Horne/Hinchey

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 75
SUZANNE. M. DALLIMORE, P.C. 1253 E. Bishop Drive 2 Tempe, Arizona 85285 Telephone: (480) 584-4010 3 Facsimile: (480) 584-4145 e-mail: smd@smdpclaw.com
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Suzanne M. Dallimore, Bar No. 014151 Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA MARGARET J. MEG HINCHEY, an individual Plaintiff, vs. ) ) Case No. CV-13-00260-PHX-DGC ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) (Jury Trial Demand) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
TOM HORNE, as an individual and as Attorney General the State of Arizona; Jane Doe Horne, an 14 individual; RICHARD BISTROW, as an individual and as Chief Deputy 15 Attorney General; Jane Doe Bistrow an individual; and STATE of 16 ARIZONA,
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Margaret J. (Meg) Hinchey, through counsel of record, for her causes of action against Defendants hereby alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. During the course of an unrelated internal investigation, assigned to and conducted by supervising Special Agent Margaret J. Meg Hinchey, (Plaintiff), witnesses revealed possible criminal activity implicating 1
1 2
Attorney General Tom Horne, (Horne) and his aide Kathleen Winn, (Winn).
3 4 5 6 7
2.
Faced with the obvious conflict of interest in reporting this information to Horne or to Chief Deputy Attorney General Rick Bistrow, (Bistrow), Plaintiff correctly reported it to an outside law enforcement agency, the FBI.
3.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
The FBI undertook an investigation that resulted, on October 2, 2012, in the Maricopa County Attorneys charging Horne and Winn with a civil penalty for Hornes receipt of approximately $500,000 in illegal campaign contributions, money raised and handled by Winn through a sham Political Action Committee.
4.
On about January 23, 2012, Horne learned and advised his Chief Deputy Defendant Rick Bistrow, (Bistrow), that Plaintiff had been the source of the original information that prompted the FBI investigation.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
5.
Beginning about that time Horne, Bistrow and various attorneys and aides employed with the Attorney Generals Office, (AGO), agreed to and did launch a smear campaign intended to discredit Plaintiff and are currently engaged in attempting to drive her to quit her position and to destroy her law enforcement career.
6.
Horne personally, Bistrow and their co-conspirators have used express and implied threats, slander, libel, spreading salacious rumors, concealment and 2
1 2
possible destruction or obstruction of evidence implicating Horne. 7. Horne has personally been involved in slander against Plaintiff; Bistrow has been involved in libel, among others in the AGO acting under Hornes and Bistrows direction. 8. Horne and Bistrow, and various co-conspirators, despite the obvious conflict of interest, agreed to and did initiate a sham, illegal process to conduct an
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
internal investigation of Plaintiff based on false allegations by former criminal defendants asserted in a statutory Notice of Claim. 9. Hornes conduct is motivated by Hornes desire to protect himself and Winn from potential criminal and civil liability arising from illegal campaign activities. 10. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators, continue the attack on Plaintiff, now motivated by discrediting Plaintiff as a potential witness against Horne
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
and Winn in upcoming hearings to determine whether Horne will have to pay $1.5 million in civil penalties for illegal campaign financing. 11. Bistrows motivation is his desire to protect Horne and his own position of power and authority. 12. Separately, Hornes and Bistrows attacks on Plaintiff are part of Hornes persistent efforts to identify and punish employees who he deems are not loyal to him and/or who are Democrats and/or who supported his Democrat 3
1 2
rival in the 2010 Attorney General elections, attorney Felecia Rottelini. 13. Plaintiffs claims are: Conspiracy; Defamation; Defamation - False Light; Unlawful Disciplinary Action Against Sworn Peace Officer violating A.R.S. 38-1101; Unlawful Retaliation Against State Employee violating A.R.S. 38-532; Abuse of Process; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress with personal injury; Invasion of Privacy; Violation of State and Federal Civil
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Rights under Color of State Law, (First Amendment) ,Violating 42 U.S.C 1983; Respondiat Superior). JURY TRIAL DEMAND 14. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint pursuant to A.R.S. 12-122; 12-123; 38-1104(E); 38-532(D); 42 U.S.C. 1988.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Comment [d1]: Glendale
16.
The Defendants reside or do business in Maricopa County, Arizona and the obligations alleged arose therein. Therefore, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to A.R.S. 12-401 (1), (4), (5), (6) and (7). PARTIES
Plaintiff 17. 18. Plaintiff, known as Meg Hinchey, is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Plaintiff has been a sworn peace officer in the State of Arizona since 1999, 4
1 2
having graduated first in her class from the Arizona Law Enforcement Academy.
3 4 5 6 7
19.
Plaintiff swore her oath to protect and serve the people of the State of Arizona on June 18, 1999.
