The pile of legal documents in the matter of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the law offices of Snell and Wilmer continues to grow. This week, fraud victim Will Graven pleaded with the Arizona Supreme Court to give him the “opportunity to have my life returned to me.”
At issue is a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus filed by Graven with the Arizona Supreme Court asking that the Arizona Attorney General’s Office present the results of investigations into the actions of attorneys with the Snell and Wilmer law firm as well as several officials from the City of Victorville, California to a State Grand Jury.
The Snell and Wilmer law firm, which represents both the Arizona Governor’s Office as well as the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in the unpopular lawsuit against the Tohono O’odham Nation, has many former employees in the highest levels of government including Ducey administration and the Secretary of State’s office.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich has been criticized for the seeming reluctance to pursue the remaining cases related to a complex fraud scheme which includes allegations against three Snell and Wilmer attorneys. While the investigation, which began under Attorney General Tom Horne’s tenure, has already resulted in several indictments and guilty pleas, it appears to have stalled when Brnovich took office.
A video of the AG’s case outlines what investigators and attorneys in the AG’s office believed was enough to proceed with indictments. Since that public information was made public, current Attorney General Office employees have taken steps to smear former Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Dan Woods and his team at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
Horne and members of his staff say that Woods is – and always has been – above reproach. Horne has said on the record that if Woods and his team believed there was enough evidence to bring an indictment he would trust that judgment.
Morale in the AG”s office is at its lowest point in years, according to sources, as seasoned and well-respected staff are dismissed on nearly a weekly basis due to the continued ethical dilemmas that have arisen from the case.
That case, conducted an investigation over a period of more than 4 years by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, has generated over 10 terabytes of evidence which include “dozens and dozens of interviews…. tens of thousands of documents… thousands of hours reviewing evidence and interviews… negotiated pre-indictment agreements…” according to Graven’s filing.
Graven alleges that the “contents of AG Brnovich’s own Response to my Petition contains unequivocal proof that he is lying to this Supreme Court.” Graven goes so far as to claim that “AG Brnovich did not refuse to indict based upon a lack of evidence, but rather he refused to indict Snell & Wilmer because of his special interest relationships…” He accuses Brnovich of “committing Fraud on this Supreme Court.”
Graven concludes: “AG Brnovich’s refusal to Indict Snell & Wilmer was based upon murky professional and political relationships, and campaign donor relationship.”
Brnovich’s office has ignored a request for an interview.
Graven’s filing reads in part:
Critical prosecutorial matters in three of my cases require immediate attention (e.g., statutes of limitation), before criminals escape being brought to justice, and my opportunity to have my life returned to me, are lost.
AG Mark Brnovich refused to indict Snell & Wilmer, LLP because of who they are, not because an extensive investigation initiated by then AG Tom Horne Special Agents and their Criminal Reports failed to show that probable cause was established, or failed to show that Snell & Wilmer had committed criminal acts.
AG Brnovich may claim there was insufficient evidence to support taking the Snell & Wilmer Case to the Grand Jury, and that then closing the case was a simple matter of prosecutorial discretion. However, the results of the investigation by his (AG Brnovich’s) Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and experienced Special Agents, yielded two lengthy Criminal Reports, each with hundreds of Exhibits, an indictment and a confession in the same criminal activity, established that there was in fact a fraud scheme to alter corporate documents. All of this tells a far different story than there being insufficient evidence and prosecutorial discretion.
AG Brnovich closing the Snell & Wilmer Case, then firing or demoting and transferring almost everyone who investigated these matters and/or supported prosecuting Snell & Wilmer, reveals a far more sinister and even obvious plot on his part, than his claims of insufficient evidence and prosecutorial discretion.
Contradicting AG Brnovich’s claim of insufficient evidence is that he did approve indicting (CR2015-002486) my former in-house general counsel (Defendant Daniel Esposito) for his conspiring in a fraud scheme “with outside corporate counsel (Snell & Wilmer) to change corporate documents” (Please see Exhibit 1, the underlined text at the bottom of page 2, and the top of page 3). Defendant Esposito was charged in these matters with crimes under A.R.S. 13-1003; A.R.S. 13-2310; A.R.S. 13-701; A.R.S. 13-702; and A.R.S. 13-801.
AG Brnovich also had a confession from one of the fraud scheme participants, Defendant Deborah Dubree, who initiated these frauds by asking an old friend at Snell & Wilmer to help her regain control of the bankrupt company she sold to me. Snell & Wilmer’s response to her was to devise a series of fraud schemes (AG Special Agents have obtained Snell & Wilmer’s hand-drawn plans/notes [Please see as slides 112 and 113 in Exhibit 4, as per the Assistant Chief of Special Investigations PowerPoint Report]) to alter certain of my corporate documents to give Defendants Dubree and Esposito control of certain of my Boards of Directors (Please see Exhibit 2, in the Factual Basis Addendum, the underlined text at the bottom of page 3, and mid-page 4.). Defendant Dubree not only detailed how Snell & Wilmer devised the plan for these fraud schemes, but how they also took the lead in actually carrying-out the series of fraud schemes to ultimately give Board control to Dubree and Esposito.
But AG Brnovich would not approve indicting Snell & Wilmer, who devised the fraud schemes to “change corporate documents,” and lead the efforts, including drafting those fraudulently intended documents.
Something about AG Brnovich refusing to indict Snell & Wilmer, does not meet the smell test.
At the Conclusion to Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Woods Dan Woods’ Written Report, he states (Please see Exhibit 3, CONCLUSION, page 46):
“Daniel Esposito – ABS General Counsel
Between 12/14/2005 and 3/27/2006, Daniel Esposito conspired with Deborah Dubree to use ABS funds to pay Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Jim Sienicki, Mark Ohre, and Bill Kastin, to make changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement, without Will Graven’s knowledge or consent, in an effort to take control of ABS.”
Clearly, AG Brnovich ignored the Reports by his Assist. Chief Woods, as both the Written Report (Please again see Exhibit 3), with 157 Exhibits, and the PowerPoint Report, which is 300 slides with multiple overlays on most slides, and included extensive evidence, show probable cause against Snell & Wilmer (Please see Exhibit 4, a DVD, or please see the PowerPoint Report on YouTube at youtube.com/watch?v=85oyv4Pow4g. [I placed a copy of the PowerPoint Report on YouTube in an effort to achieve justice; the Arizona Daily Independent has also posted a copy in connection with press coverage of these matters.]).
However, even in light of Defendant Esposito’s indictment, Defendant Dubree’s confession, and two lengthy and detailed Criminal Reports by Assist. Chief Dan Woods (who is former FBI and former CIA), with each Criminal Report containing hundreds of exhibits as evidence, AG Brnovich yet claims his exhaustive review of the evidence did not establish probable cause against Snell & Wilmer and therefore using prosecutorial discretion, he refused to take the Snell & Wilmer Case to the State Grand Jury for their determination (although, as noted earlier, Attorney General Special Agents have even obtained Snell & Wilmer’s hand-drawn plans/notes [Please see as slides 112 and 113 in Exhibit 4, Assist. Chief Woods’ PowerPoint Report]).
I am asking respectfully yet as forcefully as I politely can ask that this overburdened Supreme Court review Assist. Chief Woods’ PowerPoint Report, noting, it is 2 hours and 50 minutes long (plus 3 ½ minutes for my introduction). I pray in the strongest terms possible that someone from this Supreme Court review the larger part of this Report. I guarantee, that when this PowerPoint Report is reviewed, it will substantiate that there is probable cause, and therefore, the Snell & Wilmer Case should be brought to the State Grand Jury.
Actually, the evidence in the PowerPoint Report is so powerful, it will convince any viewer that the Snell & Wilmer Case should be brought to the State Grand Jury, and, that these attorneys are clearly guilty.
This matter cannot be decided on an informed basis, or fairly, without reviewing the PowerPoint Report.
Having said the above, I must say, the real folly of AG Brnovich’s Response to my Petition is his defending his actions by saying that as an unrelated Civil Complaint I had filed 5 years earlier, had the same claims against the same three Snell & Wilmer attorneys (neither of which is true, to be discussed below), and as that case that was dismissed in (civil) Superior Court, this shows there was no wrongdoing by Snell & Wilmer.
