• The content of this website is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which are beliefs based on personal experiences with Brian Keisacker as well as the law; and court orders issued by the Circuit Court. Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3) which Brian Keisacker has willingly and purposefully violated by serving on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board as a consumer representative, which states... “The citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry. “ Thus Brian Keisacker has, and clearly and willfully is violating the law, ethics and his credibility, etc.

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY BOARD

Respondent, pursuant to Sarasota County Code Chapter 22, and the relevant Florida Statutes, hereby moves for disqualification of the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board, both of individual members as described herein, and/or collectively, for purposes of the August 15, 2019, remanded hearings scheduled on Respondent's Motions to Stay Board's Order. In support thereof, Respondent states the following:
1. On January 19, 2018, and February 21, 2018 the Board entered orders revoking Respondent's building and roofing permitting privileges within the unincorporated areas of Sarasota County.
2. On September 3, 2018, and October 21, 2018 Respondent filed motions to stay board's orders.
3. On October 18, 2018, and November 15, 2018 the Board conducted hearings on Respondent's motions to stay and voted unanimously to deny them. Written orders were not entered until December 20, 2018.
4. Respondent appealed the Board's denials of his motions to stay to the Circuit Court, which entered orders on April 8, 2019, remanding the matters back to this Board for further proceedings, finding that Respondent's due process rights were violated during the initial hearings.
5. Respondent now moves the Board to disqualify itself from conducting the remanded hearings currently scheduled for August 15, 2019, for the following reasons:

ISSUE ONE

THE BOARD IS NOT A REGULATORY BOARD AND LACKS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT HEARINGS OVER STATE LICENSED CONTRACTORS

The Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board is not a regulatory board as defined by statute, thus lacked jurisdiction to initially revoke Respondent's permitting privileges and is unable to rule upon Respondent's motions to stay orders remanded by the Circuit Court.
Florida Statute § 489.113(4)(b) outlines the circumstances in which a local government may sanction permitting privileges of state licensed contractors:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a), a local construction regulation board may deny, suspend, or revoke the authority of a certified contractor to obtain a building permit or limit such authority to obtaining a permit or permits with specific conditions, if the local construction regulation board has found such contractor, through the public hearing process, to be guilty of fraud or a willful building code violation within the county or municipality that the local construction regulation board represents or if the local construction regulation board has proof that such contractor, through the public hearing process, has been found guilty in another county or municipality within the past 12 months, of fraud or a willful building code violation and finds, after providing notice of an opportunity to be heard to the contractor, that such fraud or violation would have been fraud or a violation if committed in the county or municipality that the local construction board represents. Notification of and information concerning such permit denial shall be submitted to the department within 15 days after the local construction regulation board decides to deny the permit.”

(emphasis added).
As delineated by this statute, only a “local construction regulation board” has the jurisdiction to discipline state licensed contractors, and such boards are expressly defined by § 489.105(12) as:
“‘Local construction regulation board’ means a board, composed of not fewer than three residents of a county or municipality, which the governing body of that county or municipality may create and appoint to maintain the proper standard of construction of that county or municipality.”

(emphasis added).
Sarasota County has adopted the Florida Building Code under chapter 553 of the Florida Statutes by way of Section 22-33(a)(1) of the Sarasota County Code of Ordinances. The Florida Building Code is the prevailing standard of construction to be maintained by the local regulatory board in Sarasota County.
Sarasota County has amended certain provisions relating to the administration of the Florida Building Code in Section 22-34 of the county code. This section includes the establishment of the “Board of Adjustments and Appeals” whose duty is to hear appeals of the building official’s decisions and interpretations concerning the building code. Section 22-34, 108. Therefore, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals has the authority to, and was created for the maintenance of the proper standard of construction within Sarasota County.
On the other hand, the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board, created by Section 22-127 of the Sarasota County Code of Ordinances, currently conducts public hearings where it imposes sanctions upon state licensed contractors’ permitting privileges. Although Section 22-127 does vest the Board with the authority to revoke or suspend permitting privileges; that authority is erroneously placed where Section 22-127 only affords the ability to recommend changes to the building code rather than the ability to maintain the proper standards of construction as required by statutory definition (489.105(12)). The Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board is not a local construction regulation board as contemplated by Florida Statute 489.113(4)(b), whereas the Board of Adjustments and Appeals is.
This case in indistinguishable from Snowman v. Contractor’s Examining Board, 704 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1998), where the District Court held that Monroe County’s Board of Adjustment and Appeals was the local governing body with jurisdiction to sanction Snowman’s state contractor’s license, not the local examining board.
In light of these facts and authorities the Board must pass on Respondent's motions to stay orders and transfer the matters to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or other board with regulatory powers as defined by statute.