20.
From 1999 to 2004, Plaintiff was an officer then Detective with the Tempe Police Department, commended for, among many other commendations,
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
most felony arrests by a squad in a single month, and for a superior investigation of rival East Valley Street Gangs. 21. Plaintiff became a criminal investigator with the title Special Agent for the AGO in 2004 where in 2008 she was promoted by to Supervising Special Agent. 22. Plaintiff received a commendation from Attorneys General Terry Goddard and has been commended twice by Attorney General Tom Horne for superior
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
investigative work. 23. Plaintiff has also received commendations from the New York District Attorneys Office, the Arizona Department of Revenue, and the Avondale Chief of Police for her integrity and professionalism. 24. At times material to this case, Plaintiff served as the only outside member of the FBI Public Corruption Task Force and as a special deputy U.S. Marshall, 25. As of January, 2011, Plaintiffs responsibilities for the AGO included 5
1 2
investigating complex financial crimes, organized crime and public corruption.
3 4 5 6 7
26.
Plaintiff swore out the criminal complaint against John Junker and others arising from alleged mishandling of Fiesta Bowl funds. Plaintiff investigated City of Phoenix Police Department, (PPD), officers for alleged misappropriation of private funds in connection with security services
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
provided by off-duty officers to private parties. 27. Plaintiff has testified at probable cause hearings, grand jury proceedings and criminal trials. 28. Prior to the events alleged herein, Plaintiffs reputation was exceptional for competence, honesty, integrity, professionalism and service to the people of Arizona above and beyond the norm. Named Defendants
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
29.
Defendant Tom Horne is the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, having been elected to that office in 2010.
30.
Horne is the former Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Arizona.
31. 32.
Horne is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Horne is an attorney licensed to practice in Arizona and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona. 6
1 2
33.
Horne is the Defendant in the matter of Tom Horne, Tom Horne for Attorney General Committee, Kathleen Winn, Business Leaders of Arizona, CF2012-
3 4 5 6 7
0001, following an Order of the Maricopa County Attorneys Office finding that Horne and Winn engaged in illegal campaign financing. (A true copy of the County Attorney Order is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein.) 34. Defendant Rick Bistrow is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Bistrow is the Deputy Attorney General of the State of Arizona, having been appointed to that office by Horne after he took office in January, 2011. 36. Bistrow is a former law partner of Horne and worked on Hornes campaign for Attorney General. 37. Bistrow is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
35.
Un-Named Co-Conspirators 38. Charles Johnson, (known as Chuck, hereafter Johnson), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 39. 40. 41. Johnson is an Assistant Attorney General, (AAG), employed by the AGO. Johnson is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona. Johnsons employment as an AAG had been terminated by Attorney General Terry Goddard. 42. 43. Steve Duplissis, (Duplissis), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Duplissis is an Assistant Attorney General, employed by the AGO. 7
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 2
44. 45.
Duplissis is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona Andrew Pacheco, (Pacheco), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Pacheco is employed as an Assistant Attorney General by the AGO. Pacheco was appointed to the position of Criminal Division Chief after his predecessor, James Keppel, resigned in about May, 2012.
3 4 5 6 7
46. 47.
48.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Pacheco is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona. Amy Rezzonico, (Rezzonico), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Rezzonico has been the Public Information Officer for Horne for many years and for the AGO since January, 2011 and remains in that post until her resignation becomes effective about February 28, 2012.
49. 50.
51. 52. 53.
Rezzonico was active in Hornes Attorney General election campaign. Kathleen Winn, (Winn), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Winn is employed as the Community Affairs Director by the AGO. Winn worked on Hornes Attorney General Campaign and founded and managed Business Leaders of Arizona, (BLA), a Political Action Committee, (PAC).
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
54.
55.
Winns PAC contributed approximately $500,000 to Hornes Attorney General Election campaign.
56.
Winn is a defendant Tom Horne, Tom Horne for Attorney General Committee, Kathleen Winn, Business Leaders of Arizona, CF2012-0001. 8
1 2
57. 58.
Lawrence Cutler, (Cutler), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Cutler is a Special Assistant Attorney General employed at the AGO. Cutler is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ALL COUNTS
3 4 5 6 7
59.
Plaintiffs Reputation in 2011 60. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 59 above and incorporates them herein. 61. As of January 23, 2012, Plaintiffs reputation for competence, intelligence, meticulous investigation skills, honesty and integrity was un-impeachable. 62. As of that date, there were no negative reports about Plaintiff that had to be disclosed to the defense in criminal proceedings under the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland. 63. As of January 23, 2012, Plaintiff enjoyed a position of respect and importance as the Supervising Special Agent for the Special Investigations Section of the Criminal Division of the AGO. 64. Plaintiffs performance evaluations while employed by the AGO through 2011 were excellent without exception, including the latest one received on November 26, 2012. 65. After he was elected Attorney General, Horne gave Plaintiff a substantial raise in recognition of her excellent skills and reputation. 9
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 2
66.
