WILLIAM SEICOLA June 29, 2020 Attention: Ronald Rubin C/O Michael R. Tein tein@teinmalone.com Tein Malone PLLC 3059 Grand Ave Ste 340 Coconut Grove, FL 33133-5156 Re: Demand Letter to Cease and Desist Unlawful Perjury of Public Official Mr. Rubin: You are receiving this correspondence because you have made criminally false statements amounting to perjury against a public official in violation chapter 837, Florida Statutes. Section, 837.06, Florida Statutes, makes it a criminal offense to “knowingly make” a false statement in ‘writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his or her official duty.” Additionally, section 837.02, Florida Statutes, makes ita crime to “make” a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any mat matter.” Section 837.05, Florida Statutes, makes it a crime to give false information to law enforcement. Violations of chapter 837, Florida Statutes, can be enforced through a civil remedy pursuant to sections 772.104 and 772.102(1)(a)27., Florida Statutes. The facts show that you waged a campaign of character assassination in violation of the several provisions of law stated above as an act of retaliation against Florida’s Chief Financial Officer, Jimmy T. Patronis (“CFO Patronis”) because he ordered a state Inspector General investigation into claims of sexual harassment and misconduct made against you during your service to the State of Florida. Your smear campaign included patently false and inflammatory statements against CFO Patronis, clearly designed to distract from the numerous allegations of inappropriate behavior against you. These numerous allegations led to the release of an Inspector General report citing 13 counts of misconduct, and ultimately resulted in your removal from your role as Director of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation by the Governor and Cabinet. You knowingly broke the law by inventing charges of criminal activity against CFO Patronis, including the assertion that he participated in a statewide criminal network of bribery and extortion. Attempting to givelegitimacy to these accusations, you filed documents with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Florida Attorney General’s Office, Florida’s Chief Inspector General, and Florida Department of Financial Services’ (“Department”) Inspector Generals Office, that falsely accuse several public officials of engaging in extortion and bribery, Specifically, on July 15, 2019, you and your attomeys sent a letter to the Florida Governor and Cabinet. See Attachment A. In this letter, you and your legal counsel, Michael Tein, falsely allege: CFO Patronis’ demand that the Cabinet Terminate Commissioner Rubin is retaliation for Rubin's complaints about Patronis’ illegal conduct. Contrary to what Mr. Patronis claimed, the Inspector General had not issued any ‘preliminary findings.” Rather, 12 days earlier, he had circulated a preliminary “report” without any factual findings. The Governor and Cabinet are public servants, The above statements made by you and your attomey, Michael Tein, are demonstrably false. CFO Patronis’ demand for the Cabinet to convene and terminate your employment was based on the independent OFR Inspector General’s numerous ‘findings in his preliminary report. Additionally, every action CFO Patronis took in response to your conduct was made under the independent legal advice of his then General Counsel, Peter Penrod. In fact, CFO Patronis made it publicly known that he was calling for your termination because of (1) your retaliatory attacks on victims and (2) the numerous findings in the preliminary inspector general report. See Attachment B, Thus, you and your attorney, Michael Tein, made knowingly false statements in an attempt to smear CFO Patronis and mislead public officials, law enforcement, the media, and the public at large. You have engaged in the attempted character assassination of CFO Patronis for nearly a year, During this time period, at least two independent bodies have determined that there is no evidence to support your outrageous allegations of criminal conspiracy, thus making it clear that your removal from your position of statewide leadership by votes of the Governor of Florida and Florida’s Attorney General, along with CFO Patronis, were because of the numerous offenses you committed that were well documented in the Inspector General report into your actions, Therefore, CFO Patronis demands that you recant your false, perjurious, and illegal allegations of criminal wrongdoing against CFO Patronis. If you do not, CFO Patronis will take all available measures to protect his legal rights, including suing you for perjury and seeking, damages and the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. CFO Patronis has no interest in a monetary settlement, and any monetary damages recovered against you will be donated by him to charities that support victims of sexual harassment. CFO Patronis called for an investigation into your wrongdoing because the voices of the brave individuals willing to speak out about your misconduct deserved to be heard. He will keep 2fighting for them. He will not allow you