My Civil Complaint (this paragraph is very important) is commonly called the “red-flag” email complaint (which is later introduced as Exhibit 6). In it, I claimed that a disparaging email about me which Defendant Esposito sent to Snell & Wilmer should have been brought to my attention, as Esposito’s comments should have set-off “red-flags” with Snell & Wilmer (which it did for them, but which they did not tell me about), for which they should have warned me that something seemed amiss (which it was, as the criminal record now demonstrates). Assist. Chief Woods details my “red-flag” Civil Complaint in various places in his two Reports, such as his Written Report, which please again see Exhibit 3, from Paragraphs 157 through 159 (and may other places).
Entirely different (this paragraph is also very important), is that Assist. Chief Woods’ Criminal Cases and Reports were about Snell & Wilmer, and Defendants Dubree and Esposito, devising a fraud scheme to change corporate documents of certain companies of mine, whereby Dubree and Esposito would be named to the Boards of Directors of these companies. This case is commonly known as “the scheme to make changes to” or “to alter the ABS shareholders’ agreement case.” They also added “removal for cause” language, whereby Dubree and Esposito could then remove me from and takeover control and ownership of my companies. Assist. Chief Woods detailed these criminal matters as a result of his Criminal Investigations, in various places in his two Reports, such as his Written Report, please again see Exhibit 3, Paragraphs 48 – 133 (and may other places).
AG Brnovich also states I am asking this Supreme Court to issue an Order to force him to prosecute the same three attorneys (he repeats “three attorneys” throughout his Response) for the same claims as contained in my Civil Complaint, and he states that I am asking for the claims to be prosecuted as “criminal offenses.” (Please see Exhibit 5, AG Brnovich’s Response, in the Introduction, at the top of page 7, fourth sentence in):
“In fact, one of those civil lawsuits involved claims against three attorneys at Snell & Wilmer, the same claims he now asks this Court to order the Attorney General to prosecute as criminal offenses.”
AG Brnovich then draws the conclusion that as my Civil Complaint was dismissed, and I now Petition for an Order forcing AG Brnovich to prosecute these the same three attorneys for the same claims as my Civil Compliant, but now as criminal offenses, and that his exhaustive review of the evidence revealed no wrong-doing, my Petition is therefore old and already dismissed news, and should therefore be ignored.
Let me be clear on another of AG Brnovich’s statements, I have never asked AG Brnovich, or anyone else, to prosecute anyone, including Snell & Wilmer, for my civil claims in my Civil Complaint.
Let me be clear, I have never asked AG Brnovich, or anyone else, to prosecute my claims in my Civil Complaint as criminal offenses.
Supporting my just above statements regarding there being two distinct complaints/cases (my Civil Complaint, and the Attorney General’s criminal Snell & Wilmer Case), are AG Brnovich’s own investigators who repeatedly stated in their two different Reports that the acts and claims in my Civil Complaint and the acts and allegations in their criminal investigations and resulting Criminal Reports, had no connection (to be discussed, shown, and proven in detail below).
If AG Brnovich had looked at either of the Criminal Reports, each with extensive criminal evidence, rather than apparently just reviewing my Civil Complaint and the much more limited civil evidence, he would have reached a far different conclusion than he did, that being: Probable cause has been established in the criminal Snell & Wilmer Case and it should therefore be taken to the State Grand Jury for their determination.
How can this Supreme Court believe that AG Brnovich has ever looked his Special Agents’ Reports? This Supreme Court cannot believe him he has reviewed the criminal case Reports when he doesn’t even know the Criminal Case is not for the same acts/claims as my Civil Complaint, and that each has its own very different set of evidence (the evidence in my Civil Complaint says nothing about a fraud scheme to change my corporate documents for a change in control of my companies…and conversely, the criminal evidence is about changing my corporate documents to effect a change in control of my companies).
How can this Supreme Court believe that AG Brnovich actually looked at the evidence, when he doesn’t even know that there is different evidence for civil claims than there is for the criminal allegations? This Supreme Court cannot believe AG Brnovich stating that he exhaustively reviewed the evidence.
When I met with Assistant AG Michael Bailey and the Chief of the Criminal Division Don Conrad on Monday, December 14, 2015, I asked if they had reviewed the PowerPoint Report: they had not reviewed it (this is a Sworn statement I am making), but they had already told Assist. Chief Woods they would not prosecute Snell & Wilmer. Assist. Chief Woods was put on Administrative Leave the following Friday evening.
Apparently AG Brnovich missed the recommended criminal charges against Snell & Wilmer contained in the Snell & Wilmer Case Criminal Reports (Please again see Exhibit 3, CONCLUSION, pages 46 through 48, and Exhibit 4, slides 291 through 299 or these slides printed as Exhibit 6), and then did not compare the description of the criminal and Recommended Criminal Charges, with the claims I made in my Civil Complaint, please again see Exhibit 6). These matters will be discussed and detailed in Section IIIC below.
There is more than sufficient criminal evidence to support taking the Snell & Wilmer Case to the Grand Jury, right now, which is in fact the next step that was to occur, and what Assist. Chief Woods and Prosecutor Waters were preparing to do. These criminal cases should have gone to the Grand Jury months ago.
But what AG Brnovich did instead, when confronted with Special Agents and Prosecutors wanting to take the Snell & Wilmer Case to the Grand Jury, was to take the following actions: he fired Assist. Woods; closed my cases; he fired Special Agent Buhrow; he demoted two other Special Agents that had worked on my cases; and he released liens against Defendants currently under indictment, and more (additional detail for these acts and other suspicious behavior to be seen below.)
AG Brnovich’s biggest supporter in his election bid was APS; the longstanding outside counsel to APS is Snell & Wilmer; AG Brnovich’s Chief of the Criminal Section, Paul Ahler, has a son who is an attorney at Snell & Wilmer; Governor Doug Ducey’s on-staff general counsel is from Snell & Wilmer; Governor Ducey’s outside legal counsel is Snell & Wilmer; and the new head of elections for Arizona is from Snell & Wilmer, etc.
Are these reasons actually why AG Brnovich would not indict Snell & Wilmer?
To be seen below, AG Brnovich’s behavior in these matters, including fraud upon this Supreme Court, require the unusual step of this Supreme Court taking action to prevent further abuses of power by AG Brnovich.
I pray this Supreme Court will not allow the political cronyism and fraud on this Supreme Court by Mark Brnovich to become the Rule of Law in our Great State of Arizona.
II. BACKGROUND (Much of the below was provided in my Petition, but is repeated here for the convenience of/review by the Justices.)
I first walked into the Attorney General’s Office for the matters at hand on November 3, 2011.
The first indictment came on July 8, 2013 (CR2013-002659). This first strategic indictment was of my former Director of Information Technologies (“IT”). He was indicted on 17 counts of Computer Tampering (A.R.S. 13-2316) and one count of Trafficking in Stolen Property (A.R.S. 13-2307).
The lead investigator on this first case was Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Dan Woods (former FBI and former CIA). Assist. Chief Woods had been my lead agent since day one, which meant that he had then been working on my case/what became multiple cases, for more than 20 months.
Assist. Chief Woods was often assisted during this entire time by Special Agent Lauren Buhrow.
The prosecutor, who had been regularly consulted during this time, and who went to the State Grand Jury to seek the indictments, was Prosecutor Joe Waters.
What was the strategy of indicting my former Director of IT first? Such “techies” often keep digital copies of things. And yes, he had a whole lot of data that facilitated efforts by my investigators and prosecutors.
The second indictment came five months later on December 23, 2013 (CR2013-005033). This second indictment was my former Chief Financial Officer who had become my VP of Finance for Development.
The lead investigator in this case was also Assist. Chief Dan Woods, Special Agent Lauren Buhrow often assisted Woods, and Joe Waters was the prosecutor (they are now more than 25 months into my cases).