Plaintiffs chain of command at material times was Chief Special Agent Andy Rubalcava, (Rubalcava), former Criminal Division Chief James
3 4 5 6 7
Keppel, (Keppel), current Criminal Division Chief Andrew Pacheco, Deputy Attorney General Bistrow and Attorney General Horne. 67. Prior to about January 23, 2012, Horne had every confidence in Plaintiffs integrity and competence as an investigator and frequently contacted her
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
personally to request answers to questions and to seek her assistance. Hornes Loyalty Agenda 68. Early in 2011, Plaintiff learned from other AGO personnel that prior to taking office, Horne had met with AGO employees, including former Criminal Division Chief Don Conrad, to find out what AGO employees might be members of the wrong party, (Democrat), and/or who supported the Democratic candidate Felicia Rotellini, (Rotellini).
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
69.
Prior to his taking office, Plaintiff understood that Horne had received assurances that Plaintiffs party affiliation, (then Democrat), would have nothing to do with her work product or ability to support whoever held the office as Attorney General.
70.
Susan Schmaltz, (Ms. Schmaltz), the Human Resources Director at the time Horne took office, testified in an interview with agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, (FBI), on June 20, 2012, that within the first few 10
1 2
weeks of his taking office, Horne came to her and expressed concerns about any AGO employee who had raised funds for or contributed campaign funds
3 4 5 6 7
to Rotellini. 71. 72. Hornes concern was that such people would not be loyal to him. Ms. Schmaltz assured Horne that most of the AGO personnel had been there for many years and were dedicated public servants.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
73.
Plaintiff became concerned about Hornes agenda due to her party affiliation and the few contacts she had had with Rotellini.
74.
As a representative of Fraternal Order of Police, (FOP), Plaintiff met with Rotellini for the purpose of educating Rotellini about the Special Investigations Section and to learn Rotellinis positions on various issue to take back to the FOP during the Democratic primary process.
75.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Plaintiff liked Rotellini as a candidate personally and was impressed by her experience.
76.
Plaintiff went to two or three events at which Rottelini appeared briefly, including a fundraiser for Rotellinis birthday at which Plaintiff left her a gift worth $53.00.
77. 78.
Plaintiff assisted the Rottelini campaign with signs on at least two occasions. Based on various comments by AGO personnel after Horne took office, Plaintiff felt the threat that she would be targeted for retaliation or even fired 11
1 2
due to her party and prior contacts with Rotellini increasing. 79. On July 22, 2011 Plaintiff felt compelled to change her party registration from Democrat to Independent due to this threat. The Chenal Leak Internal Investigation 80. The high esteem Plaintiff enjoyed within the AGO reached Horne again when Ms. Schmaltz, who later resigned due to her concerns about improper
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
personnel practices, recommended Plaintiff for an internal investigation Horne felt needed to be conducted. 81. Rubacalva mentioned Plaintiffs name among others to Horne as a good choice to conduct the internal investigation. 82. Horne wanted to find out who within the AGO was leaking negative information about the State Bar of Arizona licensing problems of his alleged mistress, AAG Carmen Chenal, (Chenal), to the Phoenix New Times.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
83.
Ms. Schmaltz told Horne that the person leaking the information could be Winn due to conflicts between Winn and Chenal. [from the FBI report]
84.
On about July 7, 2011, Horne personally assigned Plaintiff to conduct the confidential internal investigation in the presence of and/or with the full knowledge of Bistrow, Rubacalva and Chief of Staff Margaret Dugan, (Dugan).
85.
Plaintiff was to report her findings directly to Horne initially and later 12
1 2
directly to Bistrow. 86. There are certain procedures and protocols involved in conducting an internal investigation within the AGO, including, but not limited to, writing up reports and/or memos of interviews and copying and compiling documentary evidence. 87. Among these protocols are that Plaintiff was obliged to report her findings to her direct chain of command. 88. Between July 7, 2011 and December 12, 2011, Plaintiff conducted an internal investigation with the full authority vested in her by Horne, Bistrow and Dugan as well as her chain of command including Rubacalva and Keppel. 89. Throughout the course of the investigation Plaintiff received approval through her chain of command prior to taking any specific investigative actions or conducting related interviews.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
90.
Other AGO personnel provided Plaintiff with support, access, information or assistance with this investigation including other Special Agents and the Human Resources and Information Technology Directors.
91.
Plaintiff was properly asking questions of AGO personnel about communications between AGO personnel and reporter Stephen Lemons at the Phoenix New Times.
