I am posting this for your information, and further information can be received from Curtis Lee or if you wish to get involved in this issue and help out, I suspect you can get information from either Mr. Lee or CTDC as extensive work has been done on this issue (and I have posted some other information about that work in prior posts).   I have removed Curt's address, but he invites inquery, so I have left the phone number and Email for that purpose. 

 

Cert. mail, return receipt requested                                                                                         Curtis W. Lee

                                                                                                                                       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

                                                                                                                                       XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

                                                                                                                                       904 – 594 – 6192

                                                                                                                                       Curtlee59@aol.com

                                                                                                                                       January 26, 2012

Verlindia Doss, Executive Director

Florida Commission on Ethics (“FCE”)

P. O. Drawer 15709

Tallahassee FL 32317-5709

                                                            Complaint # 10-153, in re Peter D. Sleiman                                           

Dear Ms. Doss:

 

               On 1/20/12, I received a letter from Ms. Starling of the FCE dated 1/17/12 re: the above matter.    That letter appended a proposed “Joint Stipulation of Fact, Law and Recommended Order” dated 1/17/12 (hereafter, “PJS”).    I will refer to my complaint dated 10/4/10, as amended 11/26/10, as the “Complaint”.      (I use the dates on which I signed and placed documents in the U. S. mail.   If you date documents by received dates, there may be modest discrepancies.)   I will refer to documents that I and others submitted to the FCE re the Complaint as being in the “Complaint File”.    Florida Statutes are referred to as “FS”.

 

               The PJS that was mailed to me by Ms. Starling is essentially a proposed plea bargain on the part of Mr. Sleiman.   It is signed by Stuart Kaufman, Mr. Sleiman’s counsel, and the FCE advocate, Melody Hadley.    No one sought my input re: same.    Nor, as far as I know, was anyone living in Jacksonville (which has about 900,000 people), all of whom have been affected by Mr. Sleiman’s numerous violations of the law, asked for his or her input.   The highlights of the PJS basically are as follows:   (1) Mr. Sleiman admits to 5 violations of the law, (2) Mr. Sleiman agrees to be fined (a civil penalty of) $2,500 - $500 per violation of the law.  (3) Mr. Sleiman agrees to waive all confidentiality rights.   (4) Mr. Sleiman claims (falsely, as will be shown below), and Ms. Hadley would have you believe, that such 5 violations of the law, over 5 years, all were an “inadvertent mistake”.

 

               I asked some questions of Ms. Starling on 1/24/12, and was disappointed to learn that, if I attend the 2/3/12 FCE meeting, at which such matters will be addressed, that I will not be permitted to speak, and that no one will ask me any questions about this letter, the Complaint, the Complaint File, or anything at all.    This procedure is unfair and unwise – Mr. Sleiman directly and through counsel has had numerous opportunities to speak to Ms. Hadley, whereas Ms. Hadley never contacted me at all prior to signing the PJS.    (I called to ask Ms. Hadley a few questions on 1/24/12, as Ms. Starling’s letter said I should call Ms. Hadley with questions.   Ms. Hadley did not sound happy to be bothered – mostly she told me to contact the FCE.)    Both women told me that I only needed to send 1 copy of my responsive letter to the FCE, and Ms. Hadley told me that she would obtain a copy of this letter, through the FCE. 

 

Therefore, I see no point in attending on 2/3/12.   If the FCE wants me there, please call.    And, if I change my mind, I will call Ms. Starling.  

 

               Thus, I am upset, both in terms of the content of the PJS, as discussed below, and in terms of process.    When an entity such as the FCE has such unfair procedures, the “lucky” side – the side of the defending public official – can use this process to misinform the FCE with impunity.

 

               I hereby oppose the PJS.   However, my opposition has again been hobbled by your unfair procedures.    I have attempted to see the parts of the Complaint File not submitted by me – see my public records request appended hereto as Exhibit 1 – but have not yet seen any documents.   Mr. Sleiman and his counsel have seen (or been able to see) 100% of the Complaint File, whereas I have not, thanks in large part to the truncated time period given to me, and thanks in part to the slowness of the mail, which the FCE surely knows about.    (Why did not the FCE email its 1/17/12 letter to me?   The FCE has my email.)      

 

               Nevertheless, despite these unfair procedures, I will respond to the FCE letter, and oppose the PJS.

 

               I am acquainted with Mr. Sleiman, and with Mr. Kaufman, his counsel, who is a partner at Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen and Levinson (“KKJL”).   Based on my experiences with them to date, as well as the facts set forth below, I fear that they may have misused their procedural advantages here in ways that I do not know about.    Tilted procedures invite false testimony and other injustices.    Again, I protest.    

 

               I oppose the PJS via this letter, for these procedural reasons, and for the reasons set forth below.    I hereby in writing request a probable cause hearing, other proceedings and actions as apropos, more substantial penalties, findings that Mr. Sleiman knowingly and willfully violated the law, related findings and actions, and a referral for criminal prosecution if apropos.   I am copying Mr. Sleiman’s counsel.

 

I.                 Brief background re Complaint and related matters

 

I am a retired attorney, and former finance manager.   I reside in Jacksonville FL.    During my career, inter alia, I managed a corporate defined benefit pension plan in the 1980’s and 1990’s.   Thus, I know a few things about how such pension plans should operate.    In my retirement, I have, inter alia, joined Concerned Taxpayers of Duval Co. (“CTDC”), a local government watchdog group.    I am currently a director and vice president of CTDC.