What was the strategy for indicting a financial officer second? Finance people often keep copies of records of various financial matters. And yes, he had a whole lot of financial and other data that facilitated efforts by my investigators and prosecutors.
Both of these first two criminal defendants pled guilty and rolled-over to provide extensive testimony that facilitated efforts by my investigators and prosecutors.
The next set of indictments included six of my former employees being indicted (CR2014-001649), including my former president; my former in-house general counsel who was also my personal attorney (Defendant Esposito), my chief financial officer, two senior vice-presidents (one being Defendant Dubree), and my controller (all but two of my entire senior management team had now been indicted, noting the two remaining were suspects).
The lead investigator in this case was Assist. Chief Woods, S.A. Buhrow often assisted Woods (and by this time, other Agents), and Joe Waters was the prosecutor (they are now more than 29 months into my cases).
By this time, a strategy to holdback the two largest and most complex cases had developed (two of the three cases that I am seeking a Writ of Mandamus for) until more of the above noted already indicted parties, and additional suspects, could be encouraged to roll-over, provide testimony, and likely, evidence.
The two large cases just referred to are the Snell & Wilmer Case (Arizona Attorney General Investigation Case No.: P-2015-0615), and the Victorville Case (Investigation Case No.: P-2014-2355).
By May of 2015, Assist. Chief Woods and Prosecutor Waters had obtained a confession from one of my senior vice-presidents in the Snell & Wilmer Case (Please again see Exhibit 2). This Plea Agreement contained a particularly probative Factual Basis Addendum.
In May of 2015, Assist. Chief Woods and Prosecutor Waters received approval from senior Attorney General Officials to indict my former in-house general counsel and personal attorney (Defendant Esposito) for acts described in the Snell & Wilmer Case (Again, CR2015-002486).
By this time (May of 2015), Assist. Chief Woods, S.A. Buhrow (and other Special Agents), Prosecutor Waters (and other Prosecutors) had been involved in my cases for more than 3 ½ years.
By this time, over 10 terabytes of digital evidence had been collected and processed by the Attorney General’s digital evidence team.
And tens of thousands of pieces of physical evidence had been collected (including Attorney General Special Agents have obtained Snell & Wilmer’s hand-drawn plans/notes for these fraud schemes [Please see as slides 112 and 113 in Exhibit 4, Assistant Chief of Special Investigations PowerPoint Report]).
Assist. Chief Woods, multiple Special Agents, and Prosecutor Waters and other Prosecutors, regularly spent hours upon hours of their time combing through this vast array of evidence.
As Assist. Chief Woods and Prosecutor Waters had not obtained approval to indict the Snell & Wilmer attorneys in May of 2015, they continued investigating and seeking additional evidence to advance this case.
Assist. Chief Woods and Prosecutor Waters had long been seeking to have two more suspects (Scott Hesse and Marc Stricker, which see below) each accept a pre-indictment plea, knowing that if these two could be convinced to roll-over to help in the investigations, this would almost force my former in-house general counsel (Defendant Esposito), who was central to both the Snell & Wilmer and Victorville Cases, to also roll-over.
On December 18, 2015 (we are now more than four years into my cases), my ninth former employee, Defendant Scott Hesse (one of the two mentioned just above) (CR2015-006239) signed a Plea Agreement with a Factual Basis Addendum that strongly incented the tenth former employee, Marc Stricker, into also accepting a Plea Agreement with a Factual Basis Addendum.
By mid-December (2015), this tenth former employee (suspect Marc Stricker) had been working with Assist. Chief Woods and Prosecutor Waters on his Factual Basis Addendum, which was 15 pages of admissions, and he was close to signing his Plea Agreement.
Stricker’s Factual Basis Addendum contained information that was probative to the Snell & Wilmer Case, and the Victorville Case, and, it was very damning to my former in-house general counsel. Not surprisingly, when my former general counsel, Defendant Esposito, heard this, he offered to roll-over.
Had Defendant Esposito come in and rolled-over, indictments in both the Snell & Wilmer and the Victorville Cases would have become certainties. I allege that AG Brnovich has interrupted this longstanding strategy and effort, to protect Snell & Wilmer.
And by this time, Assist. Chief Woods, S.A. Buhrow, Prosecutor Waters, and many others on the Attorney General’s staff, have more than over 4 years into my cases.
Assist. Chief Woods, S.A. Buhrow, and Prosecutor Waters, were ready to take these last two cases, plus a third, smaller case, to the State Grand Jury, however;
– Two days after obtaining his ninth success with Defendant Hesse, Assist. Chief Woods was fired
– AG Brnovich then closed my last three cases (the three cases I am seeking a Writ of Mandamus for, one of which is the Snell & Wilmer Case)
– AG Brnovich has sought to remove me as the victim of the crimes committed against me, and replace me with one of my 40 companies as the victim, making my receiving restitution more complicated
– AG Brnovich suspended Pre-Indictment Plea Agreement and Factual Basis Addendum negotiations with the tenth former employee, Marc Stricker, for which a 15page draft Addendum was nearing completion. This 15 page Addendum was to include admissions regarding the Snell& Wilmer case and the Victorville case (the two large of the three closed cases)
– because of the admissions Stricker was about to plea to, Esposito had agreed to come in and for a free-talk. But because it now appears that Stricker’s Plea Agreement and Factual Basis are lost in limbo, or worse, it is doubtful Esposito will roll-over. I again allege this interruption is by design, by AG Brnovich, as his admissions would have proved of Snell & Wilmer’s guilt.
– the other/second Assistant Chief of Special Investigations, Dr. Charles Loftus, was demoted, which, as a senior professional, caused him to resign
– my lead agent in the third case that was closed, Investigation Case No.: P-21013-1134, known as the Emery Rubble Case, S.A. Lauren Buhrow, was fired
– the other Special Agent (“other” to Woods and Buhrow) that was particularly seasoned and respected as an outstanding investigator, and contributed greatly to Woods’ efforts, S.A. Mike Edwards, was demoted and transferred out of Special Investigations
PLEASE NOTE: MY ENTIRE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM HAS NOW BEEN DESTROYED
– AG Brnovich, without even telling the Chief of Financial Remedies, released all liens on all remaining assets of all criminal defendants in all of my cases
– AG Brnovich then told me there were no more assets to realize any additional restitution from and that what I have received thus far, is it. However I know, as does Woods, and others, the AG had assets in his possession that were yet being liquidated for my benefit (in his Response, AG Brnovich repeatedly attempts to demonstrate his successes in pursuing these matters by stating that he has collected $500,000 in restitution for me, and I appreciate that, but I did loose over $600,000,000 (yes, over six hundred million dollars), so less one-tenth of one percent has been collected
– AG Brnovich then reopened my three closed cases (as a result of the press investigating)
– AG Brnovich then sent my three closed cases to Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery (rather than hire a Special Prosecutor), who refused them saying his was not the right agency to investigate these cases and then threw these hot potatoes right back to AG Brnovich
– AG Brnovich then transferred (rather than hire a Special Prosecutor) all of my pending criminal cases, and three reopened investigations, to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office
– there is more, but the above should make the point
The above behavior and acts clearly demonstrate that AG Brnovich, in destroying the Snell & Wilmer Case at the Attorney General’s Office, has made it obvious that: he is seeking to protect Snell & Wilmer, in part, by eliminating investigators, plea agreements, evidence, and cases, and by these efforts, eliminate any possibility of Snell & Wilmer being further investigated and indicted, by anyone, including Pinal County.
What could Pinal County be expected to do with the ashes of the Snell & Wilmer Case? No one could be expected to timely be able do anything with such an eviscerated mess.
As will be obvious to this Supreme Court, there are statutes of limitation looming over these cases.
There are issues of fading memories.
There are issues of failing health (one witness has passed-away).
It is not possible for new investigators and prosecutors at Pinal County to become sufficiently fluent in these complex cases in any reasonable period, and certainly not within periods of time that will prevent these cases from being lost to technicalities.
Based upon the above, I allege AG Brnovich’s intentions are to protect Snell & Wilmer, and destroy me (it is disheartening, if not suffocating, to be hammered by the Attorney General is this manner).