to silence them and undermine the credibility of their complaints against you as you ridiculously mischaracterize your removal from office by the Governor, Attomey General and CFO as a criminal conspiracy; your own poor judgment and predatory behavior re solely, to blame. (Spicola ‘for Treasure Florida Florida Bar Number: 70732 Post Office Box 664 Tallahassee, FL 32302 850-895-1056Attachment ATEIN MALONE 1. WER duly 15, 2019 COMMISSIONER RONALD RUBIN’S INVOCATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATORY TERMINATION Yo the Florida Governor and Cabinet: CFO Patronis' demand that the Cabinet terminate Commissioner Rubin is retaliation for Rubin's complaints about Patronis’ illegal conduct Rubin's complaints and his continued employment are protected by Florida’s Whistleblower Act, F.S. § 112.3187 ef seq. Accordingly, the Governor and Cabinet cannot lawfully terminate Commissioner Rubin at the next, or any, Cabinet meeting. Following is a timeline of the pertinent complaints and retaliation 1 February through April 2019: As previously documented, Rubin refused to engage in illegal conduct at the request of CFO Patronis and his criminal enterprise. Specifically, Rubin refused to enable $1 million in campaign contributions or hire Patronis joyalisis as *payback" for Patronis’ vote to confirm Rubin as OFR Commissioner 2. May 28: Rubin lodged a protected Whistleblower Act Complaint by emailing an 1)-page disclosure of Patronis’ illegal and unethical conduct to OFR Inspector General Bradley Perry: Soe it cenin aprile ‘Ax eaplained below. I believe that this investigation isthe product oF ei ck and Mr. Grippa iv take political advamiage of a varcemsinfarmalls verced by MRIREE in foteempl te force ine 10 resign #5 comnmissioncr, which Lave been oneiling 10 do This Whistleblower Complaint was widely publicized 159 Grand Avenue. Coconut Grove, Florida 35133 ‘owe temmelene com (S08 442 1101+ May 29: CFO Patronis retaliated agaist Rubin's complain by issuing a press release demanding for the first time that Rubin ‘immediately resign.” Patronis added, “If | could remove Mr. Rubin fiom office myself, | would” “After a briefing of the Inspector General's preliminary findings of the vecent allegations Against Mi Rubin and reviewing newly: published news ‘eports including those of sexual arassment allegations at his previous job, |am requesting that he immediately esign tne position of Commissioner for the Office of Financial Regulation Contrary to what Mr. Patronis claimed, the Inspector General had not issued any “preliminary findings.” Rather, 12 days earlier, he had circulated a preliminary “report” without any factual findings Thus, there was no new information ~ other than Rubin's protected complaint - that warranted any new adverse employment action, much less calling for Rubin's resignation 4 June 21: Rubin, through counsel, again complained about Patronis’ legal conduct, this time to the Chief Inspector General and to members of the Cabinet Dene Governor DeSantis We respectfully request that you direct! Fonda's Chief inspector General to uussume jurisdiction ove: the pending investigation of OFR Commissioner Ram Rubin’ andi open an investigation mo heal corroborated evidence of misuse ‘of pubhe office by CRO Jimmy Patronis and his inner circ. In violation of Pia Stat g€ 836.08 Whreats and extortion} 698.016 (unlawful compensation reward for offal hehavion and 839.26 (ensuite of configential RE Ron Rubin | Wear General Miguel We sespectfully request that you assume jurisdiction over the pending snvestigation of OFR Commissioner Ron Rubin and open an investigation into hxavily correhoreted evidence of misuse of publ ulfee by CPO Junin Patrons wn hie inner ewele. lation of Fla Stat §§ 83005 (thrects and extortionl, 38416 (uniewtal | fompensation oF cewacd for official behaves) and 638.26 (misuse of contidental information)‘These letters disclosed My Patronis’ unlawful + Disclosure of a confidential complaint for political gain « Corrupt “pay to play” enterprise; and Use of scandalous allegations agains! non-compliant officials aly 11 (after hours). Upon learning about imminent reporting of new evidence corroborating Rubin's complaints, Mi escalated his retaliation against Rubin. This time he demani Patronis ded Rubin's termination ~ not just resignation -- by asking the Cabinet to place a "Vote on removal of Commissioner Rubin” on its next agenda. Mischaracterizing the 1G's May report as containing new “findings of inappropriate behavior,” Patronis blasted, “It is time for the Cabinet tc act to terminate his employment” ce the aged lr ott aber ene: meteg ent ne tent Lass ir 2 Sten aponnrn ere Conmion: 8 ate on pet fecparmane ape meet IM Rube ane hs aacares hve poly dageraged veers, od {10 Pron concise etentst ‘euler anos vats and sou) ete OM erloyes sed on tes Mr an th at Patronis’ claim that Rubin “publicly disparaged victims” blatantly false and pretextual was Likewise, Patronis had no good-faith grounds to sow fear of Rubin's “potential retaliation against vietims" (and he alleged none)Conclusion Prigt to Commissioner Rubin's May 28 complaint to the OFR IG and bis shine 21 