Exhibit 3

JUNE 21, 2019 LETTER FROM TEIN TO DESANTIS

Kimberly Grippa v. Ronald Rubin

Case No. 4:20cv457-MW/MAF

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-3 Filed 02/14/22 Page 1 of 4
3059 Grand Avenue, Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 

www.teinmalone.com (305) 442-1101

 TEIN MALONE PLLC

 LAWYERS

June 21, 2019

Governor Ron DeSantis

The Capitol

400 S. Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

Request for Governor DeSantis to direct his Chief Inspector General to:

(1) Take jurisdiction over the investigation of Commissioner Rubin; and

(2) Open an investigation into abuse of public office, gender

discrimination and improper use of public funds by CFO Patronis.

Dear Governor DeSantis:

We respectfully request that you direct1 Florida’s Chief Inspector General to 

assume jurisdiction over the pending investigation of OFR Commissioner Ron 

Rubin2 and to open an investigation into heavily corroborated evidence of misuse 

of public office by CFO Jimmy Patronis and his inner circle, in violation of Fla. 

Stat. §§ 836.05 (threats and extortion); 838.016 (unlawful compensation or 

reward for official behavior) and 839.26 (misuse of confidential information). 

 

1 Fla. Stat. § 14.32(2)(k) (empowering the Chief Inspector General to conduct “special 

investigations” at the Governor’s direction).

2 On May 10, CFO Patronis directed his Office of Inspector General “to begin a 

preliminary investigation” (May 10 press release). That same day, the CFO also released 

the complaint. On June 6, the Governor’s spokesperson advised that his Office had 

received the report of that preliminary investigation on May 17, but that it was “not 

opened until” June 6. It has not been released. The investigation is now being 

conducted by the Inspector General for the Office of Financial Regulation (Memorandum 

from B. Perry, June 7, 2019). 

K. Grippa

DFT 118

12/22/21 MB

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-3 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 4
2

If CFO Patronis were truly interested in a fair investigation of a “sexual 

harassment” complaint against Commissioner Rubin, he would not have 

published the confidential complaint in an official government press release just 

hours after receiving it. This act alone calls into question Mr. Patronis’ 

motivations and the impartiality of the investigation he ordered by inspectors

general who report directly to him. We are not impugning the integrity of the 

inspectors general by any stretch. To the contrary, our point is that there is 

necessarily an institutional conflict and appearance of conflict of interest 

whenever an agency investigates its own senior management. 

In a lawsuit filed today, Mr. Rubin details improper, unethical and perhaps 

unlawful conduct on the part of Mr. Patronis and his enterprise, including the 

orchestration and publication of allegations against Rubin in retaliation for his 

refusal to join in illegal conduct. The lawsuit attaches and hyperlinks to 

supporting documentary evidence, including public records, email and text 

messages. 

CFO Patronis employed similar improper tactics to remove the prior OFR 

Commissioner. And recently, CFO Patronis was sued individually in federal 

court (and his agency brought before Florida’s Human Relations Commission)

for systemic cronyism and sex discrimination. CFO Patronis was reported to 

have tapped over $250,000 in state funds earmarked for hurricane relief in order 

to pay his attorneys’ fees and settle these cases. CFO Patronis’ public call for an 

investigation should apply equally to his own misconduct - - which has escaped 

any official examination.

The pending investigation requires evaluating the conduct and credibility of CFO 

Patronis and members of his inner circle, as well as the credibility of numerous 

statements made by the current Acting OFR Commissioner (formerly the OFR 

Chief of Staff). These people directly supervise the DFR and OFR Inspectors 

General. Consequently, the Offices of the DFR IG (whom Mr. Patronis calls “my

Inspector General”)3 and the OFR IG already should have recused themselves 

from this investigation.4 Absent recusal, only intervention by the Chief Inspector 

General, who reports solely to the Governor, can cure this conflict of interest and 

appearance of impropriety.

 

3 May 10, 2019 Press Release. 

4 Email from OFR IG Bradley Perry (5/21/2019) (“[DFR IG Dir. of Investigations] Captain 

Shoaf is providing investigative assistance to my office, which is conducting this 

investigation.”).

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-3 Filed 02/14/22 Page 3 of 4
3

To date, Mr. Rubin has fully cooperated with OFR Inspector General Perry’s 

investigation and has today submitted sworn answers to over 200 questions, 

none of which concern sexual harassment.5 Aside from proving his innocence, 

that cooperation demonstrates Rubin’s good faith and does not detract from or 

waive this request for recusal of the OFR and DFR inspectors general from this 

matter. 

Conclusion

There is simply no basis for CFO Patronis to call for Commissioner Rubin’s firing 

over unproven allegations – particularly when none amount to discrimination or 

harassment under Florida or federal law. The reality is that Commissioner Rubin 

refused to hire Patronis loyalists and Rubin’s father refused repeated demands 

for a $1 million contribution from Patronis’ fundraiser. In retaliation, Patronis 

and others in his inner circle conspired to blackmail Rubin into resigning.

Given the appearance and potential for a conflict of interest necessarily inherent 

in investigating one’s supervisors, agency-level inspectors general must be 

recused from the pending investigation of Commissioner Ronald Rubin and the 

Governor should direct the Chief Inspector General to take jurisdiction over that 

investigation and the related matters described in this letter. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s

Michael Tein, Esq.

TEIN MALONE, PLLC

Counsel to Commissioner Ron Rubin

c: Chief Inspector General Melinda Miguel

Inspector General Bradley Perry

 

5 Numerous federal court decisions hold that the type of allegations in the complaint, 

including that the employee felt “awkward” and “uncomfortable” around Rubin based 

on things he said during lunch, do not rise to the level of a legally cognizable claim of

“sexual harassment.” See, e.g., Byrd v. Postmaster General, 582 F.App’x 787 (11th Cir. 

2014); Agee v. Potter, 216 F.App’x 837 (11th Cir. 2007); Herron v. Morton, 155 F.App’x 

423 (11th Cir. 2005); Venerio v. Federal Express, 2018 WL 5283876 (S.D. Fla. 2018).

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 109-3 Filed 02/14/22 Page 4 of 4