 

I first began looking into the Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund (“PFPF”) in 2009.   I have devoted hundreds if not thousands of hours to researching the PFPF.    The plan that is administered by the PFPF is a defined benefit pension plan sponsored by the City of Jacksonville FL (“City”).   The City occupies most of Duval County.   The PFPF is governed by a 5 member board of trustees, and provides pension benefits for City policemen and firemen.   Mr. Sleiman has been a PFPF trustee since 1986, and an attorney admitted to practice in FL since 1985.   He has been appointed and reappointed as PFPF trustee several times by Jacksonville’s City Council.

 

As I conducted my research, which included attending most meetings of PFPF trustees over the last 2 years, I learned many disturbing things about the PFPF, all of which implicate Mr. Sleiman, given his lengthy tenure as a public official (PFPF trustee) and attorney:

 

(1) The PFPF’s financial/investment performance net of costs has generally been below average, and its expenses have regularly been considerably above average.   (Sources – the PFPF’s own consultants and auditors, and independent surveys re: pension expenses.)

 

(2) The PFPF is horribly funded – it had a funded ratio of about 46% at 9/30/10, which is abysmal in the absolute and comparative sense.   Further, this ratio is guaranteed to further decline thanks to poor fiscal 2011 returns, and is, further, overstated thanks to devices used by the PFPF’s actuaries.   The PFPF basically lacks fund to cover liabilities attributable to active employees.     (Sources – PFPF actuaries and consultants, City reports, and independent surveys.)    

 

(3) The PFPF has booby-trapped itself so that, if it should fire its Executive Director, John Keane, it could be on the hook for almost $2 million, notwithstanding its terrible financial situation.   In other respects, the PFPF has lined the pockets of PFPF officials over the years.    Mr. Keane has base pay of about $283,000 per year, has extraordinary vacation, holiday and leave entitlements, and has other benefits.   Plus he junkets often.   In short, Mr. Keane plunders the PFPF, despite its wretched financial state, and Mr. Sleiman has allowed and enabled same.    (Sources – PFPF documents.)

 

(4) The PFPF has shown contempt for the Sunshine Law.    Attendees at the monthly meetings of the PFPF Board of Trustees are not allowed to speak, which apparently is legal, albeit unusual for governmental agencies, and the PFPF has violated the Sunshine Law twice.   (Source – Judge James Daniel, Circuit Court, Duval County.   See his decision and order dated 6/24/11, docket 2010 – CA – 000667.    (This is a public document, and not appended due to its length.)    (Further, there is a strong possibility that, as part of this and other litigation, the PFPF will be adjudged to have committed further violations of the law.)

 

(5) The PFPF has engaged in illegal and secret collective bargaining over the past 2 decades, in violation of both the Sunshine Law, and section 447.309 (5) Florida Statutes.    Indeed, a City attorney recently admitted to the FL labor law violations in a brief filed before the Public Employees Relations Commission dated 10/14/11 – see page 38 thereof.   (I just obtained this brief.   Let me know if you would like a copy of this lengthy public document.)

 

               Yet, Mr. Sleiman has been a lawyer since 1985, and PFPF trustee since 1986, and has allowed all of the above misconduct to occur “on his watch”.   Further, he currently is, and for many years – perhaps all 25 years of service as trustee – has been the only attorney on the PFPF board of trustees, which makes him doubly responsible for its illegal conduct.     This shows that Mr. Sleiman has exuded contempt for (a) his legal duties as fiduciary of the PFPF, (b) the law, and (c) his role as public official.   He has knowingly  shafted City taxpayers and PFPF members for years, by causing and allowing (1) – (5) above.  

 

               Note – I first met Peter Sleiman in 2010, and have never had a lengthy conversation with him – he has avoided all invitations to speak with me, notwithstanding my knowledge and my greater, and private sector, background in the pension field.   He thereby evinced a disturbing refusal to learn more about pensions, as well as unseemly hubris.  Mr. Sleiman has never harmed me personally.   I have no reason to personally dislike him, but I very much dislike the way he acts as a public official.   From seeing Mr. Sleiman in his role as PFPF trustee (i.e., from attending the regular monthly meetings of the PFPF board of trustees), I can see that he is quite an intelligent man in his areas of interest (principally, real estate and  politics).   However, as suggested by the information above, Mr. Sleiman doesn’t work hard enough, or think hard enough, in connection with his public office as PFPF trustee - he is instead a disaster in that role.   Plus, he misses a lot of meetings, including meetings that the PFPF agendas and such list him as attending.   He is the only attorney on the PFPF board of trustees, and yet won’t listen or do anything about the PFPF’s illegal conduct, even when the party finding the illegal conduct is a judge – Judge Daniel.   What does that say about Mr. Sleiman?    He further does nothing about the huge financial waste and mismanagement at the PFPF.    Furthermore, he is a disreputable man, as II below shows.   

 

               As part of my research into the PFPF, I unearthed a huge amount of dirt that specifically concerns Mr. Sleiman, including the facts associated with and mentioned in my Complaint.   