voniplaits 10 the Chief IG and Cabinet members, M1 Pationis, had demanded neither Rubin's resignation nor his firing: rather, only an ‘investigation Thus, Mr. Patronis’ recent demand to terminate Rubin's employment at the next Cabinet meeting is unlawful retaliation for Rubin's complaints, which are absolutely protected under Florida's Whistleblower Act Wherefore, Commissioner Ronald Rubin respectfully requests protection from unlawful retaltatory discharge under Florida’s Whistleblower Act. fs Michael R. Tein Counse! to Commissioner Rubin Copies to Governor Members of the Cabinet Chief Inspector General OFR Inspector GeneralAttachment BCHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER JIMMY PATRONIS ‘STATE OF FLORIDA August 16,2019 Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Re: Rubin v. Department of Financial Services FCHR Case No. 201920849 ‘To Whom It May Concern: On August 9, 2019, the Department of Financial Services submitted its response to Complainant's complaint in FCAR Case No. 201920849 (the “Complaint”), The Department further submits for your consideration the enclosed Department Inspector General’s Whistle-blower Complaint Assessment (the “Assessment™), which was performed independently by the Department Inspector General at the request of the Chief Inspector General. The Assessment evaluates Complainant's allegations (which are identical to those giving rise to the Complaint) and concludes that ‘Complainant is not a Whistle-blower and no further investigation is warranted. ‘Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 850-413-2898 or at Peter. Penrod @myfloridacfo.com. Respectfully Submitted, Leuses hive For Peter Penrod General Counsel enc, Supplemental Exhibit List Whistle-blower Complaint Assessment ~ Exhibit 9SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT LIST Ronald Rubin v. Department of Financial Services FCHR Case No. 201920849 Whistle-blower Complaint AssessmentSE Cee ee CE ot OEE Taal (era eae ere Complaint Assessment (Part 1) must be completed within 20 calendar days after receipt of a complaint unless an extension is granted in writing by tho Chief inspector General for good cause shown. Date: 8/1/2019 CIG Correspondence #: 2019-07-15-0009 ‘Agency: DFS O1G Agency Case #: 00766 Complainant Information Name: Ronald Rubin c/o Michael Tein Home Address: 3059 Grand Ave Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Home Phone #: 3054221101 Personal Email Address: tein@teinmalone.com Senet isis Pursuant to section 112.3187(6), F.S., as the agency evaluating the allegations, does this agency have the authority to investigate, police, manage, or otherwise remedy the violation or act? Yes CINo + IFN, goto Part 2 + If Yes, go to Part 1, Section Il. Pursuant to section 112.3187(7), F.S., the complaint was disclosed to: The Office of the Chief inspector General; @ Anagency Inspector General or staff member ( Written Ci Verbal) © The Florida Commission on Human Relations, D The Whistle-blower's Hotline created under section 112.3189, F.S. The Medicaid Fraud Controi Unit Hotline, Any agency or federal government entity during an investigation, hearing, or other inquiry; or did the complainant refuse to participate in any adverse action prohibited by the Whistle-blower's Act; None of the above, o ‘If None of the above, go to Part 2. + IfYes to any, go to Part 1, Section Ill, ‘What is the complainant's status with the agency or independent contractor for the State having the authority to investigate, police, manage, or otherwise remedy the violation or act? EXHIBIT (Ect Date 082172016) moe 4Current Employee! of: D The State Agenoy 51 An Independent contractor for the State Agency Former Employee of: DR The State Agency 1 An independent contractor for the State Agency Applicant for Employment with: 1D The State Agency 1D An Independent contractor for the State Agency + Ifnone of the above are checked, go to Part 2. « Ifany of the above are checked, go to Part 1, Section IV. ‘A. Does the complainant's disclosure include any alleged violation or suspected vioiation of any federal, state, or local law, rule or regulation committed by an employee or agent of any agency or independent contractor which creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public's health, safety or welfare? CiYes ENO B. Does the complainant's disclosure include any alleged act or suspected act of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected of actual Medicaid fraud or abuse, or gross neglect of duty committed by an ‘employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor? ClYes &NO If No to both above, go to Part 2. If Yes to any of the above, go to Part 1, Section V. ene ‘A. Atthis time, is there any information to indicate that the complainant committed or intentionally participated in committing the violation or suspected violation for which protection under ss. 112.3: [31895 is being sought? Yes ONo B. Was the complaint disclosed while the complainant was under the care, custody, or ccontrol of the state correctionai system or after the complainant was released from the care, custody, or control of the state correctional system, with