I pray this Supreme Court will consider my Petition and Reply below to AG Brnovich’s Response, and support my Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and issue the Orders that are requested at the end of this Reply, to save justice, and respect for and the dignity of and trust in our Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
III A. REPLY
I believe the larger part of my Reply to AG Brnovich’s Response is in my Introduction, but I include the below comments to provide further detail and support for statements and claims in my Introduction.
The contents of Attorney General Brnovich’s Response to my Petition includes unequivocal proof that my allegations of AG Brnovich’s refusal to indict Snell & Wilmer and certain of its attorneys was not based upon the results of AG Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Dan Woods’ (and by other Special Agents and Prosecutors in the Attorney General’s Office) year/four year investigation, as reflected in his (Woods) Written Report (which see his Report as an Exhibit below), and his 300 slide PowerPoint Report (which also see Woods’ PowerPoint Report as an Exhibit below), that is 2 hour and 50 minutes long…
…but that AG Brnovich’s refusal to Indict Snell & Wilmer was based upon murky professional and political relationships, and campaign donor relationships.
I offer the below as further detail to my Introduction, and Reply as a whole.
III B. TWO ACTS OF FRAUD ON THE SUPREME COURT AND TWO INCREDULOUS CLAIMS DESTROY AG BRNOVICH’S CREDIBILITY AND THE FOUNDATION OF HIS RESPONSE (and demonstrate he has little to no understanding of the matters he declined to prosecute)
In AG Brnovich’s Response (Please again see Exhibit 5), right at the beginning, very early in his Introduction on page 7, in the first paragraph, in just the 4th sentence, through a sworn pleading, he commits his first act of Fraud on this Supreme Court as he misleads with a foundation that is based upon false representations:
“In fact, one of those civil lawsuits involved claims against three attorneys at Snell & Wilmer, the same claims he now asks this Court to order the Attorney General to prosecute as criminal offenses.”
Clearly, AG Brnovich has stated that my civil lawsuit (Please again see Exhibit 6) was for “the same claims” that I “now ask this Court to order the Attorney General to prosecute as criminal offenses.”
AG Brnovich stating that my civil lawsuit is for “the same claims” is (the First Act of) Fraud on this Supreme Court. (This is a fraudulent representation, which see more about below.)
AG Brnovich stating that I “now ask this Court to order the Attorney General to prosecute as criminal offenses” is (the Second act of) Fraud on this Supreme Court. (This is a fraudulent representation, which see more about below.)
Further in AG Brnovich’s Introduction, on page 8, the first paragraph, he states:
“Specifically, the AGO declined to prosecute the three Snell and Wilmer attorneys because, after redundant review by multiple career prosecutors,1 the office determined that it did not possess sufficient evidence of criminal misconduct to create a reasonable likelihood of conviction.”
Footnote 1 to this just above paragraph states:
“1 To date, the evidence has been reviewed by four attorneys, each with more than 15 years of prosecutorial experience.”
To claim that four career prosecutors have reviewed the evidence (Incredulous Statement One), when they don’t even know that their criminal Special Agents repeatedly explained in multiple investigation Reports that my Civil Complaint and the criminal acts described in their criminal Reports are not at all the same claims, nor are they even related, is incredulous.
In making these statements, AG Brnovich demonstrates that he is either committing fraud upon this Supreme Court, or, he has not looked at Assist. Woods’ Written Report or his (Woods’) PowerPoint Report (both of these Reports clearly explain that there is no similarity in my Civil Complaint and the Criminal Case).
Please Note: AG Brnovich does not name any of these “career prosecutors” in his Response, nor does he respond to my naming Officials in his Office that did support indicting Snell & Wilmer: former Attorney General Tom Horne; former Assist. AG Rick Bistro; former Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Pacheco; the longtime Chief of Special Investigations Andy Rublcava; Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Dan Woods; Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Charles Loftus; Special Agent Michael Edwards; Special Agent Lauren Buhrow; and Prosecutor Joe Waters, amongst others.
Apparently, AG Brnovich is suggesting that his un-named prosecutors know more than these parties.
I have never asked AG Brnovich to pursue Snell & Wilmer for the civil causes of action listed in my Civil Complaint. I have asked the AG, and am demanding such here, that he pursue the criminal charges delineated in multiple criminal Reports by the his top investigators (For example, please see Exhibit 7, which are copies of slides from the PowerPoint Report created by Assist. Chief Woods [which again, is Exhibit 4]).
Please Note: AG Brnovich did not confront these recommended charges in his Response.
III C. THE SAME CLAIMS IN MY CIVIL COMPLAINT AS ASSIST. CHIEF WOODS ALLEGES IN HIS CRIMINAL REPORT?
The “claims” I made in my earlier Civil Complaint…are not at all the same claims that Assist. Chief Woods alleges in his Written Report or his PowerPoint Report.
Assist. Chief Woods reviews my Civil Complaint in his Written Report and in his PowerPoint Report, in detail, showing there was no same-ness with the acts and allegations he included in his criminal Reports…in fact, he clearly demonstrates the evidence he had obtained and was basing his criminal Report on…had been withheld by Snell & Wilmer for years and was not even available for investigating (or my use) until the late fall of 2014!
Turning to Assist. Chief Woods’ PowerPoint Report (Please again see/listen to Exhibit 4), at 7 minutes 45 seconds into the PowerPoint, at slide 12 (Please see Exhibit 7 [does not include audio]), Woods states:
“As a result of those red-flag emails Will Graven filed a civil lawsuit against Snell & Wilmer.
And we’ll go into some detail about what that lawsuit included and how Snell & Wilmer responded to that lawsuit.
But it’s very important to understand now that the lawsuit filed in 2011 was limited to the red-flag emails. (bold emphasis added by Petitioner)
It had nothing to do with the conspiracy to takeover ABS. (bold emphasis added by Petitioner)
In fact, when Will Graven filed this lawsuit against Snell & Wilmer, he didn’t even know about the conspiracy to takeover ABS. (bold emphasis added by Petitioner)
That wasn’t discovered until about April of 2014 as Will Graven and investigators were reviewing thousands of emails and other documents that were collected pursuant to the other investigations. (bold emphasis added by Petitioner)
And then after discovering that conspiracy the Attorney General’s Office opened the Snell & Wilmer investigation.”
It is not possible that career prosecutors missed the above in the PowerPoint Report by Assist. Chief Woods. Instead, it appears they never watched it…nor viewed the extensive evidence in it.
Now, turning to Asst. Chief and Special Agent Woods’ written Investigation Report on the Graven – Snell & Wilmer Case (Please again see Exhibit 3), beginning with the Executive Summary, second paragraph, Woods gives an overview of the results of his Investigation, describing the criminal activity that was the focus of his Criminal Investigation (called the “Graven – Snell & Wilmer Case” which was described as “the scheme to make changes to” or “to alter the ABS shareholders’ agreement case”) (I realize the below lengthy quotes could have been referred to as a part of already included Exhibits, but for the Justices convenience I include them here. [Please note: this does lengthen my Reply]):
“Between 12/2005 and 4/2006, Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Jim Sienicki, Mark Ohre, and Bill Kastin, shirked their fiduciary duty to Will Graven and his companies by writing new engagement letters that falsely re-wrote history and concealed the true history, nature, and scope of Snell & Wilmer’s engagement with Will Graven, and then conspired with ABS General Counsel Daniel Esposito and former owner of ABS, Deborah Dubree, to make changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement, without Will Graven’s knowledge, to assist Daniel Esposito and Deborah Dubree in their effort to take control of ABS.” (bold underline emphasis added by Petitioner)
In the next two/third and fourth paragraphs, Woods describes a “Separate[ly]” civil matter:
Separately, in 4/2006, Daniel Esposito sent an email to Snell & Wilmer Attorney Mark Ohre in which he accused Will Graven of misappropriating money (what Will Graven later described as a “red-flag” email). Rather than notify Will Graven immediately of Daniel Esposito’s allegations, Snell & Wilmer relied on the new engagement letters, which falsely re-wrote history and concealed the true history, nature, and scope of Snell & Wilmer’s engagement with Will Graven, and took no action.
