The Florida Commission on Ethics met yesterday in Tallahassee, and at that meeting the commission supported, via a unanimous vote, Commission Advocate (prosecutor) Elizabeth Miller's position that probable cause exists that Jonathan Owens violated state Ethics law.
Owens' attorney, in a really obnoxious, aggressive way, attempted to conflate other issues and other matters unrelated to this hearing during his time at the podium to convince the commission members his client Owens did no wrong. He attempted to vilify me and blame the victim. He tried to say his client did not get these stolen county files because of his position as an employee when he worked at the county. This attorney also argued Owens did not get such data in the course of his job duties--which I found to be telling--because in the media in interviews Owens argues, disingenuously, that he received information like these stolen files all the time within his duty as an aide. Nobody believed that claim by Owens, by the way. Owens' attorney's flaccid, weak, boorish and harried arguments were ultimately unpersuasive to the commission members present. (Owens and his attorney did not even file their own answer brief to counter the Advocate's assertions......... which seems odd)
Setting that aside--the only two questions commissioners asked Owens' attorney demonstrated they had read the advocate's very detailed and factual brief---- and the cognitive dissonance they were hearing from Owens' attorney, juxtaposed with the Advocate's narrative, showed on their faces. Watch the hearing at minute 6:00 of this video, below:
"Isn't HIPPA implicated here, don't folks have to get permission before releasing medical records" asked one commissioner, to which Advocate Miller acknowledged the existance of concurrent civil proceedings and also the criminal investigation by law enforcement over the theft of the files and Owens' unlawful possession of said files under FL Statute 817.5685.
The other question was really shrewd: "Did all the other commissioners recieve these files or just your client Owens?" asked another commission member. To which Owens' attorney gave a nondescript, terse response. "I don't know." (Truth is, only Owens received these files, no other commissioner did, and NOBODY believes this stolen file from the county servers just magically appeared on his desk or that it was slid under his office door as he has also publicly stated).
After only two questions from the commission members, the vote was called and an immediate motion was made, and two commissioners simultaneously seconded the motion, and the chairman called the vote.
by a unanimous vote, the commissioners rebuked Owens' attorney's arguments and supported the Advocate's position that probable cause exists that Owens violated state ethics laws. 5-0 vote.
Next steps, according to an ethics commission staffer with whom I spoke later that day, is this.
A. Owens and his attorney can negotiate a settlement directly with commission advocate Elizabeth Miller
or
B. They will face a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge that will settle the case, and send the disposition of the case back to the commission where they will implement an appropriate fine and/or punishment.
Maximum penalty for this infraction, if Owens is found guilty, is $20,000.00 (Plus his currently compounding and increasing legal fees)
My prediction is that Owens and his Lawyer go for the settlement, as this appears to be their only cost-effective option given the overwhelming evidence against them in this case. I mean--how can this lawyer even argue this case???--given all the proud public statements Owens has now given about how he received the files as an employee, read them all, knew they contained private, confidential, privileged information that would never be released unredacted, didn't return the property, didn't consult legal or IT, and instead he "held onto them" when he left the county and worse than that--sent them out, over state lines, unredacted. He also boldly boasts he still has them.
So, they'll settle---------Or, they can fight it and risk testimony being memorialized on the record in this case damaging their narrative in the civil case---- or worse---- giving prosecutors in the criminal investigation evidence that will be damaging to their defense in that proceeding.
Neither choice is optimal, and this is what happens when people can't win a straight up contest at the ballot box. Greed, and lust for power, and a longing for a commission seat drove Owens on this. He and his boss and best friend, disgraced former commissioner Doug Underhill, must have as their calling in life, the unyielding desire to beat me in D1. They ran Karen Sindel in 2016, ran Owens in 2020, and now they are running a new guy against me this time. They are going to get the same result. Win on the issues, not slimy, dirty, disgusting and unseemley gamesmanship.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Doug's best buddy Jonathan Owens is in trouble.
He freely admits he's sent these files to lawyers suing the county, and he also held onto these files for nearly two years since he left employment---hoping he could use them to damage me in my election and help his chances in a rematch against me. That didn't pan out for Jonathan, though. Not by a long shot.
It's a giant quicksand pit Owens walked into all on his own. He's about waist deep in it now. And sinking. Good luck, dude.
Once the county gets a ruling on our show cause hearing on the replevin suit from Judge Schlechter--we will begin depositions in that matter. As we find others who possess the unredacted files unlawfully, we will add them to the complaint, we will perfect/amend the complaint. Who else has the files? We'll find out, one by one, and we will depose them. Not one of them----all of them.
The old bull is walking down the ridge to the pastures below---not running. walking.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