respect to reported circumstances that occurred during any period of incarceration? Yes CINo ‘+ IfNo to both above, go to Part 2 (Whistle-blower; protection attaches). + IfYes to any of the above, go to Part 2 (Non-Whistle-blower; no protection attaches). “Employee means a person who performs services for, end under the contro! and direction of, or contracts swith, an agency oF independent contractor for wages or ether romuneration (§ 112.3187, FS.) "Independent contractor means a person, cther than an agency. engaged in any business and who enters Into 8 contract, nauaing a provider agreamant. with an agency (§ 112.3187 FS), (€rfocive Date: 09272018) Page 2 otiaesstn ace aeia scan tean sci | eae Tete ion econo In accordance with section 112.3189, F.S., Investigation Determination (Part 2) | must be completed within 30 calendar days from the date the allegations are received from the complainant by the Office of inspector General. For Whistle-blower Allegations an O Necessa ‘A Whistle-biower investigation is necessary. Please ilemize and describe al ‘qualifying allegations: © Unnecessary ‘A Whistle-biower investigation is unnecessary. Please itemize and describe all qualifying allegations: Possible statutory factor(s) present to determine an investigation is not necessary include, but are not limited to: 2 The gravity of the disclosed information compares to the time and expense of an investigation; The potential for an investigation to yield recommendations thet wil make slate government more efficient and effective; ‘The benefit to state government fo have a final report on the disclosed information; Whether the alleged Whistle-biower information primarily concerns personnel practices that may be investigated under chapter 110, F.S. Whether another agency may be conducting an investigation and Whether any investigation under this section may be duplicative; The time that has elapsed between the alleged event and the disclosure of the information; Other - Please describe: oo a ooa For Non-Qualifying Allegations: & Anon-Whistie-biower investigation will be conducted by the Agency Inspector General. Please itemize and describe all non-qualifying alleaations: © Anon-Whistle-biower investigation will be conducted by another agency/entity Identify responsible office: Gites or te here to vise (ey, Please itemize and sibe all non-quaifying allegations: © Anon-Whistle-blower investigation will not be conducted and no further action is warranted at this time by the Office of Inspector General. Please itemize and sscribe all non-qualifying allegations (This may include information on referrals {0 other entities for handling): See Attached © Complete Part 3 (ectve Date: 002112018) Poge sotWhistie-blower Complaint Determination Form ae | ieee ean Complaint Assessment by: ZV. SiCTiow Di 130 4 Investigation Determination by: 24. S$ HO4 yuh <4 Date: 8/1 / 19 7 Hp Supervisor: 4. S Haq 7 ate: 8/1/19 7 Inspector General (or designee): | ivi / ah bold Date: 9f /) /S W WA (tfectve Date: 0921/2018) Page-sot4Whistle-blower Complaint Determination Form Part 1 Complaint Assessment Section 4: "Pursuant to section 112,3187(5), F.S., as the agency evaluating the allegations, does this agency have the authority to investigate, police, manage, or otherwise remedy the violation or act?” Yes and No Argument: The alleged violation or act is the public recommendation or call for termination by CFO Jimmy Patronis of (former) Commissioner Rubin. Rubin was appointed to his position by the Governor and Cabinet. He was ultimately terminated from his position by the Governor and Cabinet. While the DFS OIG has the authority to investigate the CFO in relation to the call for termination, it does not have the authority to investigate any other members of the Cabinet or their actions. Likewise, any “remedy” of the act would have to be performed by the Governor and Cabinet, not just DFS. Florida Statute 112.3187(4), states, “ACTIONS PROHIBITED. ~ (a) An agency or independent Contractor shall not dismiss, discipline, or take any other adverse personnel action ogainst an employ closing information pur the provisions of this section. (b ney or independent contractor shal! not take uny adverse action thot affects the rights or interests of 21s0n in retaliation for the person's disclosure of information under this section. (c) The Provisions of this subsection shall not be applicable when an employee or person discloses information known by the employee or person to be false.” FS. 112.3187(3)(c), states, “Adverse personnel action’ means the discharge, suspension, transfer, or demotion of any employee or the withholding of bonuses, the reduction in salary or benefits, or any other adverse action taken against an employee within the terms and conditions of employment by an agency or independent contractor.” Based upon the above statutory references, a recommendation that someone resign, or demand for that person’s termination does not constitute any “action(s) prohibited” by statute. ‘Additionally, Mr. Rubin's termination was not the action of just the CFO, rather it was the action of three independently elected members of