Marlin Daniels Vs Tarus Mack Judgement

Filing # 137311476 E-Filed 10/26/2021 03:51:46 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2020-CA-003701 -O

MARLIN DANIELS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TARUS MACK, an individual, and ORANGE

COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD,
Defendants
FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS ACTION came before the Court upon the Complaint to Contest Election filed by
Plaintiff MARLIN DANIELS, which stated a cause of action under $102.168, Fla. Stat. The Court
presided over a non-jury trial on that cause of action on Friday, October 15,2021. Marlin Daniels,
Tarus Mack, Jnaya Brazill, Willie Johnson, Bobby Taylor, and William "Billy" Sheketoff testified
at trial. The Court has reviewed the court file, the proposed orders submitted by the parties and has
considered and weighed the evidence presented in light of the law.
Findings of Fact
The Court considered the evidence and finds the following facts based on the greater
weight of the evidence. Plaintiff Daniels and Defendant TARUS MACK were candidates for Seat
4 for the Town of Eatonville, Florida in an election that was held in March, 2020 in Orange County,
Florida. On election night, the initial vote tally provided by the Orange County Supervisor of
Elections was 262 in favor of Daniels and 253 in favor of Mack. After provisional and vote-by-
mail votes were initially counted, Daniels's lead reduced to I vote.
L
Two ballots were counted after this. They were cast in the names of Willie Johnson and
Bobby Taylor. Both of these votes were votes for Tarus Mack. Marlin Daniels was able to
determine the identity of the voters by accessing software provided by the Orange County
Supervisor of Elections. As a result, the Orange County Canvassing Board certified Mack's
election to Seat 4 on March 20,2020 because Mack received 269 votes and Daniels received 268
votes. He was an incumbent and retained his office.
Jnaya Brazill and Willie Johnson voted in the election. It is not known who Brazill voted
for as she did not disclose and was not compelled to disclose her vote. Johnson testified that he
voted for Mack. Both voters were qualified to make such votes and such votes are valid.
However, the Court finds that Bobby Taylor's vote was an illegal vote. Taylor provided
firm, steady, and consistent answers regarding his participation in the municipal election and
importantly, the testimony was unrebutted. When asked whether he voted in the election, Taylor
denied voting. He denied supporting or voting for Mack in the election. He did not hesitate in his
answers. He did testify that he has memory problems, but there were no questions or testimony to
suggest that Taylor had memory problems about his vote or his prior testimony regarding his lack
of a vote or support for Mack. And yet, Taylor's ballot was one of two ballots counted that tilted
the election in favor of Mack on March 20,2020, according to the testimony of Marlin Daniels.
Thus, the unrebutted and undisputed evidence is that Taylor's vote should not have been counted
because it was not his vote. The testimony of the witnesses was consistent.
The Court finds that the witness with the most compelling testimony was William "Billy"
Sheketoff. The Court finds that Sheketofls vote was procured by former Eatonville mayor,
Anthony Grant, who offered Sheketoff things of value to vote for Mack. Sheketoff had lived at the
Eatonville Motel, owned by Grant, since 2019. By the time of the election in March 2020,
2
Sheketoff was about three weeks behind on his weekly rent to Grant. Mr. Sheketoff testified that
Grant was norrnally very harsh and cruel to Sheketoff, but was curiously nice to Sheketoff on the
day of the municipal election. On that day, Grant asked Sheketoff if he had voted yet. Sheketoff
had not. Grant then offered Sheketoff a ride to the polling place in a car. While in the car with
Sheketoff, Grant highlighted Mack's name on a piece of paper and told Sheketoff to vote for Mack.
Based on Grant's demeanor, attitude, tone, and words, Sheketoff took the meaning that his failure
to pay rent would be forgiven and that he would not be evicted if he voted the way Grant wanted.
Therefore, when in the polling place, Sheketoff voted for Mack. Sheketoff would not have voted
but for Grant's offer and Sheketoff would not have voted but for Grant's transportation of
Sheketoff to the polling place.
This finding is confirmed by the events that transpired immediately after the vote. About
seven days after the election, Grant summoned Sheketoff to see him. Grant demanded all the past
rent. Sheketoff did not have the money. At that time, Grant applied a boot lock to Sheketoff s
room. There was no pursuit of a formal eviction process at this time, but Sheketoff was deprived
of access to his room. The police were called to help sort the situation out. Debt forgiveness is a
major thing of value-as is a place to live-for someone like Sheketoff who had nowhere to go.
Sheketoff was a credible witness and the Defendant offered no testimony to rebut his testimony.
Both Mack and Daniels offered testimony. On one hand, Mack testified that he did not
know who several of his supporters were. On the other hand, Mack testified that he has been an
elected official in Eatonville for six years and got out in the community quite a bit and knew
people. Daniels offered important testimony regarding the identity of votes and who Mack's
supporters were. The testimony about Mack's supporters is not directly relevant to the issue of
illegal or coerced and bribed votes. However, the testimony does show that Grant and Mack are
3
associated. The testimony of Mack's wife, Brazill, was not helpful to the Court. She could not
recall where she lived without hearing the exact address, and, even then, could not identify dates
she lived at those locations even by approximating years. Again, however, Brazill's testimony was
not directly relevant for the matter of illegal or coerced and bribed votes.
Conclusions of Law
In applying the aforementioned findings of fact, and in consideration of the Complaint, the
Court arrives at the following conclusions of law:
1. This Election Contest is brought by Daniels pursuant to $102.168, Fla. Stat. The
venue is proper in Orange County, Florida pursuant to $102.1685, Fla. Stat.
2. Specifically, Daniels challenges the election result based on subsections (c) and (d)
of $ 102.168, Fla. Stat. The two grounds applicable to this case for contesting the election are:
(c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a nurnber of legal votes sufficient
to change or place in doubt the result of the election.
(d) Proof that any elector, election official. or canvassing board member was given or
offered a bribe or reward in money, property, or any other thing of value for the purpose
of procuring the successful candidate's nomination or election or determining the result
on any question submitted by referendum.
3. Bobby Taylor's vote for Mack was an illegal vote under $102.168(c), Fla. Stat.
4. William "Billy" Sheketoffs vote for Mack was procured by the illegal offer of
things of value under $102.168(d), Fla. Stat.
5. The votes of Taylor and Sheketoff should be excluded from the vote tally.
6. The final vote tally for Daniels should be 268 votes while the final vote for Mack
should be 267 votes.
7. Daniels is therefore entitled to election to Seat 4 of the Eatonville Town Council.
4
8. Pursuant to $102.1682(1), Fla. Stat., "[i]f the contestant is found to be entitled to
the office, if on the findings a judgment to that effect is entered, and if the adverse party has been
commissioned or has entered upon the duties thereof or is holding the office, then a judgment of
ouster shall be entered against such party."
9. The Orange County Canvassing Board was an indispensable party to this
proceeding under $102.168(4), Fla. Stat., was properly joined as a defendant, and was properly
represented at trial.
In consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED:
1. Daniels's election contest is hereby sustained.
2. Mack shall be and hereby is ousted from Seat 4 of the Eatonville Town Council.
3. This judgment shall be construed as a judgment of ouster to give effect to
$102. 1682(1), Fla. Stat.
4. Within the next ten (10) days, the Plaintiff shall schedule a Case Management
Conference for all parties, including the Orange County Canvassing Board, to discuss the process
and procedure for the implementation of this Final Judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED on this ....%"f october, 2o2l,in chambers in orange
County, Orlando, Florida.
HONORABLE KEVIN B. WEISS

