaMed or verify any

of the figures provided to him by Respondent, but he just reviewed the numbers

provided to access the methodology used by Re spondent.

52. Angell testified that Siskind used several appropriate and generally

acceptable methodologies in arriving at his valuation of CannaMed. Angell credibly

explained , in detail , that first, Siskind properly used the Venture Capital Method, by

a capitalization of earnings value to derive the $40 million . Angell went on to explain

that Siskind then accurately applied a probability factor to the $40 million, a method

commonly used for early - stage companies called the Probability - Weighted Expected

Re turn Model or scenario method . Next, Angell testified that to estimate the value of

the trust, Siskind properly deducted the liabilities to get a net asset value, another

commonly accepted method of valuation.

53. Angell further explained that Siskind pro perly applied a 75 percent , or one in

four , likelihood of not being awarded the license as part of the calculation in his

valuation . Angell testified it is a generally accepted method to apply the likelihood of

not being successful to the valuation to make it accurate for an early - stage company

like CannaMed that might not be successful.

54. Angell also testified and explained that Siskind complied with the instructions

on page 4 of Form 6 for an early - stage company . Angell made clear that an early -

stage co mpany is usually one so early in development that it does n o t really have a

viable product, is usually developing a product and has not begun operations yet to

generate revenue, or the company may even be in the concept stage . Angell testified

that CannaMe d is an early - stage company.

55. Angell explained further that it is not unusual to ascribe a value to an early -

stage company without revenue reports . He testified that one can Ñ value pre - revenue

companies. Ò

56. Angell also explained , at the hearing , that fair market value includes any

assets or liabilities, including contingent assets a business will yield and liabilities .

He testified that capitalized earnings value is based on future earnings . He

explained, Ñ almost every valuation is based upon what the business is expected to

produce in the future. Ò

57. Angell testified that a company could have a pending license and have a fair

market value because there is a probability that it may be awarded the license . He

persuasively explained that even if the co mpany is not commercially viable yet ,

because it is contingent on the outcome, it will have a very significant value.

58. Angell also testified about the value of a company without revenue and with

minimal assets . He detailed that he even ran a list of pu blicly listed marijuana

businesses that had no revenue and minimal assets , and he explained credibly, at

hearing, that the values ranged significantly from as low as $250,000 .00 to as high as

$500 million, with a median of $9 million, which he testified is in line with Siskind Ô s

valuation of CannaMed.

59. At hearing, Siskind credibly testified that CannaMed never had any revenues,

cash transfers, taxes, expenditures for its own employees, or facilities . It was merely

an applicant waiting to obtain a licens e, at which time it will conduct cannabis

business in and for itself.

60. Respondent explained further that Chance & Anthem, LLC , was the funding

agent for CannaMed and paid all the expenses related to CannaMed Ô s undertakings .

He detailed that Chance & An them, LLC , paid the lease purchase on the property

that was purchased from Machining Technologies for $950,000 .00 . He explained

further how the property was financed through a lease - purchase agreement and

$300,000 .00 cash was put down on a building that an other limited liability

corporation purchased . Respondent testified that Alan Baez Ô s company financed the

remaining purchase price, $650,000. 00.

61. Respondent testified that CannaMed Ô s business plan included buying out the

limited liability corporation wh en it obtained the cannabis license to become facility

owner.

62. Respondent described CannaMed Ô s first facility as a seven - acre industrial

facility with a 47,000 plus square feet building on it, and 10,000 square feet built out

as office space.

63. Resp ondent explained that after CannaMed did not get a Maryland license,

Chance & Anthem, LLC , continued to carry the building for another six months.

64. At the hearing, Siskind also candidly explained CannaMed Ô s ownership

structure. He testified that Chance & Anthem, LLC , owned 70 percent of CannaMed,

which Respondent valued at $7 million . Respondent also owned Ñ JMS Ò share, five

percent of CannaMed, which Respondent valued at $500,000. 00.

65. Respondent also explained that JMS Ô s five percent and Chance & Anth em ,

LLC Ô s , 70 percent were assigned to the Trust.

66. On cross - examination , Siskind credibly testified that , at the time of the

hearing , there were still shares in CannaMed Ô s treasury because not all the

25 percent was distributed . He explained that the l ast unit was sold for a quarter of a

point to Robert Smith for $25,000. 00.

67. Respondent also testified that Chance & Anthem, LLC , was placed in

Chapter 7 bankruptcy . He explained credibly that the April 24, 2018, $14 million

CannaMed amendment to the sch edule in the bankruptcy case was based upon a

50 percent risk premium assigned to a $28 million valuation, which was 70 percent of

CannaMed Ô s gross valuation of $40 million owned by the debtor, Chance & Anthem,

LLC.

68. At hearing, Siskind also testified that a service was hired, which provided

three attorneys to support him on the CannaMed Maryland application project . The

attorneys Ô backgrounds varied and included experience with previously working at a

California cannabis operation before it opened, man aging a California cannabis

operation, and accounting and floor management for a casino business.