the cabinet, as is required by F.S, 20.121(3)(d), one being the Governor, one being the CFO, and the final being either the Attorney General or Agriculture Commissioner. (There is no allegation or evidence to show that the Governor or Cabinet members violated the sunshine provisions and discussed the matters outside of @ cabinet meeting. Additionally, the DFS O1G would not have jurisdiction toinvestigate the Governor or Cabinet.) in this case there is no alleged violation or prohibited act, and there is no need for an agency to investigate, police, or manage an act that constitutes legal and lawful behavior and does not equate to a violation of law, rule, oF policy ‘Section IVA: “Does the complainant's disclosure include any violation or suspected violation of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent of on ‘agency or independent contractor which creates and presents @ substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, sofety, or welfare?” Argument: No part of Rubin’s allegations concern anything that would present a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare. Section IV B: “Does the complainant's disclosure include any alleged act or suspected act of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual Medicaid fraud or abuse, or gross neglect of duty committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor?” Argument: Rubin's 11-page complaint, reportedly filed on May 28, 2019, with OFR IG Bradley Perry, includes no descriptions of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual Medicaid fraud or abuse, or gross neglect of duty ‘committed by the CFO or any Department employee. All allegations of possible “inappropriate” behavior concern Paul Mitchell, who is not a state employee, Possible counter-argument: The CFO's recommendation that Rubin resign, and subsequent demand that Rubin be terminated, is an act of malfeasance. Response to counter-argument: The WEX legal dictionary at Cornell Law Schoo! defines malfeasance as “intentional conduct that is wrongful or unlawful, especially by officials or public employees.” The CFO's recommendation that Rubin resign and subsequent demand that he be terminated is not illegal. The CFO was expressing a suggestion about what he felt should be done by Rubin and the Cabinet. Expressing a suggestion Is not, against the law, and therefore cannot be malfeasance. Possible counter-argument: The CFO's recommendation that Rubin resign, and subsequent demand that Rubin be terminated, is an act of misfeasance. Response to counter-argument: The WEX legal dictionary at Cornell Law School defines misfeasance as “conduct that is lawful but inappropriate.” In this circumstance, the “inappropriateness” of the CFO's actions are entirely subjective. It can logically be assumed that Rubin would argue that the CFO's public recommendation/demand for Rubin's resignation/termination was “lawful but inappropriate.” While the CFO's recommendation for Rubin's resignation and termination were expressed to mediaoutlets and the public, these recommendations held no binding authority over the other ‘members of the Cabinet. When the CFO entered a motion for Rubin’s termination at the July 25 Cabinet meeting, every member of the Cabinet was free to vote against this motion had they chosen to do so. There is no evidence to suggest that the Cabinet made its decision to terminate Rubin based solely on the CFO's recommendation. Instead, the Cabinet members are on record stating that their decision to terminate was based on the evidence presented within inspector General Perry's report of investigation. ir. Mitchell was acting as an “agent” of the Department. Possible counter-argumei Response to counter-argument: Even if Mr. Mitchell was acting as an agent of the Department, Mitchell had no authority over any condition of employment of Rubin, and could take no adverse action against Rubin. (The same argument applies to the actions of COS Ryan West or anyone else in the CFO's office.) ‘Additional arguments: Rubin's Whistle-blower complaint states that the CFO's recommendation end subsequent “demand” that Rubin be terminated are acts of retaliation for Rubin's 1-page “complaint” filed with OFR OIG on May 28. Thisis invalid for two reasons: the 11-page complaint identifies no wrongdoing by any Department employee or agent; and the CFO's recommendation/demand that Rubin be terminated is not an adverse personnel action as defined by statute. In fact, a recommendation/demand is not an “action” at all, much less an adverse personnel action. Despite the CFO’s recommendation/demand (and ultimately nomination) that Rubin be terminated, the other Cabinet members were under no obligation to agree with the CFO.Shoaf, Mike From FL.GOV Inspector General Sent: ‘Thursday, July 25, 2019 3:13 PM To: ols Subject: CIG Assignment, 2019-07-15-0008 encrypt) Attachments: message him! You've teceived an espe a message tt FLGOV.InspectorGeneral@eog.mytiorida.com To view your message Save and open the aftachment (message itm), and fellow the instructions Sop inusins the fol ng e- eddress eig@myfloridaete.com avents a fee he sok st of the bende euro ecg