In 2/2011, Will Graven discovered the red-flag emails, and in 6/2011, Will Graven filed a civil lawsuit against Snell & Wilmer (the civil lawsuit was limited to the red-flag emails because Will Graven had not yet discovered the scheme to alter the ABS shareholders’ agreement). During the civil action, Snell & Wilmer misled the court, withheld discovery, and continued to conceal the true history, nature, and scope of its relationship with Will Graven. Consequently, the case was later dismissed with prejudice.” (bold underline added by Petitioner)
My Civil Complaint has been called the “red-flag” email complaint. In it, I claimed that a disparaging email about me that Defendant Esposito sent to Snell & Wilmer should have been brought to my attention, as Esposito’s comments should have set-off “red-flags” with Snell & Wilmer (which it did for them, but did not tell me), for which they should have warned me that something was amiss (which it was, as the criminal record now demonstrates) (below from my Complaint, this quote could have just been referred to as a part of Exhibit 6, pages 19 through 22, but for the Justices convenience I include them here. [Please note: this does lengthen my Reply]):
141. On April 26, Plaintiff’s GC/Personal Attorney, Daniel Esposito, in responding to Defendant Mark Ohre’s having sent the above names of Ohre’s attendees, and have expressed his (Ohre’s) thanks for the tickets (Exhibit “58”) (Please see Note 2 below). Esposito wrote:
“No sweat Mark
Confidential!
On a side note. Personally, my position as General Counsel/Secretary is both challenging and nerve-racking at the same time. I am growing concerned as what liability/responsibility I may have undertaken if this Will Graven express goes belly up. Now, at the present we are not going bust. However, if in the future we do? I have the ability to sign checks, but, for most part, Will signs most of the checks. I have no control over the spending of the money, no input, no control. I have no idea what he spends/misappropriates money on or for. This goes for all companies, Az/Ca et all! Look into this for me pal. Thanks.
Regards,
Dan”
Note 2: This is one (the first) of the two pieces (from a total of four [the third and fourth pieces having been found, and presented to the Defendants previously]) to this puzzle/Red-Flag that the Plaintiff found on February 24, 2011.
142. The Defendants did not tell Plaintiff Graven of this email from Esposito.
143. Plaintiff Graven was the Chairman and/or President and/or CEO of the many companies the Defendants were representing.
144. Plaintiff Graven was the no less than the 90.1% owner of each of the many companies the Defendants were representing (and there was only one other sometimes, not often, minority shareholder, at 9.9.%).
145. These many companies the Defendants were counsel to, were not public companies.
146. The Defendants were beholding to Plaintiff Graven (and Plaintiff’s sometimes minority partner).
147. This was Plaintiff Graven’s General Counsel, and Personal Attorney saying these things…something was obviously askew…but the Defendants said nothing.
148. Due to what was an obviously intimate relationship between Plaintiff Graven and Esposito, and that Esposito was an attorney, such “whistle-blowing” language would be taken as serious (as it would be, which see below), and accurate, as Esposito would have insider knowledge (business and personal).
149. Only five days later, on May 1, 2006, Esposito, apparently in a near panic over his above concerns described in Exhibit “58,” writes Ohre with (Exhibit “59”) (Please see Note 3 below):
“Mark:
Let me know when you get some information for me regarding my possible personal dilemma. Thanks.
Sweating like Nixon.
Dan”
Note 3: This is one (the second) of the two pieces (from a total of four [the third and fourth having been found, and presented to the Defendants previously]) to this puzzle/Red-Flag that the Plaintiff found on February 24, 2011.
150. Plaintiff was not told of his email from Esposito.
151. Obviously, such language would be very concerning to Plaintiff’s corporate counsel (Snell and Wilmer).
152. As will be seen in a reply email, Snell and Wilmer will express its deep concern for the allegations contained in Esposito’s emails to Ohre.
153. Snell and Wilmer attorneys had regular contact with the Plaintiff Graven (a now substantial client, even by Snell and Wilmer standards).
154. Snell and Wilmer attorneys had easy access to Plaintiff.
155. On May 13, 2006, Defendant Sienicki sent Plaintiff Graven and Esposito an email wherein Sienicki was stating that he had asked Defendant Ohre to “take the lead on this gila river indian community project letter of intent…” (Exhibit “60,” at Reference 1).
156. In Exhibit “60” per just above, at Reference 2, Defendant Sienicki CCed Defendant Ohre.
157. In Exhibit “60” per just above, at Reference 3, Defendant Sienicki CCed Defendant Donahey.
158. In Exhibit “60” per just above, at Reference 4, Defendant Sienicki stated:
“mark (Defendant Ohre) will probably also need the corporate advice of mike donahey and I have copied mike with this request.”
159. Snell and Wilmer attorney Mike Donahey (now Defendant Donahey), wrote Esposito on May 17, in what can fairly be characterized as extreme alarm on Snell and Wilmer’s part, for the severe allegations made by Esposito (Exhibit “61”).
160. Defendant Donahey wrote:
“Dear Dan:
Mark Ohre forwarded your e-mail regarding general counsel and officer liability to me. Generally speaking, a person in your position has a variety of obligations to the Company and could be subject to liability under several theories. For example you, as an officer of the Company, may be personally liable for payroll withholding taxes that are not paid in a timely manner. In addition, a general counsel may be liable to the Company under basic theories of negligence with respect to his legal work for the Company. Furthermore, a general counsel, confronted with the possibility of misappropriation of funds or other illegal or fraudulent conduct, has a responsibility to the Company to investigate those issues and insure that there is an appropriate response on behalf of the Company (e.g. a determination that no misconduct occurred or the adoption of appropriate measures to remedy or stop any such misconduct).
That being said, Snell & Wilmer, as counsel to the Company, is not in a position to advise you regarding your personal liability or responsibilities. We encourage you to obtain separate counsel to advise you on those issues.
In addition, as counsel for the Company, your e-mails were very concerning to us. We request that you disclose to us as soon as possible the facts that gave rise to your emails so that we may properly advise the Company about remedying any problems. Please contact me at your earliest opportunity to discuss these issues. (bold underline emphasis added by Plaintiff)
Best Regards,
Mike Donahey
161. Defendant Donahey’s language is clearly indicative of genuine concern over the allegations in Esposito’s April 26 email to Defendant Ohre (Exhibit “58”).
162. Let’s not forget, most of what Snell and Wilmer was doing, was for 100% Plaintiff owned companies, and/or the Plaintiff personally…where was Snell and Wilmer’s concern for the owner of these private companies, and the owner himself?
163. Plaintiff was not told of his email from Defendant Donahey to Esposito.
164. Then, Esposito makes an unbelievable about-face from his allegations against Plaintiff Graven.
165. Esposito, treating his earlier allegations almost as a joke, or prank, writes (Exhibit “62”):
“Mike:
I appreciate your response. The source of my emails were purely hypothetical and just a basis for me to be enlightened as to my position. I explained this to Mark Ohre when I first inquired into the matter. If you need to speak to me further please do not hesitate to call me at 602-889-1996.
Regards,
Dan”
166. Plaintiff was not told of his email from Esposito to Defendant Donahey.
167. Plaintiff regularly received emails, calls, or had meetings from/to/with Defendants Sienicki, Ohre, and Donahey (amongst other Snell and Wilmer attorneys).
168. However, none of these Snell and Wilmer attorneys said word one to Plaintiff Graven about this “huge Red-Flag,” hoisted right in front of these Snell and Wilmer attorneys.
Entirely different, are that the AG’s Criminal Cases and Reports were about Snell & Wilmer, Defendants Dubree and Esposito, devising a fraud scheme to change corporate documents of companies of mine, whereby they would be named to these Boards. They also added removal for cause language, whereby Dubree and Esposito could then remove me from and takeover control and ownership. Assist. Chief Woods detailed these matters as a result of his Investigations, in various places in his two Reports, such as his Written Report which has been introduced as Exhibit 3, in his Conclusion starting on page 46 (and may other places) (I realize the below lengthy quotes could just been read as the referenced Exhibits 3 starting on page 46, but for the Justices convenience I include them here. [Please note: this does lengthen my Reply]):
“Conclusion
The above-described emails and documents support the below allegations against the following people:
Daniel Esposito – ABS General Counsel
Between 12/14/2005 and 3/27/2006, Daniel Esposito conspired with Deborah Dubree to use ABS funds to pay Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Jim Sienicki, Mark Ohre, and Bill Kastin, to make changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement, without Will Graven’s knowledge or consent, in an effort to take control of ABS.