 

II.              Summary of case against Peter Sleiman

 

I have provided to the FCE not only my Complaint (which includes my 10/4/10 complaint, as amended on 11/26/10), but several related and explanatory documents:

 

• Several letters to Mr. Malone of the FCE; some had enclosures
• A 10/16/07 order signed by Judge Skinner (Circuit Court, Duval Co. FL) which, inter alia, declared that Mr. Sleiman had committed “clear breaches” of his fiduciary duties to his brothers in their joint business endeavors (obtained from office of Clerk, Circuit Court, Duval Co. FL)
• Documents re; litigation concerning unpaid Nov 2007 marker loans to Mr. Sleiman and his then - mistress.   The lender was MGM Grand Hotel in Nevada (obtained from Nevada courts)
• A 7/23/08 consent final judgment of divorce, re: Mr. Sleiman’s divorce from his wife Carolina (obtained from office of Clerk, Circuit Court, Duval Co.)
• A 5/22/09 arbitration award, wherein Mr. Sleiman was determined to owe his brothers over $3.5 million (some of which was joint liability) (obtained from office of Clerk, Circuit Court, Duval Co.)
• A 12/23/09 judicial confirmation of the arbitration award (obtained from office of Clerk, Circuit Court, Duval Co.)
• A 1/10/10 judgment wherein Judge Tygart (Circuit Court, Duval Co) determined that Peter Sleiman owed his brothers over $3.8 million (some of which was joint liability) (obtained from office of Clerk, Circuit Court, Duval Co.)

 

But first, some background on Mr. Sleiman, which I have learned from the sources mentioned above, newspaper articles, other public sources, and personal contacts.   Peter Sleiman was born into a wealthy family, which had an extensive property development business, and owned many properties, many of which were located in the City.    His father, Eli Sleiman, was the driving and founding force in this business, and very successful.   Peter Sleiman and his 3 brothers to varying degrees followed in their father’s footsteps. 

 

Mr. Sleiman and his brothers inherited a great deal of property etc. after the death of their parents.    For many years, Mr. Sleiman and his brothers engaged in the property development and management business jointly, but no longer do, thanks to the litigation and bitterness described below.   

 

Mr. Sleiman personally is an arrogant man, perhaps because he is intelligent and born to wealth.   He has been heavily involved in Republican Party matters, and has contributed to many politicians and political candidates.    His personal life has been messy and reckless, as shown below.   

 

The documents listed in the bullets on page 3, and documents referenced in same, show that:

 

(1)   Mr. Sleiman disclosed debt to Amsouth Bank (later, Regions Bank, thanks to a merger or acquisition), when he filed his Form 1’s in the 2006 – 2011 period, for calendar years 2005 – 2010, but failed to disclose any other liabilities.   FCE has these documents.

 

(2)   Peter Sleiman’s 3 brothers forced him out of the family property development and management businesses in 2005, after years of joint operations, and litigation followed in 2006.   Numerous charges and countercharges were made.    The 3 brothers, beginning in 2006, and through 2010, formally accused Peter Sleiman of theft, looting and embezzlement.   (Source – several lawsuits filed in Circuit Court, Duval Co, and newspaper articles.    Paperwork here is extensive, and will only be provided if you ask.  Or, anyone is welcome to spend hours plowing through the paperwork at the offices of the Clerk, Circuit Court, Duval Co., as I have done.)

 

(3)   The brothers generally were successful in this litigation.   In one of the earlier court orders, Circuit Court Judge Skinner (Duval Co.) on 10/16/07 entered an order wherein, inter alia, he ruled that Peter Sleiman violated his fiduciary duties to his brothers (that he committed “clear breaches” of his fiduciary duties), in his operation of their joint business endeavors prior to the 2005 breakup.    FCE has this document.

 

(4)   The lawsuits were ultimately settled in part via agreements, inter alia, to arbitrate, to close down/true up partnerships, to divide up and distribute individual properties, etc.     The arbitrator selected by the brothers determined that Mr. Sleiman owed his brothers more than $3.5 million, thus partially validating the brothers’ accusations against Peter Sleiman of being a looter, thief and embezzler.   Part of this liability on the part of Peter Sleiman was joint liability with 1 of his brothers, while the rest was individual liability on the part of Mr. Sleiman.    The arbitral award is dated 5/22/09, and FCE has it.

 

(5)   Mr. Sleiman made attempts to set aside this award – this liability -  but failed.  The arbitral award was confirmed on 12/23/09 and reduced to a judgment dated 1/8/10.    FCE has it.    Judge Tygart (Duval Co Circuit Court) signed these documents.    The amounts then owed by Peter Sleiman in January 2010 exceeded $3.8 million.   Some of that liability was joint, and some was the sole liability of Mr. Sleiman.  

 

(6)   Mr. Sleiman appealed the judgment, which the brothers opposed.   The appeal was dismissed in April 2011, rather than being addressed, thus implying a private settlement.    I am unable to obtain such documents – i.e., how much did Mr. Sleiman pay his brothers, how, and when.    The terms of such settlement appear to have been treated confidentially.   The FCE could subpoena such documents if it wants, and that would be wise, as Mr. Sleiman’s liabilities to his brothers, whether grounded in judgments, arbitral awards, rulings about breaches of fiduciary duties, or settlements, all are in essence acknowledgements and verifications that the brothers’ accusations of looting, theft, embezzlement and other misconduct by Peter Sleiman had merit.     Further, if one would steal from family, why would not one steal from a pension fund?   If one would breach his fiduciary duties to one’s family, why would not one breach his fiduciary duties to a public pension fund?   The upshot – Peter Sleiman should be deemed not credible, at a minimum.   