f please ots he delete ths meageIG Assignrient: 2019-07-15 0008 encrypt) uy HE SOV nepect Conese FL GEV inipectortala0q mflvnte com Boye! esr an ‘ety fc ou ceserringi aa yo. ws bo conauetng an meatgatn mt aeiacone wih cian 1289 Fes Oa Fawcett te ort fie rsncuatmaig the tone canal unde fe hate owes At and emo "stave prosuoed i ste ower regen man canteenaluive he resins ence peau late focaiact mee 50 75 254 Sen Hater Renae Che ihe Cael nest Gere Ewanong Putte Tua 9 Gveneen! nk to ozs te cele otis ae Wi ans eo maton emaae AAC nescence ease gan 6R Senenttetie oiasics'ee oa iz sot pusuar webu 89 ease noe ia nde Fong ect pads she Governor’ Oc, hich ot en en fe Rone Sates sn nord me lab up guestOffice of the Movernor July 28, 2018 Mr. Michae! Tein Esq remaann ce con RE: Chief Inspector General Correspondence # 2019-07-15-00 Dear Mr. Tein, Esq The Office of the Chief Inspector General received your comespondence on July 15, 2019, in Which you provided "Commissioner Ronalé Rubin's Invocation of [Whistle-biower] Protection Agsinst Retaliatory Termination Plesse be edvised thal this office is referring this matter lo the Department of Financial Services’ Inspector General, David T. Harper. for determination of whether the concerns meet the criteria (o be designated as a Whistleblower” complaint. Mr, Harper isthe proper authonty to make this dotermination. Regarding allegations of retaliation or discrimination, the Florida Commission on Human Relations is the state agency charged with enforcing the state's civil rights laws and investigating complaints concerning alleged state empioyee whistle-blower retaliation. You may wish to follow up with the Commission By calling (850) 486-7082 or by writing to the following address: Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Should you have any questions, pleese contsct the Department ol Financial Services: Inspector General's office at (850) 413-3112. Likewise, feel free to contact me at (850) 717-9264 Sincerely Sent: Tuesday, suly 16, 2019 246 PY Tor fherintagitier mflackta corn (Ce: Case, Dawn E : Petty, Gaye Huxol , mytiouca Ce Michael Ross Tein Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:48 PM Tos fchvinfo@feny.myflorda. com Ce: Perry, Bradley ; Case, Dawn €, Subject: Commissioner Ronald Rubin Invacation of Whistleblower Act Protection Against Retaliatory Discharge DEAR FCHR Enclosed please find Commissioner Rubin's request for Whistleblower Act protection from retaliatory discharge based on his prior complaints of unlawful and unethical conduct by CFO Patronis and other individuals Please contact me if you require any further information Yours truly, Michael Tein Mighwet Loan. ity Malone 89 Girannd Neon Coase: tse 21H snasst teinsCe: Michael Rose Tein ena bee Subject: Cornmissioner Ronald Ruby Jein's coveesponsience The origina 1 foe ‘Attaches please fina copy 0! i al ‘iis wansmssonisensasiha cena 3) 0 teres zovernts) nn na ennai cece sage akarmy meneorone we storey crepes Ve ermate« acc-ca¥) soyew aire hanes Seoesseva hertcvcrt > eavcnedt vec why he sron my Ea structed hedge Gitavarenranue™ ov frenye” Teheatent ATEIN MALONE nic LAWYERS July 15, 2019 COMMISSIONER RONALD RUBIN’ INVOCATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATORY TERMINATION To the Florida Governor and Cabinet: CFO Patronis’ demand that the Cabinet terminate Commissioner Rubin is retaliation for Rubin’s complaints about Patronis' illegal conduct. Rubin's complaints and his continued employment are protected by Florida’s Whistleblower Act, F.S. § 112.3187 et seq. Accordingly, the Governor and Cabinet cannot lawfully terminate Commissioner Rubin at the next, or any, Cabinet meeting. Following is a timeline of the pertinent complaints and retaliation: 1, February through April 2019: As previously documented, Rubin refused to engage in illegal conduct at the request of CFO Patronis and his criminal enterprise. Specifically, Rubin refused to enable $1 million in campaign contributions or hire Patronis loyalists as “payback” for Patronis’ vote to confirm Rubin as OFR Commissioner 2, May 28; Rubin lodged a protected Whistleblower Act Complaint by emailing an 1]-page disclosure of Patronis’ illegal and unethical conduct to OFR Inspector General Bradley Perry: From Ouse Ferny i. Smt i ay 28 20383132 CS! Asexplained below, | believe that this investigation is the product of efforts by Mr. Mitchell smn. and Mr. Grippa to take political advantage of a concern informally voiced by NRE empl to force me o resign 88 eorissianer, which I have been unwilling to 40 ‘This Whistleblower Complaint was widely publicized. 3059 Grand Avenue, Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 ‘ww teinmalone com (305) 442-11013. May 29; CFO Patronis retaliated against Rubin's complaint by issuing a press release demanding for the first time that Rubin “immediately resign.” Patronis added, “If I could remove Mr. Rubin from office myself, 1 would”: “after a briefing of the inspector General's preliminary findings of the recent allegations ‘against Mr. Rubin and reviewing newly-published news eports including those of sexual harassment alegstions at his previous job, lam requesting that he immediately resign the position of Commissioner for the Office of Financial Regulation. Contrary to what Mr. Patronis claimed, the Inspector General had not issued any “preliminary findings.” Rather, 12 days earlier, he had circulated a preliminary “report” without any factual findings. ‘Thus, there was no new information ~ other than Rubin's protected complaint - that warranted any new adverse employment action, much less calling for Rubin’s resignation. 