Deborah Dubree – Former owner of ABS
Between 12/14/2005 and 3/27/2006, Deborah Dubree conspired with Daniel Esposito to use ABS funds to pay Snell & Wilmer Attorneys Jim Sienicki, Mark Ohre, and Bill Kastin, to make changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement, without Will Graven’s knowledge or consent, in an effort to take control of ABS.
Jim Sienicki – Snell & Wilmer Attorney
Between 12/14/2005 and 3/27/2006, Jim Sienicki, while serving a leadership role, conspired with Mark Ohre and Bill Kastin to defraud Will Graven by shirking his fiduciary duty to Will Graven; writing and executing new engagement letters that falsely re-wrote history; working exclusively through Daniel Esposito to get the new engagement letters signed; causing Snell & Wilmer to make changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement that were against Will Graven’s interests; concealing his activities from Will Graven by failing to disclose his actions during subsequent communications; and charging Will Graven, as 90.1% owner of ABS, for the changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement.
Between 3/27/2006 and 2/21/2013, Jim Sienicki misled the Maricopa County Superior Court by concealing the true nature and scope of Snell & Wilmer’s engagement with Will Graven.
Mark Ohre – Snell & Wilmer Attorney
Between 12/14/2005 and 3/27/2006, Mark Ohre conspired with Jim Sienicki and Bill Kastin to defraud Will Graven by shirking his fiduciary duty to Will Graven; writing and executing new engagement letters that falsely re-wrote history; working exclusively through Daniel Esposito to get the new engagement letters signed; causing Snell & Wilmer to make changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement that were against Will Graven’s interests; concealing his activities from Will Graven by failing to disclose his actions during subsequent communications; and charging Will Graven, as 90.1% owner of ABS, for the changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement.
Bill Kastin – Snell & Wilmer Attorney
Between 12/14/2005 and 3/27/2006, Bill Kastin conspired with Jim Sienicki and Mark Ohre to defraud Will Graven by shirking his fiduciary duty to Will Graven; writing and executing new engagement letters that falsely re-wrote history; working exclusively through Daniel Esposito to get the new engagement letters signed; causing Snell & Wilmer to make changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement that were against Will Graven’s interests; concealing his activities from Will Graven by failing to disclose his actions during subsequent communications; and charging Will Graven, as 90.1% owner of ABS, for the changes to the ABS shareholders’ agreement.”
It is not possible that career prosecutors missed the above in the Written Report by Assist. Chief Woods. Instead, it appears they never read it…nor reviewed the extensive evidence in this Written Report.
IIID. THE SAME SNELL & WILMER ATTORNEYS IN BOTH MY CIVIL COMPLAINT AND THE CRIMINAL CASE?
In IIIB above, at the top of page 13, AG Brnovich states that he “declined to prosecute the three Snell & Wilmer attorneys…” (Please again see Exhibit 5 on page 9, first paragraph beginning with “Specifically…”). Clearly, in saying “the three Snell & Wilmer attorneys,” he is referring to the three Snell & Wilmer attorneys that he had stated on the previous page were named in my Civil Complaint (Incredulous Statement Two).
Please Note: The three Snell & Wilmer attorneys named in my Civil Complaint were Jim Sienicki, Mark Ohre, and Mike Donahey. Whereas in Asst. Chief Woods’ Written Report and in his PowerPoint Report, there are 6 (six) Snell & Wilmer attorneys and 2 (two) former employees of mine named. The six are Jim Sienicki, Mark Ohre, Bill Kastin, Mike Donahey, Brian Burt, Lisa Coulter, and the two former employees are Defendant Deborah Dubree and Defendant Daniel Esposito.
In paragraph 159 of Assit. Chief and Special Agent Woods’ Report he wrote:
“When Will Graven filed his lawsuit against Snell & Wilmer, he knew nothing about Daniel Esposito and Deborah Dubree working with Jim Sienicki, Bill Kastin, Mark Ohre, and Brian Burt to make significant changes to the ABS corporate documents between 12/2005 and 1/2006. Consequently, his civil lawsuit was limited to the above-described emails between Daniel Esposito, Mark Ohre, and Michael Donahey, which Will Graven referred to collectively as “red flags.” Will Graven claimed that if Snell & Wilmer had made him aware of the emails in 2006, he could have taken steps to avoid catastrophic losses.”
In paragraph 66 of Assist. Chief and Special Agent Woods’ Report he wrote:
“On 12/20/2005 at 1124 hours, Daniel Esposito sent an email to Deborah Dubree that read, in part, “Michael Donahey the Tax Attorney at Snell and Wilmer will meet us at our office tomorrow at 9:30 am, to discuss the issues with the entities.” (Exhibit 047).”
In Assist. Chief and Special Agent Woods’ Power Point, he states (Please see Exhibit 9):
“If subsequent investigation shows that Snell & Wilmer Attorney Lisa Coulter knew the true history and scope of Snell & Wilmer’s engagement with Will Graven…
A.R.S. 13-2409 Obstructing Criminal Investigation or Prosecution:
“A person who knowingly attempts by means of…misrepresentation…to obstruct, delay or prevent the communication of information or testimony relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a peace officer, magistrate, prosecutor or grand jury…is guilty of a class 5 felony.”
AG Brnovich misrepresented the truth when he told this Supreme Court he declined to prosecute the same three Snell & Wilmer attorneys I had sued years earlier…he should have said that he declined to prosecute the six current Snell & Wilmer attorney suspects, three of which were named in my Civil Complaint years earlier and three that were not named earlier (but then, I guess noting different players would have raised the potential that a different set of players committed a different set of acts…and AG Brnovich clearly did not want to raise that potential while seeking to mislead this Supreme Court into believing that the same three attorneys for the same claims had already been rejected by a Superior Court civil jurisdiction Judge.)
But then again, it may be AG Brnovich did not misrepresent the truth in saying he declined to prosecute the same three Snell & Wilmer attorneys for the same claims…because he never looked at my Civil Complaint to know what he or may be declining to prosecute, as well, he never looked at the Woods’ criminal Reports, for if he had looked at either, he would have known there were different claims against different attorneys.
IV. FURTHER TO AG BRNOVICH’S RESPONSE (Briefly)
I believe that AG Brnovich, by virtue of his efforts at Fraud on the Court and making the Incredulous Statements he did (as outlined above), showing that he has little to no idea what my Civil Complaint was about, nor what the Criminal Case is about, including not knowing anything about the two different matters comparatively, as all he was focused on was protecting Snell & Wilmer, has made his Response moot, and therefore, I will just briefly comment of a few of the other misleading statements he made. (I would prefer that this Supreme Court not waste its time reviewing AG Brnovich’s additional misleading statements, and my replying to them, but will instead proceed directly to considering the below Specific Orders I am seeking in a Writ of Mandamus against AG Brnovich.
– AG Brnovich wishes to make a big deal out my having tried to pursue a number of wrongs committed against me in Civil Court, but that as these cases were dismissed in Civil Court, there is no reason to believe they could be pursued by law enforcement (none of my civil efforts were ever tried on the merits, they were dismissed on technicalities, as I represented myself).
I would like to comment: When I first went to the Attorney General’s Office in 2007, with very limited evidence, to ask for help in the matters at hand, they told me that the matters appeared to be civil, and not criminal, but that if I found more evidence of wronging doing, I should come back.
I then spent 4 ½ years filing and pursuing close to 20 civil complaints.
Bad news: I got my brains beat-out in pursuing these complaints, as apparently, crooked people hire less than honorable attorneys.