69. Siskind credibly explained how he arrived at the CannaMed valuation at the

hearing . Siskind testified that the numbers for the CannaMed valuation were ta ken

as a guide from the actual build - out expenses and operation revenues and expenses

from a 2009 California cannabis business that was a smaller facility constructed and

in operation that Respondent had been involved in previously .

70. Siskind explained that Respondent Ô s Exhibit 1, which included the start - up

costs, build - out numbers and operating figures, expense accounts, and projected

revenues , w as used to calculate CannaMed Ô s value. He testified reasonably that the

numbers were adjusted based on the d ifference in facility size by imputing economies

of scale and additional expenses for the entire research aspect of CannaMed Ô s

undertaking, which differed from the California project. Siskind testified that the

calculation of it all totaled a $40 million g ross valuation set against a 25 percent

chance of success. He credibly explained that the 25 percent was the required risk

premium allowed for a one - in - four probability factor that CannaMed would obtain a

full - flight operation.

71. Siskind Ô s application o f the 25 percent to the $40 million gross valuation

reduced CannaMed Ô s value to $10 million.

72. Siskind testified that the net asset value for the Trust for Form 6 is

$5,574,554.20. He explained that he arrived at the value by deducting the liabilities 3

p lus the 25 percent trustee fee and the JMS share of $500,000 .00 from Chance &

Anthem, LLC Ô s , $7 million.

73. Siskind correctly followed instructions on page 4 and approximated fair

market value for Cann a Med. Siskind also properly arrived at $5,574,554.20, which

he listed in the Trust Ô s asset and value column, and accurately utilized the Trust net

asset value to calculate his net worth on Form 6.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

74. DOAH has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. §§ 120 .569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (202 1 ) .

75. The Commission is authorized to conduct investigations and make public

reports on complaints concerning violations of chapter 112, part III, Code of Ethics.

§ 112.322, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 34 - 5.0015.

76 . The party asserting the affirmative of the issues in a proceeding bears the

burden of proof. Dep Ô t of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co. , Inc ., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA

1981) ; and Balino v. Dep Ô t of HRS, 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) . In this

proceeding, the Commission, through its Advocate, is asserting the affirmative

regarding Respondent Ô s purported violations of a rticle II, s ection 8 of the Florida

Constitution, and section 112.3144.

77. Commission proceedings seeking recommended penalties against a publi c

officer require proof of the alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence.

Latham v. Fla. Comm Ô n on Ethics , 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) . To that end,

Advocate has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence

Respondent Ô s alleg ed violations.

78. As stated by the Supreme Court of Florida:

Clear and convincing evidence requires that the evidence

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

3 RespondentÔs Exhibit 1 details the liabi lities.

witnesses testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and lacking in confusion as to

the facts at 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 to be established.

In re Henso n , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So.

2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).

79. Article II, s ection 8 of the Florida Constitution , provides as follows, in relevant

part:

Ethics in government. Ð A public office is a public trus t.

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 emplo yees shall file full and public

disclosure of their financial interests.

* * *

(f) There shall be an independent commission to conduct

investigations and make public reports on all complaints

concerning breach of public trust by public officer s or

employees not within the jurisdiction of the judicial

qualifications commission.

* * *

(i) Schedule Ð On the effective date of this amendment and

until changed by law:

(1) Full and public disclosure 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 person Ô s most recent federal in come 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.

80. Section 112.3144 provides as follows, in relevant part:

Full and public disclosure of financial interests. Ð

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

Constitution to file a full and public disclosure of his or her

financial interests for any calendar or fiscal year shall file

that disclosure with the Florida Commission on Ethics È .

81. In paragraph 34 of Advocate Ô s Proposed Reco mmended Order, Advocate

contends that : Ñ Respondent Ô s valuation of the Trust was inaccurate . Respondent

failed to properly disclose this asset, and thus, his net worth as required by Article II,

Section 8, Florida Constitution, and Section 112. 3144, Florid a Statutes, on his

2017 CE Form 6. Ò

82. Advocate relies on the Chance & Anthem, LLC , bankruptcy proceeding and

Furr Ô s testimony as the focal point of this case to advance the position that

CannaMed is worthless, has no value, and Respondent filled out an i naccurate

Form 6. The undersigned is not persuaded by such an allegation because the

evidence does not support such an assertion. Even though the Advocate presented

evidence that Furr determined CannaMed had no worth in the bankruptcy case, the

record show s that the appraisal done in the bankruptcy proceeding that set the zero

value was determined after discussions between Furr and his accountant . The

credible evidence at the hearing demonstrates that various valuation methodologies

are each used for differ ent scenarios . In order to adequately make a comparison of

values between the bankruptcy case and CannaMed Ô s Form 6 valuation, the same

valuation methodology would have to have been utilized . The evidence does not

support that the bankruptcy case used the same valuation method as Respondent did

for the Form 6 . Therefore, the undersigned is unable to accept the zero value in the

bankruptcy case as valuation for CannaMed Ô s valuation for Form 6 since different

methodologies were used to determine each valuatio n.