4, June 21: Rubin, through counsel, again complained about Patronis’ illegal conduct, this time to the Chief Inspector General and to members of the Cabinet: Dear Governor DeSantis We respectfully request that you direct! Florida's Chief b-spector General to assume jurisdiction over the pending investigation of OFR Commisaioner Ren Rubin? and to open an investigation into heavily corroborated evidence of misuse ‘of public office by CFO Jimmy Palronis and hie inner cirle, in violation of Fla, Stat. §§ 836.05 (threats and extortion); 838.016 junlawfsl compensation of vard for official behavior) and 839.26 (mieuse of confidential | RE: Ron Rubin Investigation & Request to bwestigate CFO Jimmy Patronis Dear General Miguel, | We respectfully request thet you assume jurisdiction over the pending investigation of OFR Commissioner Ron Rubin and open an investigation into heavily corroborated | evidence of misuse of public office by CRO Jimmy Patronis and his inner circle, in Violation of Fla. Stal. G§ 836.05 (Ihreats and extortion), 838.016. (anlavcl compensation of reward for official behavior) and 639.26 (mistise of confidential information)‘These letters disclosed Mr. Patronis’ unlawful: * Disclosure of a confidential complaint for political gain; * Corrupt “pay to play” enterprise; and © Use of scandalous allegations against non-compliant officials July 11 (after hours}: Upon learning about imminent reporting of new evidence corroborating Rubin's complaints, Mr. Patronis escalated his retaliation against Rubin. This time he demanded Rubin’s termination - not just resignation -- by asking the Cabinet to place a “Vote on removal of Commissioner Rubin” on its next agenda. Mischaracterizing the IG’s May report as containing new “findings of inappropriate behavior,” Patronis blasted, “It is time for the Cabinet to act to terminate his employment”: ‘het Fnac Ofer tomy ation quest te ated for he nes sched a fotowine tems Sic ottarcot hacen 1 te onremows of Consume Rabe 2 Vo onapporemet fim ommisioner nd vote on rote pemante eacement Mr fable ap associates nave pubtlydapurapad veins 16 C0 Patten concen of pte etaltin against vets ard sly othe: employes faved on tse fats. Mb shold et Continue Torecene 2 more $1800 mont saya he tesyen expense ‘ised one alarming prelninay Eins appropriate bear ee ipecor Gases epor—vith ‘rer ore than Dea Kistner the Cabinet ett Wrmnte Msemployre Patronis’ claim that Rubin “publicly disparaged victims” was blatantly false and pretextual. Likewise, Patronis had no good-faith grounds to sow fear of Rubin's “potential retaliation against victims” (and he alleged none}Conclusion Prior to Commissioner Rubin’s May 28 complaint to the OFR IG and his June 21 complaints to the Chief IG and Cabinet members, Mr. Patronis had demanded neither Rubin’s resignation nor his firing; rather, only an “investigation.” Thus, Mr. Patronis’ recent demand to terminate Rubin’s employment at the next Cabinet meeting is unlawful retaliation for Rubin's complaints, which are absolutely protected under Florida's Whistleblower Act. Wherefore, Commissioner Ronald Rubin respectfully requests protection from unlawful retaliatory discharge under Florida’s Whistleblower Act. /s Michael R. Tein Counsel to Commissioner Rubin Agreed Ge Alt. Ronald Rubin Copies to: Governor Members of the Cabinet Chief Inspector General OFR Inspector General‘Gta Dawne — te a Frony Mive Te stein@teinnaione com> Mord: Juy 18, 2019 618 PM ase, Down & Subject: FW Commissioner Ronald Rubin Attachments 2018 O7 1 WHISTLESLOWER COMPLANT RUBIN) pat Dear Dawn, Please see attuched. Sorry I missed you an Friday kind regards, Mike From: Feilin Chiong Date: Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7:53 PM To: "jmmy.patronis@myfioridacto.com" , “katie strickland@mylioridacto.com" richard.martin@myfloridalegal com’ , “beau beaubien @eog, myflorida com" , "steven hell@freshtromtlorida com! Ce: Michael Ross Tein Subject: Commissioner Ronald Rubin Attached please find a copy of Mr Tein's correspondence. The exiginal to follow by overnight mail Thank you. Sincerely, Prove 305 462 “F04 ry st eta etl ap in aye hen edereceeaj ne ees egened mete nah hese sport ne vanish rs eel a spam ee coe remo scope he expen area Site sec! ee eed eee Trani mented oe evens 00 ne rene ae {tne cle rege tus toruain secured agora aa any npc a encanto ‘hen you TERA CHE PLLEEIN MALONE ANYER aly 15, 2019 COMMISSIONER RONALD RUBIN'S INVOCATION OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATORY TERMINATION Yo the Florida Governor and Cabinet: CFO Patronis’ demand that the Cabinet terminate Commissioner Rubin is retaliation for Rubin's complaints about Patronis’ illegal conduct Rubin’s