Good news: While getting beat-up, I collected bit and pieces of evidence here and there, and was able to conduct an occasional deposition.
With this newly collected evidence, and other that I had been able to find going through what records and computer files were not shredded, deleted, or just taken by the box full by my former employees/the Defendants (Assist. Chief Woods has written of mass shredding and computer files being deleted by several Defendants, in certain of his Reports), I was able to return to the Attorney General’s Office on November 3, 2011, with 16 – 3” – 3 ring binders. It was due to this level or organization that the Attorney General then opened its first case in my matters, and began what is now a more than 4 year odyssey.
One last comment regarding my civil efforts: Every former employee that I pursed in Civil Court (19 of them), has either been indicted; negotiated a pre-indictment plea, or rolled-over providing evidence and testimony to avoid being indicted.
– On page 9 of AG Brnovich’s Response, he states: “Specifically, the AGO declined to prosecute the three Snell and Wilmer attorneys because, after redundant review by multiple career prosecutors,1 the office determined that it did not possess sufficient evidence of criminal misconduct to create a reasonable likelihood of conviction.”
Footnote 1 to his just above paragraph states:
“1 To date, the evidence has been reviewed by four attorneys, each with more than 15 years of prosecutorial experience.”
I would like to comment: AG Brnovich does not name any of these “career prosecutors” in his Response, nor does he respond to my naming Officials in his Office that did support indicting Snell & Wilmer: former Attorney General Tom Horne; former Assist. AG Rick Bistro; former Chief of the Criminal Division Andrew Pacheco; the longtime Chief of Special Investigations Andy Rublcava; Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Dan Woods; Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Charles Loftus; Special Agent Michael Edwards; Special Agent Lauren Buhrow; and Prosecutor Joe Waters, amongst others.
Apparently, AG Brnovich is suggesting that his un-named prosecutors know more than these parties.
– On page 15 of AG Brnovich’s Response, he states: ”Petitioner’s personal dissatisfaction with the Attorney General’s exercise of his prosecutorial discretion in a criminal investigation hardly raises an issue of statewide importance that requires prompt resolution.”
I would like to comment: If the good people of Arizona cannot expect their Attorney General to indict for criminal acts, regardless of who committed the acts, this is in fact a matter of Statewide importance.
– On page 10 of AG Brnovich’s Response he states: “Petitioner need not bring a mandamus in this Court originally; the Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction, and it is the appropriate court when factual questions exist.”
I would like to comment: I would like this Supreme Court to know that when I filed the Pleadings AG Brnovich describes my doing on January 19, 2016, in Superior Court, Judge Sherry Stephens told me that she had no authority/jurisdiction to issue any Orders against the Attorney General (this is a Sworn statement I am making).
– On page 15, AG Brnovich uses his prosecutorial discretion to justify his fraudulent behavior.
I would like to comment: I addressed this matter in my Petition so will not do so again here.
– On page 16 of AG Brnovich’s Response, he states: ”…even if Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the charging decision could constitute an injury (and it cannot), no such injury exists.”
I would like to comment: Attorney General Special Agents and Prosecutors had left the two largest cases, with potentially large monetary awards (tens of millions of dollars), to the end of for prosecution, after the smaller crimes had been prosecuted, knowing that they would obtain confessions from some defendants that would have information on these three remaining cases (and they did). More than 95% of the investigation in these cases had been completed. I have been, and am being injured (to the tune of millions and millions dollars of potential settlements) by AG Brnovich’s refusing to the prosecute Snell & Wilmer Case and the Victorville Case (I did loose over $600,000,000 [over six hundred million dollar] [which, times 3, is the amount of my Notice of Claim]).
There are many more statement and claims in AG Brnovich’s Response that I would like to address.
However, I will stop here…as the real issues this Supreme Court must consider and base its decisions on are what the Frauds on this Supreme Court and the Incredulous Statements say about AG Brnovich’s actions.
V. SUMMARY
Quite simply, AG Brnovich and his “multiple career prosecutors” never looked at Asst. Chief and Special Agent Dan Woods’ Written Report or Woods’ PowerPoint Report. It is not possible for anyone, much less experienced career criminal prosecutors, to have read these Reports and then truthfully make the statements AG Brnovich did saying the same claims were in my Civil Complaint from 2011 as in the AG’s Office Special Agents detailed in the current Criminal Cases. If they had read Woods’ Written Report and/or Power Point Report they would have known these are two separate, unrelated cases, with different claims, different criminal acts, and different allegations, and far different evidence in each.
Woods’ Reports repeatedly insist that the Civil Complaint in 2011 was “limited to the red-flag emails”. For instance, Wood states in his PowerPoint Reports “As a result of those red-flag emails Will Graven filed a civil lawsuit against Snell & Wilmer. And we’ll go into some detail about what that lawsuit included and how Snell & Wilmer responded to that lawsuit. But it’s very important to understand now that the lawsuit filed in 2011 was limited to the red-flag emails. It had nothing to do with the conspiracy to takeover ABS. In fact, when Will Graven filed this lawsuit against Snell & Wilmer, he didn’t even know about the conspiracy to takeover ABS. That wasn’t discovered until about April of 2014 as Will Graven and investigators were reviewing thousands of emails and other documents that were collected pursuant to the other investigations.”
AG Brnovich not knowing there were two separate cases proves he did not read nor did he care what the results of the investigation conducted by Attorney General’s Office Special Agents were; he did not look at any evidence, or see what the Reports said; he was not going to indict Snell & Wilmer, under any condition. (So taking time to read the results of Assist. Chief Woods’ investigation and resulting Reports that were not going to be considered in any manner, shape or form would have been a waste of his time.)
AG Brnovich has misrepresented a number of matters to this Supreme Court including:
– that the current Criminal Case against Snell & Wilmer is for the same claims that I made in my Civil Complaint years earlier (years before the acts outlined in the Criminal Case had been discovered).
– that since my Civil Complaint was dismissed, there could not be a criminal case; and
– that my Civil Complaint was against the same three attorneys that the Criminal Case is against (three of the eight parties implicated in the Criminal Report are the same parties as named in my Civil Complaint, but for entirely different acts); and
– that I am asking this Supreme Court to order the Attorney General’s Office to prosecute Snell & Wilmer for the same claims I made in my Civil Complaint (AG Brnovich seems to have missed the recommended Criminal Charges against Snell & Wilmer as delineated in the Snell & Wilmer Case Reports that his Special Agents authored at the conclusion to their investigation. See Exhibit 6).
AG Brnovich’s decision to not indict Snell & Wilmer and certain of its attorney’s was not due to lack of evidence or prosecutorial discretion as he claims. There is more than ample evidence in the investigative reports completed by the Special Agents in the Attorney General’s Office to support going to the Grand Jury for indictment. AG Brnovich refused to indict Snell & Wilmer and certain of its attorneys because of special interest, political, professional and campaign donor relationships.
AG Brnovich’s fraudulent misrepresentations were deliberate. Intentionally misleading the court is called “Fraud on the Court”. It is for these reasons that I maintain that Attorney General Mark Brnovich is committing Fraud on this Supreme Court.
VI. SPECIFIC ORDERS TO BE INCLUDED IN A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AS BEING REQUESTED FROM THIS SUPREME COURT BY MY PETITION
I and my cases are between a rock and a hard place.
The “hard place” is AG Brnovich’s Office…as our State’s top prosecutor would rather protect cronies of his than give justice to a victim that has been severely harmed.
The “rock,” are the statutes of limitation that my cases could soon pass beyond the limits of.
More to the “rock,” is that the results of more-than 4-years-of-investigating and prosecuting my cases has been eviscerated, and then turned over to parties who do not have the resources to timely pursue these cases before the time allowed for by the statutes of limitation is exceeded.
I must have the AG’s Office take my last three cases to the Grand Jury, immediately.
I must have Prosecutor Joe Waters take these three cases to the State Grand Jury, immediately.
Prosecutor Waters must have the assistance of two fired Special Agents who invested these matters.