 

(7)   However one analyzes all the above, it is clear that from 2009 – 2011 Peter Sleiman had a multimillion $ liability to his brothers – one that could not be “inadvertently” forgotten.    Further, even before then, during the entire pendency of the litigation with its attendant accusations of theft, looting and embezzlement, Mr. Sleiman had a likely substantial liability before 2009, again not one easily “inadvertently” forgotten, especially given the bitterness of the litigation, and the enormity of the Court papers, which are apparent when reading the public records at Circuit Court, Duval Co.

   

(8)   Peter Sleiman and his then-girlfriend Jennifer Ward carried on a public affair while Mr. Sleiman was married to Carolina, his wife through July 2008.    Because of Mr. Sleiman’s prominence in Jacksonville, there was occasional publicity about Mr. Sleiman and Ms. Ward.    Mr. Sleiman and Ms. Ward traveled to Nevada in Nov. 2007 and went on some sort of gambling binge, at which time they signed (incurred) marker loans totaling $250,000.   The lender was MGM Grand Casino.  Mr. Sleiman and Ms. Ward lost $250,000 gambling in less than 6 days – what a fine pension fund fiduciary!!!    Then, to top things off, they refused to make good on their debts.    They were sued by MGM Grand Hotel on 6/23/08.     This was a substantial, and again hard to “inadvertently” forget, liability that was hanging over Mr. Sleiman’s head from 2007 – 2010.   The court papers are substantial, and paint a disturbing picture of Mr. Sleiman.   Mr. Sleiman had to have often been reminded of the continuing and irksome (to him) nature of the litigation and associated liability.     The liability appears to have been discharged in 2010 via a settlement whose financial terms, again, are not public (or perhaps I cannot find them).    FCE has documents re this litigation and liability.    FCE could subpoena any nonpublic documents. 

 

(9)   Mr. Sleiman divorced his wife, Carolina, effective 7/23/08.    As part of that process, he signed a “Consent Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage” dated 7/23/08 (hereafter, the “CFJ”; this document is in the Complaint File).  This document is filed in the office of the Clerk of Circuit Court, Duval Co., and FCE has such document – it is in the Complaint File.    In said document,  Mr. Sleiman made a multiyear promise, and incurred a multiyear liability, to make payments to Carolina totaling about $23 million.    It appears from the text of the CFJ that at least $6 million of that liability was paid in 2008.   Given the size of this liability, the continuing and frequent payments thereunder, and the irritations that attend divorces, Mr. Sleiman could hardly have “inadvertently” forgotten about this liability.    Most people who owe $2,300 don’t forget that they owe same.   Mr. Sleiman surely did not forget that he owed  Carolina payments totaling about $23 million.    Plus, the fact that the remaining liabilities under the FCJ today appear to be closer to $17 million is, again, hard to “inadvertently” forget.

 

(10)Mr. Sleiman received a copy of my Complaint in late 2010, and retained counsel concerning same no later than 12/2/10.    His counsel ever since has been Mr. Kaufman of KKJL  Yet, via Form 1 dated 6/29/11, and filed/stamped as received by the Duval Co Supervisor of Elections (“DCSOE”) on 7/14/11 (suggesting false dating by Mr. Sleiman – another violation of FL law?), Peter Sleiman still failed to disclose any of the above liabilities, even after he knew the accusations I had made.     The FCE has this Form 1, and in it, Mr. Sleiman under “liabilities” only disclosed “Regions”, no doubt meaning Regions Bank, successor/acquirer to Amsouth Bank.     This shows total contempt for the law, for the FCE, and for all citizens in the state of FL.     This shows knowledge and willfulness.     

 

(11)As a result of the 3 brothers’ allegations of theft, embezzlement and looting by Peter Sleiman, which resulted in the 1/10/10 judgment against him for over $3.8 million, Circuit Court, Duval Co., at pg 3 of said judgment, ordered Peter Sleiman to submit a Form 1.977, under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, disclosing his liabilities and other financial data, and providing documents.    This form and related documents were to be provided to counsel for the judgment creditors.     I was unable to find same in Court files.   As part of the Complaint File, i.e., as part of my communications to the FCE, I suggested that the FCE subpoena such documents, as they would be relevant in proving the degree and nature of Mr. Sleiman’s violations of FL law concerning disclosures by public officials, as well as having likely relevance to whether Mr. Sleiman honestly filed the recent Form 1 – X’s, or committed perjury or other violations of the law in connection therewith.    If this issue has not been pursued, I contend that, for this reason alone, the PJS must be rejected.  

 

Let us now recap known totals of Ms. Sleiman’s liabilities, and the dates thereof, using public documents and the Complaint File.    On 7/23/08, Mr. Sleiman had a liability to Carolina of about $23 million, thanks to the FCJ.   This liability then declined to about $17 million later that year, assuming the FCJ terms were honored.   The marker loan litigation suggested a modest (for Mr. Sleiman) increase in said liability, in late 2007.    The litigation amongst the brothers suggested that Peter Sleiman had a risk of a substantial liability from 2006 through early 2009, the amount of which was unknown.   Then, in May 2009, Peter Sleiman’s liabilities further increased by about $3.5 million, ultimately settling at a $3.8 million additional liability in January 2010.    Because some of that was joint, and I cannot obtain the ultimate settlement documents relating to the appeal of same (either because I goofed, or because I lack subpoena power – yet the FCE could subpoena this), the add-on to the FCJ –associated liability resulted in a total of undisclosed liabilities on the part of Mr. Sleiman in the 2008 – 2010 range of $17 – 23 million.   Given the settlement of the marker loan and brothers-related litigation, Mr. Sleiman may have made payments in full, resulting in a likely current grand total liability of about $17 million today.    See the CFJ for the terms of Peter Sleiman’s liabilities to his wife – the terms thereof suggest that he is unlikely to have further reduced said liability materially below $17 million as of this writing.  