ISSUE TWO

INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS DO NOT SATISFY STATUTE AND ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS TO SERVE ON THE BOARD

Even if the Board does have jurisdiction to conduct the remanded hearings, the Sarasota County Code and Florida Statutes outline certain parameters or requirements that applicants must satisfy before being appointed to, or serving on local licensing boards. The Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board contains two members that fail to meet the County Code and state statute requirements and must be disqualified from serving on the board and presiding over the upcoming hearings on Respondent's motions to stay.
-Catherine Meyer
Ms. Meyer currently occupies a Residential Contractor seat on the Board. However, her license has been inactive since August 2012, and pursuant to Sarasota County Code § 22-122(1)-(2) an active license is required to meet the definition of "Contractor."
“Contractor Defined.  ‘Contractor’ means the person who is qualified for and responsible for the entire project contracted for and means, except as exempted in this Article, the person who, for compensation, undertakes to, submits a bid to, or does himself or by others construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, subtract from, demolish, or improve any building, structure, or electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or gas systems including related improvements to real estate, for others or for resale to others.”

See also, Florida Statute § 489.105(3).
In order for a contractor to be qualified to perform construction work as defined above, he or she must further satisfy Sarasota County Code § 22-122(2), which states:
“Construction Contractor Requirements.  It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to contract for, or do any construction work in the trade or trades designated under the authority of this Article unless said person, firm or corporation holds an active Sarasota County Operating Certificate in addition to an applicable Sarasota County Certificate of Competency. If required by Florida Statutes, a person, firm, or corporation shall also hold a State of Florida Registration or a valid Certification…”

(emphasis added).

Section 489.127, Florida Statutes explains that an inactive license is equivalent to having no license at all, thus an inactive contractor is not and cannot be considered a licensed contractor for purposes of serving on a local licensing and examining board.

Section 489.127(1)(i) states in pertinent part:

“For purposes of this subsection, a person or business organization operating on an inactive or suspended certificate or registration is not duly certified or registered and is considered unlicensed…”

(emphasis added).

Therefore, in order to sit on the Board as any type of Contractor, one must hold an active license. Since Catherine Meyers' license has been inactive for seven years she must not be permitted to serve on the Board or preside over, comment or vote on any matters in these cases. (Exhibit A).
-Brian Keisacker
Mr. Keisacker sits on the Board as a “Citizen at large (consumer representative)," one of three such positions required by Sarasota County Code § 22-127(1)(a). Of note, "[t]he citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry." Sarasota County Code § 22-127(3) (emphasis added). See also, § 489.131(10), Florida Statutes (2019).
Mr. Keisacker is also an associate attorney for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., and represents dozens of clients in matters that are directly related to the construction industry.

In a résumé submitted with Mr. Keisacker’s advisory application, Keisacker states:

“Prepare and file pleadings, motions, and responses to all aspects civil litigation in areas including foreclosure, boundary disputes, construction defects…”

(emphasis added) (Exhibit B).
Since Mr. Keisacker practices construction law and collects fees from construction related clients, he is currently deriving income from the construction industry, which is prohibited for individuals serving on the Board in his capacity. Mr. Keisacker’s application to serve on the Board clearly and definitively indicates he derives income from the construction industry, thereby defeating the intended purpose of a citizen/consumer representative.
Mr. Keisacker’s law firm specializes in construction law and advertises on their website as follows:
“Our firm provides a variety of services to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, homeowners in connection with construction law matters, including preparation, negotiation and review of construction agreements as well as the preparation and service of notices to owner, claims of lien, contractor final affidavits and other document required by the Florida Construction Lien Law. Should litigation become necessary to enforce or defend the claim of a construction lienor, we prosecute and defend all aspects of lien foreclosure actions.”