Circuit Judge
Copies furnished to:
Christian W. Waugh, Esq.

Mary A. Norberg, Esq.
cwau gh@rvaugh grmt. co rn
mn orberg(4)wau gh gran t. co m
5
r:wood@wau gh grant. com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Marlin Daniels
Matthew Leibert, Esq.

Iei berl (g) urb antlii e r. c orn
Attorneyfor Defendant Tarus Mock
Nick Shannin, Esq.

Scott McHenry, Esq.
n shanni n(0sh annin I aw. corn
sc ott. mchenry net
r?c"r c fL
Attorneys for Orange County Canvassing Board

Marlin Daniels Vs Tarus Mack Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marlin Daniels Vs Tarus Mack Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marlin Daniels Vs Tarus Mack Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filing # 137311476 E-Filed 10/26/2021 03:51:46 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH

CASE NO. 2020-CA-003701 -O

TARUS MACK, an individual, and ORANGE

considered and weighed the evidence presented in light of the law.

mail votes were initially counted, Daniels's lead reduced to I vote.

votes. He was an incumbent and retained his office.

Sheketoff to the polling place.

Court arrives at the following conclusions of law:

venue is proper in Orange County, Florida pursuant to $102.1685, Fla. Stat.

things of value under $102.168(d), Fla. Stat.

should be 267 votes.

7. Daniels is therefore entitled to election to Seat 4 of the Eatonville Town Council.

ouster shall be entered against such party."

9. The Orange County Canvassing Board was an indispensable party to this

In consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, ORDERED

1. Daniels's election contest is hereby sustained.

3. This judgment shall be construed as a judgment of ouster to give effect to

$102. 1682(1), Fla. Stat.

and procedure for the implementation of this Final Judgment.

DONE AND ORDERED on this ....%"f october, 2o2l,in chambers in orange

County, Orlando, Florida.

HONORABLE KEVIN B. WEISS

Copies furnished to:

Christian W. Waugh, Esq.

Matthew Leibert, Esq.

Nick Shannin, Esq.

You might also like