 

Obviously, the FCE could learn more by subpoenaing Mr. Sleiman.    The amounts and nature of his Amsouth Bank cum Regions Bank liabilities are unknown to me, but obviously add to the total liability picture.  

 

I have learned additional facts about Mr. Sleiman, which are referenced in the Complaint, but about which the FCE claims to lack jurisdiction to act.   Still, they are relevant in showing Mr. Sleiman’s (1) contempt for many laws, and (2) dishonesty and arrogance.    I learned that Mr. Sleiman violated 3 residency laws – City Charter 22.02, and FS 185.05 and 175.061, in serving as City – appointed trustee of the PFPF since Feb. 2006, while at the same time having and claiming legal residence outside of the City – in St Johns County – during that period.    Peter Sleiman registered to vote in St Johns County in Feb 2006, which entails a claim of legal residence therein.    He voted there in 2006 and 2008.   He claimed legal residence at a house he owned and owns in St Johns County.     His address for drivers license purposes was St Johns Co.    How do I know these things?   First, the St Johns County Supervisor of Elections (“SJCSOE”) provided some documents, and I obtained some documents from the City, all via public records requests.   

 

After claiming legal residence in St Johns Co. in February 2006, in mid – 2006, Mr. Sleiman, a PFPF trustee, and a lawyer, and a man who surely knew about those 3 residency laws, (indeed – see Exhibit 3 hereto) sought and accepted a reappointment to the position of PFPF trustee, by the Jacksonville City Council.   I have checked 2006 City records – Mr. Sleiman never confessed (disclosed) that he was violating those 3 laws, or even merely that he then claimed and had legal residence in St Johns Co.   

 

Then, after I started complaining in June – July 2010 about this illegal conduct on the part of Peter Sleiman,  Mr. Sleiman (a) reregistered to vote in Duval County on 7/16/10, and (b) told the City Council in August 2010 that he really did reside in the City.   I was outraged at this slick and dishonest conduct.    In my view, Mr. Sleiman, through statements, documents and omissions, committed perjury before a legislative body – Jacksonville City Council – in 2006 and 2010.     

 

Then, after Mr. Sleiman married his former mistress, Ms. Ward,  in Dec. 2010, he finally started telling the truth, admitting his legal residence in St Johns County, and then reregistering to vote in St Johns County in January 2011.     (See Exhibit 3, plus I have SJCSOE verification.)  

 

The above is relevant as it shows a pattern and practice on the part of Peter Sleiman, in:

• Knowingly and repeatedly violating the law.
• Making false statements to public entities

 

 

If Peter Sleiman has no compunctions about (1) misleading Jacksonville, playing fast and loose with 3 residency laws (i.e., violating them on the assumption that no one will catch on – after all, his colleagues at the PFPF, and PFPF counsel, likely knew he violated the residency laws, and did not care), and violating other laws, (2) refusing to disclose his debts, (3) cheating his family (looting, theft and embezzlement) and (4) cheating on his wife, what makes the FCE think that Mr. Sleiman has not made false, incomplete, and/or misleading statements to the FCE, up to and including false, incomplete and misleading statements in order to obtain a weak PJS?   Plus, given the procedural injustices I complained about on pages 1 - 2, I cannot inform you if, and how, Mr. Sleiman may have directly or through counsel made false, incomplete and misleading statements to the FCE or any designees thereof such as Ms. Hadley.  But, the FCE should look into this also.

 

Neither the AG nor the FCE should believe anything Peter Sleiman, directly or through his counsel, says or submits, thanks to all the above.

 

The bottom line is that Mr. Sleiman has a track record of years of sleaze.   It is not just me saying that – his public record, and his stewardship (or lack thereof) of the PFPF prove this to be the case.   Step back and think about the facts, and look at the documents, and forget about the fact that I obviously have a low opinion of Mr. Sleiman – there simply is no other possible conclusion to make about Peter Sleiman.     Further, he has broken laws, and allowed, or suborned the PFPF into, breaking laws.   

 

Plus, given Mr. Sleiman’s intelligence, obvious wealth (which entails the ability to purchase expertise when one lacks same), and long tenure as an attorney and PFPF trustee, his violations of the law must be presumed to have been knowing and willful.   Peter Sleiman’s wealth must be great, or else he would not have executed the divorce settlement document referred to herein as the CFJ.   FCE has a copy.   

 

Mr. Sleiman’s wealth becomes relevant as it relates to whether or not you believe the Form 1 – X’s that Mr. Sleiman submitted in 2011, for calendar years 2006 – 2010.  Also, do not forget the need to obtain the Form 1.977’s and related documents to verify whether or not Mr. Sleiman is lying to you via the Form 1 – X’s.    The FCE has subpoena power, and should use it.   

 

On 1/23/12, I visited the offices of the DCSOE, and spoke to Lana Self, an official there.   She provided me copies of Form 1 – X’s filed by Peter Sleiman in 2011, for calendar years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.  She explicitly informed me that there is no Form 1 – X on file relating to Mr. Sleiman and calendar year 2005.    Contact her if you need verification.   