(emphasis added) (Exhibit C).

Therefore, Mr. Keisacker must be disqualified from presiding over, commenting and voting on any matters in these cases.
In sum, since Catherine Meyer and Brian Keisacker both occupy seats on the Board which either require an active construction license or forbid earning income from the construction industry, none of them may legally serve the citizens of Sarasota County on its General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board, and cannot and must not preside over matters within the jurisdiction of the Board. Respondent has a right to be heard before a Board comprised of individuals who meet all of the statute and ordinance requirements for service on the Board, and any votes cast by unqualified members shall be of no value.

ISSUE THREE

THE BOARD'S APPARENT BIAS HAS CREATED A WELL-FOUNDED, REASONABLE FEAR IN RESPONDENT THAT HE CANNOT AND WILL NOT RECEIVE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HEARINGS
Respondent's motions to stay demonstrates that the Board has an unreasonable animus toward Respondent, has predetermined its decisions, and has openly denigrated Respondent on the record. Due to these facts, Respondent has a well-founded fear that he cannot and will not receive fair and impartial hearings before the Board.
As demonstrated in Respondent's second amended petition for writ of certiorari, and amended petition for writ of certiorari, before the Circuit Court under case numbers 2018-CA-916-NC and 2018-CA-1530-NC, respectively, the Board predetermined its sanctions against Respondent for future proceedings during the initial January 18, 2018 and February 15, 2018 hearings.
On January 18, 2018 the Board heard counts 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 of the administrative complaint. The unheard counts were continued until a later date. Upon voting to revoke Petitioner’s building and roofing permitting privileges, the following exchange occurred:
“MALE SPEAKER: How do we want to handle the rest of the counts?

MALE SPEAKER: I guess we're going to have a continuance, obviously, to deal with the rest of the counts.

MALE SPEAKER: Move to continue the remaining counts stated in this –

MALE SPEAKER: Well, okay, so if we do a second -- somebody second.

MALE SPEAKER: Second.

MALE SPEAKER: Okay. If we've already revoked his license, is there a need to go forward with that?

MALE SPEAKER: I -- I would caution yes, because if he is successful in appealing this revocation, that may not happen until we're so far gone from the remaining counts that we're time barred from further pursuing those.

MALE SPEAKER: Okay.

MALE SPEAKER: So I do think we need to carry through with the remaining counts.”

(Second amended petition - Appx. 21, pp. 197-198) (emphasis added).

Petitioner asserts that the Board failed to accord Petitioner due process and departed from the essential requirements of law by improperly considering the possibility of success on appeal when deciding to continue additional, unheard counts of the complaint.
Had the Board felt it necessary to conduct an additional hearing on continued counts of the complaint, such a determination should have been made based on probable cause and the merits of the case and allegations brought against Petitioner. It was entirely improper for the Board to vote to pursue additional counts at a separate hearing based only on the possibility of success on appeal.
The Board’s decision demonstrates an apparent bias against Petitioner. When faced with the potential of a reversed order on certiorari review, the Board decided to follow through with continued counts so it could issue a second revocation to ensure its order in the present case remained intact by proxy.
In addition, during the Board's January 17, 2019, meeting, the Board openly denigrated Respondent, calling him "crazy:”

“CATHERINE MEYER: Will you get back to me? Does anybody agree with my reasoning on this? That we need to keep our standards high? Because, you know, we get people like that crazy, what was his name? [Zeris] guy? And he was already, attacking people, and he wants to say ‘well that persons not qualified to make that decision to vote against me,’ well maybe that person wasn't qualified to make that decision. You know what I'm saying?”

WHEREFORE, based on the Board's lack of jurisdiction, individual members being unqualified to serve, its predetermined decisions, and open denigration, Respondent has a well-founded fear that he will not receive fair and impartial hearings. The Board must disqualify itself and a substitute regulatory board must be assigned to preside over the remanded hearings on Respondent's motions to stay.