complaints and his continued employment are protected by Florida’s Whistleblower Act, F.S. § 112.3187 ef seg. Accordingly, the Governor and Cabinet cannot lawfully terminate Commissioner Rubin at the next, or any, Cabinet meeting. Following is a timeline of the pertinent complaints and retaliation ) February through April 2019: As previously: documented, Rubin refused to engage in illegal conduci at the request of CFO Patronis and his criminal enterprise. Specifically, Rubin refused to enable $1 million in campaign contributions or hire Patronis joyalisis as “payback’ for Patronis’ vote to confirm Rubin as OFR Commissioner 2. May 28: Rubin lodged a protected Whistleblower Act Complaint by emailing an 1]-page disclosure of Patronis’ illegal and unethical conduct 10 OFR Inspector General Bradley Perry: ‘As explamed below. I believe that this investigation is the product of eftevts by Mr Mitchel! rma. and Nf. Grippa tu take political adveniage of a concer informally voiced by ERR in an tempt io fosce ane to resign as consmissioner, which These been unwilling (0 40 ‘This Whistleblower Complaint was widely publicized 33 3059 Grand Avenue, Coconut Grove, Floride 35 www temmalene com [308] 442 110),May 29: CFO Pationis retaliated against Rubin's complaint by issuing @ press release demanding for the first time that Rubin “immediately resign” Patronis added, “If | could remove Mr. Rubin fom office myself, | would” “After a briefing of the Inspector General’ peliminary findings of the vecent allegations against Mi Rubin and reviewing newly: published news reports including those of sexval {arassment allegations at hls previous job, iam requesting that he immediately resign the position of Commissioner for the Office of Financial Regulation Contrary to what Mr. Patronis claimed, the Inspector General had not isstied any “preliminary findings.” Rather, 12 days earlier, he had circulated a preliminary “report” without any factual findings. Thus, there was no new information ~ other than Rubin's protected complaint - that warranted any new adverse employment action, much less calling for Rubin's resignation. 4, June 21: Rubin, through counsel, again complained about Patronis’ illegal conduct, this time to the Chief Inspector General and ww members of the Cabinet Deae Governor DeSantis We respectfully request that you ins Chiet Inspectes Gener assume jurisdiction over thr pending snvcstigation of OFR Commissioner Ron Rubin and to open an unvestigation into heavily corroborated evidence of misuece ‘of publ effce by CPO Jimmy Patronis and his inter circ. in violetion of Fla Stat §€ 836.08 whreats ead extoricn) E96.016 funlawful compensation o: ew for offical eh RE’ Ron Rubin hwesngation & Kegues! to aves tigate CFO Jinumy Patronis | bear General augue We respectfully request that yeu assume junsdiciion over the pending investigation of OFR Commissioner Ron Rubin and open an investigation inte hceviy correboreted evidence of misuse of pubhe olfce by CFO Jimms Patronis und bie inne: circle, in violation of Fla. Stal §§ 83605 (threats and extortion!, 38.1716. junlautul compensation or veward for official behavior, and £29.26 (misuse of confidential Information}These letters disclosed My Patronis’ uulawful + Disclosure of a confidential complaint for politcal gain, « Corrupt "pay to play” enterprise; and © Use of scandalous allegations against non-compliant officials Vuly 11 (after hours). Upon learning about imminent reporting of new evidence corroborating Rubin's complaints, Mr Patronis escalated his retaliation against Rubin Rubin's termination ~ noi just resignation This time he demanded by asking the Cabinet to place @ “Vote on removal of Commissioner Rubin" on its next agenda. Mischarecterizing the 1G's May report as containing new “findings of inappropriate behavior,” Patronis blasted, “It is time for thr Cabinet to act to terminate his employment” Tet Basins ae fan aeotes > Sear opponent Comadiont ong te ogre fo pemonet ese met 1% Rob an hn usceres ta ube dipeaged wen, 4 C40 Poni coment pte! sr axbon vis aed gusty ee” OF mpoyes std em toi at, A Mr eu ht {eine torrent amor tan $1, ao0 monty soo a a tegen ake Graze vd Rabe’ ete neater tera or, Patronis\ claim that Rubin “publicly disparaged victims” blatantly false and pretextual grounds to sow fear of Rubin's “potential retaliation against victims’ (and he alleged none) Likewise, Patronis had no good-faithConclusion Prior te Commissioner Rubin’s May 28 complaint ta ihe OFR 1G and his hune 2) complaints 10 the Chief IG and Cabinet members, Mr. Patranis had demanded neither Rubin's resignation nor his firing; rather, only an “investigation” Thus, Mr. Patronis” recent demand to terminate Rubin's employment at the next Cabinet meeting is unlawful retaliation for Rubin's complaints, which are absolutely protected under Florida's Whistleblower Act Wherefore, Commissioner Ronald Rubin respectfully requests protection from unlawful retaltatory discharge under Florida’s Whistleblower Act. Is Michael R. Tein Counsel 10 Commissioner Rubin Agreed Re ld. Ronald Rubin Copies to Governor Members of the Cabine: Chief Inspector General OFR Inspector Genera