 

Therefore, the failure by Mr. Sleiman to file a Form 1 – X for calendar 2005 is inconsistent with what the PJS states in paragraph 7.    The PJS is thus false, and for this reason also should be rejected.   Or, is it possible that Mr. Sleiman filed a Form 1 – X with the FCE in Tallahassee but failed, as of 1/23/12, to file it in the offices of the DCSOE?     If that is the case, I do not know what result that has, but it certainly seems to defeat the purposes of Form 1 and Form 1 – X if they are not readily available to persons who live in the counties where public officials such as Mr. Sleiman “serve” them.           

 

I reviewed the five Form 1 – X’s, and all of them again refuse to disclose not only the above liabilities, but the AmSouth Bank cum Regions Bank liabilities.    Instead, “N/A” is inserted into the part re disclosure of liabilities, the “comparative percentage thresholds” boxes are checked, and text is added:  “confirming that manner of calculating reportable interests is based on comparative thresholds”.  

 

We now get to several issues.    Should we believe Mr. Sleiman when he says that he can refuse to disclose any liabilities thanks to the comparative percentage threshold and instructions relating thereto?    I contend that the FCE cannot believe him as to anything, in light of all the facts I have disclosed above.

 

Now, if you don’t want to deem Mr. Sleiman inherently incredible, there are other considerations.   Clearly, as all Form 1’s indicate, most of Mr. Sleiman’s wealth is real estate wealth.    We all know that real estate values have plummeted nationally.   Jacksonville is no exception.    The FCE can do its research, and if it does, it will find that local real estate prices have declined generally by close to 50% since their peaks several years ago.

 

Further, my reading of the instructions concerning Form 1 disclosures indicates that, unless Mr. Sleiman in the 2008 – 2011 period had assets of twice his liabilities, or more, that he could not use the comparative threshold test.   Since we know that, for that period, Mr. Sleiman’s liabilities have been between $17 and 23 million, exclusive of the Amsouth Bank cum Regions Bank debt, which is an unknown quantity to me, Mr. Sleiman can only use the comparative threshold as a reason to not report his liabilities on Form 1 and Form 1 – X, if his assets significantly exceeded $40 million at all times..

 

As far as I can tell, Mr. Sleiman has not proved any of this to be true, and further, the FCE, via what I presume is the nonuse of its subpoena power to date, has failed to pursue opportunities to prove that Mr. Sleiman has directly or indirectly lied to it, as the evidence suggests is likely.    Further, even if Mr. Sleiman could prove that his assets had a value of more than $40 million in 2008, it would make no sense to believe that those assets did not decline to almost half the 2008 value, as of 2012.

 

This all leads to another problem with the PJS.   If Mr. Sleiman truly has assets of more than $40 million, why is the proposed fine only $2,500?     This is a mockery - $500 per violation of the law in 2006, $500 per violation of the law in 2007, etc., adding up to $2,500 for 5 violations of the law spread over 5 years.   Not even any interest.    Plus, do the math – if Peter Sleiman has assets of $40 million, a $2,500 fine to him is as painful as a $25 fine would be to a person with assets of $400,000.   Why did not Ms. Hadley take this into account?    My expectation is that most public officials have assets totaling in the neighborhood of $400,000, not $40 million or more.   

 

If you want to send a message that rich people also have to abide by FL law, do not allow Mr. Sleiman to escape without paying the maximum allowed fine, which per my understanding is $50,000.   Further, delete the clearly false language suggesting that Mr. Sleiman made 5 identical “inadvertent mistakes” over 5 years – he really cannot be, and is not, that stupid.     And, refer Peter Sleiman for criminal prosecution, as a willful and knowing violator of FL law, and as a person with a long record of other misconduct.    

 

As to the issues of assets and liabilities, the FCJ has other alternatives etc. – subpoena Peter Sleiman’s tax returns, financial statements, real estate appraisals, etc.   Obviously, they exist.    

 

I have a wholly different understanding of my Complaint, and what the truth really is, than what Ms. Hadley has.    I ask that you believe me because (1) I have done much more work on this matter than Ms. Hadley – perhaps 100 times as much work  (2) I am likely older and generally far more experienced than Ms. Hadley in financial matters.    (3) I have nothing to gain by being nice to Peter Sleiman, whereas she may have.   

 

Here is my understanding of the facts, and the essential question relating to them - why did Mr. Sleiman file all those false Form 1’s, and why does he now again refuse to disclose his liabilities as a public official, by filing Form 1 – X’s that likewise are likely false?  

 

 (1) Because Mr. Sleiman had gotten away with many things for many years – e.g., violations of residency laws -  and likely figured he would get away with violating the financial disclosure laws also.  

 (2) Because the truth behind the disclosures of those liabilities was embarrassing, and he did not want to publicize embarrassing truths, or further publicize embarrassing truths, and

(3) Because had he disclosed the liabilities, he might have drawn unwanted media or other attention to himself.  

 

If Mr. Sleiman has filed correct Form 1’s, timely, he would have had to admit:

(1)   The judgments and arbitral awards against him.

(2)   The fact that his brothers accused him of looting, theft, and embezzlement, and thereby obtained a very substantial  judgment against him

(3)   That he was extremely wealthy – able to pay his ex wife about $23 million over a period of years.   This disclosure, if it had been reported in the media, might have caused all sorts of “pests” to come out of the woodwork.   And, having seen Mr. Sleiman in action as PFPF trustee over the last 2 years, he is arrogant and does not want “lesser sorts” bothering him.   