BRIAN KEISACKER:

BRIAN KEISACKER:

BRIAN KEISACKER:

BRIAN KEISACKER:

BRIAN KEISACKER:

BRIAN KEISACKER:

BRIAN KEISACKER:


BRIAN KEISACKER:



BRIAN KEISACKER:



BRIAN KEISACKER:

BRIAN KEISACKER:


BRIAN KEISACKER:



I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT RECOMMEND EVER HIRING THIS UNETHICAL LAWYER - BRIAN KEISACKER!

Brian Keisacker works for Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. in Sarasota, Florida.


One can only apply the facts and deduce that Brian Keisacker is Unethical!

Brian Keisacker

Brian Keisacker

Brian Keisacker

Brian Keisacker

Brian Keisacker

Brian Keisacker


Brian Keisacker would rather be unethical, than follow the Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3).

From the transcript of August 15, 2019:
"…Attorney Brian Keisacker, the rules -- the rules regulating the Florida Bar state that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. That rule is under the ethics Chapter 4, which is 4-8.4(d) as in David. I hereby request that you recuse yourself from this hearing and this board."

"…I believe that you're violating the rules regulating the Florida Bar and I believe that it's unethical and you should not be serving on this board. And you've known for a long time that you derive income from the construction industry and are unqualified to serve on this board."
CHAIRMAN KEISACKER: And if you feel that way, I invite you to inform the Florida Bar that you feel I'm in violation --
Arrogance and unethical behavior by Brian Keisacker!

Brian Keisacker

Brian Keisacker

BRIAN KEISACKER

Brian Keisacker

SEE SARASOTA COUNTY ORDINANCE 22-127(3)

BRIAN KEISACKER

Brian Keisacker Sarasota, Florida.

SEE SARASOTA COUNTY ORDINANCE 22-127(3)

• (c)  The term "Consumer Representatives" used in this section shall be defined as set forth in F.S. § 489.131(10).
  

• (3)  Qualifications. Architects and Engineers are not required to be professionally registered in the State of Florida as a condition of appointment to a Board. The citizen at large member (Lawyer Brian Keisacker) shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry. Appointment shall be based on demonstrable training and experience acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Brian Keisacker is defiant!
  
• 4)  Term of Appointment. Board members shall be appointed for a period of three years. The Board of County Commissioners may relieve Licensing Board members of their appointment for failure to attend a majority of the meetings each fiscal year. The appointed members of the Boards shall proceed to select a Chairman, Vice Chairman and a Secretary.
  

Brian Keisacker
Brian Keisacker sits on the Board as a “Citizen at large (consumer representative)," one of three such positions required by Sarasota County Code § 22-127(1)(a). Of note, "[t]he citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry." Sarasota County Code § 22-127(3) (emphasis added). See also, § 489.131(10), Florida Statutes (2019).
Brian Keisacker represents dozens of clients in matters that are directly related to the construction industry.

In a résumé submitted with Brian Keisacker’s advisory application, Keisacker states:

“Prepare and file pleadings, motions, and responses to all aspects civil litigation in areas including foreclosure, boundary disputes, construction defects…”

Since Brian Keisacker practices construction law and collects fees from construction related clients, he is currently deriving income from the construction industry, which is prohibited for individuals serving on the Board in his capacity. Brian Keisacker’s application to serve on the Board clearly and definitively indicates Brian Keisacker derives income from the construction industry, thereby defeating the intended purpose of a citizen/consumer representative.
Brian Keisacker’s specializes in construction law and advertises on their website as follows:

“Our firm provides a variety of services to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, homeowners in connection with construction law matters, including preparation, negotiation and review of construction agreements as well as the preparation and service of notices to owner, claims of lien, contractor final affidavits and other document required by the Florida Construction Lien Law. Should litigation become necessary to enforce or defend the claim of a construction lienor, we prosecute and defend all aspects of lien foreclosure actions.”