Therefore, I pray this Supreme Court will issue a Writ of Mandamus that specifically includes the following Orders, amongst others as this Supreme Court will know far better than I.;
– Attorney General Mark Brnovich is hereby Ordered to direct his Assistant AG and Prosecutor Joe Waters, to prepare to present, and then present, Investigation Case No.: P-2015-0615, known as the “Graven – Snell & Wilmer Case,” to the Arizona State Grand Jury, at the earliest possible date.
– Further to the above Order in the Snell & Wilmer Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to somehow engage former Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Dan Woods, on a limited basis, to assist Prosecutor Waters in preparing to present the Snell & Wilmer Case to the State Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Snell & Wilmer Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to somehow engage former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods, on a limited basis, to appear with Prosecutor Waters in presenting the Snell & Wilmer Case to the State Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Snell & Wilmer Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to have former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods appear with Prosecutor Waters from beginning to end of his (Waters) presenting the Snell & Wilmer Case to the State Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Snell & Wilmer Case, AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to prepare a report of his fulfilling the above Orders, including a complete record of Prosecutor Waters presenting the Case to the Grand Jury, and then submit the completed report to this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court will monitor AG Brnovich in these matters.
– AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to direct his Assistant AG and Prosecutor Waters, to prepare to present, and then present Investigation Case No.: P-2013-1134, known as the “Emery Rubble Case,” to the State Grand Jury, at the earliest possible date.
– Further to the above Order in the Emery Rubble Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to somehow engage former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods, and former Special Agent Lauren Buhrow, each on a limited basis, to assist Prosecutor Waters in preparing to present to the Emery Rubble Case to the State Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Emery Rubble Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to somehow engage former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods, and former S.A. Buhrow, on a limited basis, to appear with Prosecutor Waters in presenting the Emery Rubble Case to the Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Emery Rubble Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to have former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods and former S.A. Buhrow appear with Prosecutor Waters from beginning to end of his (Waters) presenting the Emery Rubble case to the Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Emery Rubble Case, AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to prepare a report of his fulfilling these Orders, including a complete record of Prosecutor Waters presenting the Case to the State Grand Jury, and then submitting the completed report to this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court will monitor AG Brnovich in these matters.
– Further to the above Orders in the Emery Rubble Case, if the Grand Jury hands-down indictments in this Case, AG Brnovich, is Ordered to have former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods and former S.A. Buhrow assist with what will likely be plea negotiations with the defendants of this Case, and will likely result in Plea Agreement that have lengthy Factual Basis Addendums.
– AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to direct his Assistant AG and Prosecutor Waters, to prepare to present, and then present Investigation Case No.: P-2014-2355, known as the “Victorville Case,” to the State Grand Jury, at the earliest possible date.
– Further to the above Order in the Victorville Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to somehow engage former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods, on a limited basis, to assist Prosecutor Waters in preparing to present to the Victorville Case to the State Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Victorville Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to somehow engage former Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods, on a limited basis, to appear with Prosecutor Waters in presenting the Victorville Case to the State Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Victorville Case, AG Brnovich is Ordered to have former Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and S.A Dan Woods appear with Prosecutor Waters from beginning to end of his (Waters) presenting the Victorville case to the State Grand Jury.
– Further to the above Orders in the Victorville Case, AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to prepare a report of his fulfilling these Orders, including a complete record of Prosecutor Waters presenting the Case to the State Grand Jury, and then submitting the completed report to this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court will monitor AG Brnovich in these matters.
– Further to the above Orders in the Victorville Case, AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to prepare a report of his fulfilling these Orders, including a complete record of Prosecutor Waters presenting the Case to the State Grand Jury, and then submitting the completed report to this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court will monitor AG Brnovich in these matters.
– AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to direct his Assistant AG and Prosecutor Waters, to complete pre-indictment plea negotiations with suspect Marc Stricker, noting with particularity, that the 15 draft Factual Basis Addendum that had been largely completed, be completed, with all details that suspect Stricker can attest to, being a part of completing Stricker’s Plea Agreement.
– Further to the above Order regarding suspect Stricker, AG Brnovich is Ordered to somehow engage former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A Dan Woods, on a limited basis, for the purpose of assisting Prosecutors Waters with completing Stricker’s Plea Agreement and Factual Basis Addendum.
– AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to direct his Assistant AG and Prosecutor Waters, to immediately move forward with the plea negotiations and free-talk with Defendant Daniel Esposito.
– Further to the above Order regarding Defendant Esposito, AG Brnovich is Ordered to somehow engage former Assist. Chief of Special Investigations and S.A. Dan Woods, on a limited basis, to assist Prosecutors Waters with the Defendant Esposito free-talk, and then, likely, plea negotiations that will include a lengthy Plea Agreement and Factual Basis Addendum.
– Further to the above Orders in the Defendant Esposito free-talk, AG Brnovich is hereby Ordered to prepare a report of his fulfilling these Orders, including a record of Prosecutor Waters holding the free-talk, and the likely resulting plea negotiations and then submitting the completed report to this Supreme Court. This Supreme Court will monitor AG Brnovich in these matters.
– Further to the above Orders in all matters, AG Brnovich is Ordered to re-establish the liens previously obtained against all assets of all criminal defendants and continue the liquidation of such assets to the benefit of victim Will Graven.
– Further to the above Orders, this Supreme Court will issue a subsequent Order appointing a Special Prosecutor to manage the above activities.
I apologize for my colloquial manner in drafting the above, and thank this Supreme Court for it patience.
Quite simply, AG Brnovich and his career criminal prosecutors never looked at Asst. Chief and S.A Woods’ Written or PowerPoint Reports. This is obvious as if they had read Woods’ Written Report and reviewed his PowerPoint Report, they would known there were two separate, unrelated cases, with different claims and allegations: it is not possible for such experts to read and review such without learning this.
In other words, AG Brnovich did not read nor did not care what the results of the investigation were, he did not look at any evidence, or see what the Reports said, he was not going to indict Snell & Wilmer, under any condition. (So taking time to read/review the results of the investigation and resulting Reports that were not going to be considered in any manner shape or form, would have been a waste of time.)
It is obvious AG Brnovich and his “multiple career prosecutors” never even looked at Asst. Chief and Special Agent Woods’ Written Report or Woods’ PowerPoint Report from 2015, nor did they compare this to my Civil Complaint from 2011.
AG Brnovich has fraudulently misrepresented a number of matters to this Supreme Court including he states that the current Criminal Case against Snell & Wilmer is somehow for the same claims that I made in my Civil Complaint years earlier (and as my Civil Complaint was dismissed, there could not be a criminal case); that my Civil Complaint was against the same three attorneys that the Criminal Case is against (three of the eight parties implicated in the Criminal Report are the same parties as named in my Civil Complaint, but for entirely different acts); and that I am asking this Supreme Court to order the Attorney General’s Office to prosecute Snell & Wilmer for the same claims I made in my Civil Complaint.
AG Brnovich seems to have missed the recommended Criminal Charges (Please again see Exhibit 6) against Snell & Wilmer as delineated in the Snell & Wilmer Case Criminal Reports that his Special Agents authored at the conclusion to their investigation.
AG Brnovich’s fraudulent misrepresentations were deliberate. I believe intentionally misleading the court is called “Fraud on the Court.”
The contents of AG Brnovich’s own Response to my Petition contains unequivocal proof that he is lying to this Supreme Court.
Referring to my earlier allegations in which I state that AG Brnovich did not refuse to indict based upon a lack of evidence, but rather he refused to indict Snell & Wilmer because of his special interest relationships…and in which I say that AG Brnovich is committing Fraud on this Supreme Court…I stand by these allegations
In fact, the contents of Attorney General Brnovich’s own Response to my Petition also includes unequivocal proof that my allegations of AG Brnovich’s refusal to indict Snell & Wilmer and certain of its attorneys was not based upon the results of AG Assistant Chief of Special Investigations and Special Agent Dan Woods’ (and by other Special Agents and Prosecutors in the Attorney General’s Office) year/four year investigation, as reflected in his (Woods) Written Report, and his 300 slide PowerPoint Report…
…but that AG Brnovich’s refusal to Indict Snell & Wilmer was based upon murky professional and political relationships, and campaign donor relationship.