(4)   That he was a fool, to have lost all that money while gambling in Nevada, and then to be sued for it. 

(5)   That he was an adulterer.

(6)   That he was adjudged to have violated fiduciary duties, and thus was unfit to continue service as PFPF trustee, which entails the obligation to act as a fiduciary, which may be very valuable to him, because both he and the PFPF invest in real estate.   (The fact that the PFPF invests in real estate can be gleaned from PFPF auditor reports and other public documents.)

 

I.e., Peter Sleiman wanted to have his cake and eat it too.   He wanted the prestige, power and business ties (and perhaps more?) associated with helping to run the PFPF – a $1 billion pension fund that invests in real estate – his line of business -  WITHOUT having to truly and fully make the personal revelations concerning his wealth, his wife, his mistress, his divorce, his gambling, his nasty and unpleasant litigation, his debts, etc, that are and should be attendant on being a public official.   

 

               If you accept the PJS, and fail to pursue Mr. Sleiman’s many violations of the law, you will allow Mr. Sleiman to indeed have his cake and eat it too.   

 

               So, the FCE now has two ways of viewing this case.  (1) The Hadley way -  Mr. Sleiman is an innocent who just made inadvertent mistakes, 5 years in a row, versus (2) The Lee way - Mr. Sleiman is a smart, long time attorney and public official, and a man with a demonstrated record of sleaze including violations of the law, and a man with many reasons to file false Form 1’s and Form 1 – X’s.    Step back, and think – if I and Ms. Hadley had a public debate about our views, who would the public believe?    Not being Mitt Romney, I would bet $5 that over 90% of the public would believe me, and would want the FCE to reject the PJS and continue further proceedings with the intent of finding knowing and willful violations, authorizing maximum fines, and referring for criminal prosecutions.   The public is cynical enough without the FCE letting such a rich man go scott free with this slap on the wrist.   

 

I.e.,  I have offered a prima facie and compelling case for my position, here, in the Complaint, in the portions of the Complaint File submitted by me, and in the public or subpoenaable documents referenced by me.     Ms. Hadley has submitted absolutely no justification for her weak and toothless plea bargain – the PJS - or if she has, I have not seen it.    

 

 

1. III.            More on why as a matter of policy and good governance, the FCE must come down harder on Mr. Sleiman, make probable cause determinations, fine him the maximum, look into the issues of knowing and willful violations, and if possible, cause his criminal prosecution

 

Mr. Sleiman and his allies at the PFPF have grievously harmed Jacksonville.    The PFPF is a huge drain on the City, and a huge liability.   Here are some key statistics:

 

(1)                     The PFPF’s unfunded liability (“unfunded actuarial accrued liability”) is about $1 billion – about 20% of the City’s total liabilities (most of the rest consists of normal municipal debt).  This distressing statistic is thanks in large part to Mr. Sleiman and his colleagues at the PFPF.  (Source – PFPF and City documents.)

(2)                     The PFPF costs the City about $80 million per year (a cost the City projects to exceed $100 million in fiscal 2013).   This represents 8% - soon 10% - of the City’s general fund budget.    This is a huge part of the City budget, and a huge cost to City taxpayers.    This works out to about $100 per Jacksonville resident per year, and if this were not so large, obviously the City could find better uses for that $80 – 100 million per year, including reducing taxes.    (Sources – Id.)

(3)                     The PFPF has been found to have violated the Sunshine Law twice.   This matter is on appeal, and the appellate results could be worse.    The lawsuit began as a dispute over $326.40, and thanks in part to the folly of Mr. Sleiman, the PFPF has wasted at least $250,000 in taxpayer funds in defending its “right” to violate the Sunshine Law.   

 

As previously noted, I am Vice President of CTDC, a local watchdog group.    CTDC and other groups, and taxpayers in general, are interested in, and clearly have a major interest in, the outcome of the Complaint, and all related matters concerning the PFPF.   Misconduct at the PFPF is important to Jacksonville.    Plus, as local media make clear, the City, and others, are highly cognizant of the need to reform the PFPF, and to generally fix the “pension mess”, which eats away at the City’s financial viability.    The PJS takes none of these matters into consideration.   In fact, the PJS is a mystery to me – how did it occur, and how is anyone gullible enough to believe that, in light of all the facts shown above, Mr. Sleiman – such a smart, rich, experienced lawyer and PFPF trustee - made “inadvertent mistakes” 5 years in a row in violating the law?

 

I urge the FCE to consider the political side to this.    Mr. Sleiman has directly or indirectly contributed to many politicians.   He should be questioned about this.   He has held other public offices, such as serving on the governor’s Judicial Nominating Committee (JNC) from 2001 – 2005 at least.     Gov. Bush appointed him.     I fear that his status as a wealthy donor with political clout has turned justice on its head – he is getting off lightly via the PJS, thanks to his wealth and influence.    Perhaps Ms. Hadley hopes that, by approving such a weak PJS, that she will later receive a favor from such a powerful man?   Who knows?    Still, this sort of thing bears investigation.   

 

Rich, smart senior attorneys with long tenures as public officials should be deemed to know the law and should be punished more harshly thanks to such factors.    Mr. Sleiman, especially give his JNC position, should be held to the highest of standards, and not the standard that might be apropos were he a poor, stupid person who was not an attorney.  