Therefore, Brian Keisacker must not be on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board, yet Brian Keisacker is defiant and will not follow the ethical rules Brian Keisacker is supposed to follow.
In sum, since Brian Keisacker occupies a seat on the Board which forbids earning income from the construction industry, Brian Keisacker may NOT legally serve the citizens of Sarasota County on its General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board, and Brian Keisacker cannot and must not preside over matters within the jurisdiction of the Board. ALL Respondents have a right to be heard before a Board comprised of individuals who meet all of the statute and ordinance requirements for service on the Board. Brian Keisacker

SARASOTA COUNTY GENERAL CONTRACTORS
LICENSING AND EXAMINING BOARD

UNQUALIFIED BOARD MEMBER
CONSTRUCTION ATTORNEY, BRIAN KEISACKER

August 21, 2019

Sarasota County Board of County Commissioners
1660 Ringling Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 34236

The Sarasota County Code and Florida Statutes outline certain parameters or requirements that applicants must satisfy before being appointed to, or serving on local licensing boards. The Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board contains a member that fails to meet the County Code and state statute requirements and must be disqualified from serving on the board.
Sec. 22-127. - Contractors Licensing and Examining Boards.
(3)…The citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry. Appointment shall be based on demonstrable training and experience acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners.


-Brian Keisacker

Construction attorney Brian Keisacker holds a consumer representative position on the Board. However, he is an associate attorney for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., and represents dozens of clients in matters that are directly related to the construction industry.

In a résumé submitted with Mr. Keisacker’s advisory application, Keisacker states:

“Prepare all file pleadings, motions, and responses to all aspects civil litigation in areas including foreclosure, boundary disputes, construction defects…”

Since Mr. Keisacker practices construction law and collects fees from construction related clients, he is currently deriving income from the construction industry, which is prohibited for individuals serving on the Board in his capacity. Mr. Keisacker’s application to serve on the Board clearly and definitively indicates he derives income from the construction industry, thereby defeating the intended purpose of a citizen/consumer representative.
Mr. Keisacker’s law firm specializes in construction law and advertises on their website as follows:
“Our firm provides a variety of services to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, homeowners in connection with construction law matters, including preparation, negotiation and review of construction agreements as well as the preparation and service of notices to owner, claims of lien, contractor final affidavits and other document required by the Florida Construction Lien Law. Should litigation become necessary to enforce or defend the claim of a construction lienor, we prosecute and defend all aspects of lien foreclosure actions.”

Therefore, Mr. Keisacker is unqualified to serve as a consumer/citizen representative on the board.
It is the responsibility of Matthew Osterhoudt, who is the Director of Planning and Development Services as well as the Building Department, specifically building official Kathleen Croteau and her deputy Guy McCauley to ensure that it has properly screened applicants for the General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board for submission to the Board of County Commissioners who make the ultimate decision whether that person should sit on the board. Since you are now fully aware that Brian Keisacker derives income from the construction industry, you should proceed appropriately.
In sum, since Brian Keisacker occupies a seat on the Board which forbids earning income from the construction industry, he may not legally serve the citizens of Sarasota County on its General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board, and cannot and must not be reappointed for another term.

• This text of this author's opinion and thoughts are Constitutionally protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, (Note it is listed as the FIRST AMENDMENT of the U.S. Constitution for a reason) which are ideas and direct beliefs of disgusting experiences with unethical attorney Brian Keisacker as well as due process violations confirmed by the Circuit Court. Sarasota Ordinance/law 22-127(3) is what Brian Keisacker has and is violating by illegally being on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board as one of the consumer representatives, citizens at large, which unambiguously, clear-cut, definite, definitive, explicit, express, specific, unequivocal, univocal, avowed, declared, specified, stated. categorical, complete, comprehensive, exhaustive, full and definitely (def·i·nite·ly /ˈdef(ə)nətlē/ without doubt) states... “The citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving "no income" from any source connected with the construction industry." Therefore, the facts show that Brian Keisacker is a lw violator and an unethical violator of the United States Constitution. Brian Keisacker defiantly refuses to adhere to the laws AND to adhere to the oath he took to solemnly swear to support the United States and the State of Florida Constitution, then Brian Keisacker violated the oath? Oops.