83. In i t s Proposed Recommended Order, Advocate also maintains that

Respondent Ô s valuation is Ñ a complete fiction, Ò that he inflated the value of his assets

at his convenience, fabricated his financial status, and is not providing his accurate

net worth . However, the record fails to demonstrate such , and Advocate Ô s position is

unsupported by competent evidence. Contrary to Advocate Ô s claims, the evidence at

hearing demonstrated that Respondent correctly used several appropriate and

generally accepted met hodologies in his valuation of CannaMed . No evidence or

counter opinions were presented at the hearing to rebut Respondent Ô s methodologies

or valuation for Form 6 . The record also demonstrates that Respondent followed the

page 4 instructions, which require d that he Ñ in [his] judgment most closely

approximate fair market value. Ò Allowing those who fill out Form 6 to use their own

judgment also provides the individual latitude. Additionally, the Form 6 instructions

neither required that Respondent perform a f ormal valuation nor did it instruct him

to go to a professional to have the valuation done . Respondent established by

unrefuted and uncontested evidence CannaMed Ô s gross valuation and the net value

for the Trust. Therefore, the undisputed evidence demonstr ates that CannaMed and

the Trust Ô s valuation for Form 6 are accurate.

84. Advocate also advances Respondent Ô s Form 6 is inaccurate because

Respondent Ô s figures used in the valuation were not correct . Advocate contends that

Angell neither appraised CannaMed nor vouched for the figures Respondent used .

Even so, Advocate also failed to appraise the Form 6 figures at the hearing . No

evidence was presented to rebut or show that Respondent Ô s figures were incorrect .

Instead, Respondent Ô s valuation at the hearing w as unchallenged by any other

opinions and without any contrary, alternate, or contradictory figures, facts, or

evidence in the record . Therefore, the uncontested evidence establishes CannaMed Ô s

figures were accurate.

85. Lastly, Advocate contends Responden t Ô s Form 6 is inaccurate because

CannaMed has no assets and no value because CannaMed is only a state application

that was denied and a pending federal license application, relying on future earnings .

The record does not support Advocate Ô s contention becau se the evidence at the

hearing established that an early - stage company can have significant value without

assets , and early - stage companies can be appraised without revenue . Also, the selling

of units by CannaMed, including the quarter of a point to Robert Smith for

$25,000 .00 , further supports CannaMed has value . The record is also void of evidence

to rebut any values presented at the hearing for CannaMed Ô s shares . It is also

important to note that page 4 of the instructions list s Ñ capitalized earnings val ue Ò as

a valuation method that can be used for valuation of a closely - held business . Angell

opined , at hearing , that capitalized earnings value is based on future earnings . The

unrebutted competent expert testimony also opined that Respondent Ô s valuation o f

CannaMed for Form 6 fell in line with the marijuana businesses with no revenue and

minimal assets from Angell Ô s report . To that end, Respondent established an

unrebutted CannaMed valuation at the hearing.

86. As set forth in the F indings of F act above, t he evidence, taken as a whole,

demonstrates that Respondent properly followed the instructions on page 4, used

generally accepted methodologies, and accurately valued CannaMed . The record

establishes that CannaMed is the only asset in the Trust , and the va luation of the

Trust is accurate. Therefore, Respondent properly disclosed $5,574,554.20 for the

Trust Ô s net asset value and his net worth on Form 6. Accordingly, Advocate failed to

prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated a rticle II , s ection 8

of the Florida Constitution, or section 112.3144. 4

R ECOMMENDATION

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

R E COMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics issue a final order and public report

4 It is unnecessary for the undersigned to rule on RespondentÔs claim that section 112.3144 fails to

apply to candidates since the Advocate did not meet its burden to prove th at Form 6 was inaccurate,

the threshold issue in this matter.

determining that Responden t, Jeffrey Marc Siskind, did not commit a violation of

a rticle II, s ection 8 of the Florida Constitution , or section 112.3144.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 3rd day of August , 2022 , in Tallahassee, Leon County,

Florida.

S

J UNE C. M CKINNEY

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 3rd day of August , 2022 .

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 The Capitol , Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

Elizabeth A. Miller, Esquire Jeffrey Marc Siskind, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General Siskind Legal, PLLC

The Capitol , Plaza Level 01 3465 Santa Barbara Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050 Wellington, Florida 33414

Kerrie Stillman, Exec ut ive Director Steven Zuilkowski, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Ethics Florida Commission on Ethics

Post Office Drawer 15709 Post Office Drawer 15709

Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 - 5709

N OTICE OF R IGHT 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.