 

If you agree with me that the PJS should be rejected, I suggest that subpoenas should issue along the lines discussed herein, and that Mr. Sleiman be deposed about matters such as those mentioned here.   I further suggest that someone should involve me in this process, as I have done so much work, and know where at least many of “the bodies are buried”.    I also ask that Ms. Hadley be removed from this case, because (1) the PJS is a mockery as shown above, and (2) she is unlikely to be objective towards me, the complainant, and (3) the PJS, being so weak, suggests the possibility of misconduct on her part.    Even if I had used the most honeyed words of criticism, which I cannot in good conscience do, because the PJS is such an outrage, Ms. Hadley would clearly have gleaned that I have a low opinion about her competence,  and the degree of effort she has put into this matter.   I also wonder about her objectivity and motivations – perhaps she is afraid to come down too hard on such a rich and connected man.    I smell a rat in the development of the PJS, and therefore further ask that you dig deep into how it came into being.    

 

I just submitted a public records request (PRR) to Ms. Hadley - see Exhibit 1.    Once I see the requested documents, I reserve the right to supplement this letter. 

 

There is one other flaw with the PJS that merits consideration.    Peter Sleiman, despite his vast wealth, has caused the PFPF, and thus City taxpayers (taxpayers fund most expenses of the PFPF) to pay his legal bills.   I know this thanks to public records requests.   If you fine Mr. Sleiman $2,500, or a larger amount, he is likely to cause the PFPF to pay such fine, directly or indirectly, just as he has caused the PFPF to pay his legal fees.    The FCE should add provisions to any document approved by it in connection with the Complaint  (1) barring Mr. Sleiman from having the PFPF pay his legal fees going forward, (2) forcing Mr. Sleiman to reimburse the PFPF for the legal fees it has paid on his behalf to date – these are believed based on records provided to me from the PFPF, to exceed $10,000, and (3) forcing Mr. Sleiman to neither seek, nor accept, reimbursement of any fines from the PFPF.   Plus, ask questions of Mr. Sleiman about all this – how are these things proper?   They seem very sleazy to me.   

 

I provide the latest legal bill that I have from KKJL (formerly called Klausner & Kaufman) to prove this assertion.    See Exhibit 2, and the asterisked parts in the left hand margin.    The PFPF is terribly slow in providing these documents under the Sunshine Law.     But, just in Nov. 2011, KKJL billed the PFPF $1,715.85 to represent Mr. Sleiman in this matter.   I have in my possession older bills and checks, which prove that the PFPF has paid KKJL over $10,000 to represent Mr. Sleiman through Nov. 2011.   I do not provide these due to their bulk, but you can obtain them from me, Mr. Sleiman or the PFPF.    It is no stretch to conclude that, if Mr. Sleiman is fined by the FCE, he will use his power as PFPF trustee, and as a major real estate investor and developer – businesses the PFPF is also engaged in - to get reimbursed that amount, and there is nothing in the PJS as it now exists to prevent this from occurring.    

 

Ms. Hadley did not think of this.   Or she did and failed to include it.   Either way – shame on Ms. Hadley.     This suggests that Ms. Hadley should no longer should have any role respecting the Complaint.    We now have yet another reason to reject the PJS.  

 

Ms. Hadley in sum was outnegotiated and outthought by Mr. Sleiman and his clever lawyer, or otherwise offers the FCE a flawed PJS.    The PJS is a mockery for so many reasons, and must be rejected. 

 

Please contact me if you have questions, or need documentation, or whatever.    Please also seriously consider my complaints about how unfair your procedures are, and please consider how to ameliorate this problem vis-à-vis  the Complaint.   I am happy to walk the FCE through everything I have discussed herein – all the FCE has to do is call.   

 

If you act as I suggest, at the probable cause determination, you should ask, as a minimum, questions about Mr. Sleiman’s knowledge of financial disclosure law at the time of said disclosures, his assets and liabilities to prove whether or not the recently filed Form 1 – X’s were validly done, and various other questions of an impeaching nature, as I suspect that he will, in his testimony, not tell the FCE the truth.   Others could be invited to testify concerning Mr. Sleiman truthfulness, his knowledge of laws relating to his service as PFPF trustee, etc.   I am sure you know how to do these things, and I sincerely hope you will not let Mr. Sleiman, yet again, get away with violations of the law.  

 

A $500 fine per violation of the law is just a mockery of justice; there is no other way of saying it.

 

Note – Mr. Sleiman still serves as trustee of the PFPF, despite admitting, via his letter dated 12/9/10, that he must resign.   He has milked his holdover rights for more than 13 months now, and has, I suspect, used his political ties to delay his cessation as trustee.    I can provide more on this if you like.  

 

                                                                                                                                       Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

Exhibit 1 – my public records request letter to Ms. Hadley dated 1/21/12

 

Exhibit 2 – Nov 2011 billing records from KKJL to the PFPF.    (KKJL was then called Klausner & Kaufman – new partners were recently added, resulting in a name change)

 

Exhibit 3 – Peter Sleiman letter dated 12/9/10    (Note – Peter Sleiman still serves as PFPF trustee notwithstanding this letter, and this letter further proves that Peter Sleiman is highly conversant with FL law)

 

 

Cc:         Stuart A. Kaufman

               Attorney for Mr. Sleiman

               Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson  (name of firm formerly known as Klausner & Kaufman)

10059 NW 1^st Court

Plantation FL 33324

(via certified mail, return receipt requested)