92.
A number of AGO employees reported that the leak was likely Winn, who 13
1 2
had claimed to be closer to Horne than was Chenal and who talked about her dislike of Chenal publically within the AGO.
3 4 5 6 7
93. 94.
Plaintiff documented her interviews in notes and copied documents. On about July 28, 2011, in a meeting with Horne, Bistrow, Keppel and Rubacalva, Plaintiff briefed Horne that the evidence suggested that Winn was the most likely source of the Phoenix New Times leak.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
95. 96.
Horne said: I cant fire her. She can really hurt me. Without prompting or invitation, in about July and August of 2011, a number of AGO personnel told Plaintiff that AGO Winn had been engaged in the following apparently illegal conduct: a. Working on her real estate business on AGO time; b. Providing false information to the Arizona Governors Office in connection with a grant application; and
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
c. That Winn and Horne had coordinated and managed an independent expenditure election fund for AGO Horne in connection with his campaign for Attorney General in connection with the Horne campaign. 97. Plaintiff discovered corroborative information that Winn was engaging in her private real estate business while being paid by the State. 98. Plaintiff personally briefed Bistrow of these statutory and policy concerns in August and September, 2011. 14
1 2
99.
Bistrow ultimately reported back to Plaintiff that the Winn issues had been explained and were not a problem.
3 4 5 6 7
100.
Bistrow told Plaintiff Winn was conducting constituency and community outreach assistance and not performing work for her own benefit.
101. Plaintiff later learned that one or more employees who had given information about Winn to Plaintiff had been previously threatened and/or reprimanded
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
for reporting this information to the AGO executive office. Evidence of Illegal Campaign Financing Involving Horne and Winn 102. On about September 27, 2011, recently-resigned AGO Public Information Officer Rezzonico came to Plaintiffs office on other matters and through the course of the conversation spontaneously disclosed to Plaintiff that Horne and Winn had coordinated independent expenditures for Hornes 2010. 103. Rezzonico implied to Plaintiff that she thought Horne had already told
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Plaintiff about this, but Plaintiff did not confirm or deny this comment. 104. At that time, Plaintiff understood independent expenditures had to do with campaign finance but did not know specifics about the offense. 105. Rather than assume the Rezzonico disclosure raised criminal violation concerns, on about September 28, 2011, Plaintiff met with Maricopa County Elections Director, Karen Osborne, (Ms. Osborne), and asked Ms. Osborne to give Plaintiff a lesson on independent expenditures. 15
1 2
106. Plaintiff had previously worked with Ms. Osborne on other election fraud issues.
3 4 5 6 7
107. After speaking with Ms. Osborne, Plaintiffs concerns about the Rezzonico disclosure grew. 108. Plaintiff asked Ms. Osborne who would investigate that type of crime. 109. Ms. Osborne said it would be the Attorney Generals Office.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
110. Plaintiff asked who would investigate if there was a conflict of interest within the AGOs office. 111. Ms. Osborne stated that perhaps a county attorney or the FBI, depending on the charges sought and where the money came from. 112. Plaintiff did not mention Hornes name or disclose the identities of any possible parties involved. 113. Among Plaintiffs other regularly-assigned duties at that time, she was
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
assigned as a Task Force Officer in the Public Corruption Squad of the Phoenix Division FBI. 114. Plaintiff also correctly understood that there would be a conflict of interest as a matter of fact if she reported this information directly to Horne and his confidant, Winn. 115. Plaintiff correctly understood that she had a duty as a sworn peace officer to report allegations of potentially criminal activity to an appropriate outside 16
1 2
law enforcement agency in such a situation. 116. Following her meeting with Ms. Osborne and based on her ongoing
3 4 5 6 7
relationship with the FBI, Plaintiff correctly determined that the Bureau would be an appropriate law enforcement agency to which to report the evidence of collateral wrongdoing her investigation was producing. 117. Based on Plaintiffs concerns about prior alleged criminal violations being
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
explained away and learning that Deputy AG Bistrow was inquiring of Criminal Division Chief Jim Keppel if they could remove, change, or manipulate Hincheys written records, she reported these allegations to a public body, an appropriate outside law enforcement agency, by reporting the allegations to the FBI Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI, Phoenix Division Public Corruption Squad, Kurt Remus, (Remus). 117. a. Plaintiff submitted the information that had been revealed to her by Rezzonico and others verbally to Remus on about September 30, 2010. 117. b. Plaintiff submitted this information to Remus in the form of a written timeline that identified all allegations related to the illegal campaign financing disclosures made by multiple parties to Plaintiff during the course of her unrelated administrative internal investigation and her entire administrative internal investigation file containing witness interview writeups, memoranda and copies of documents.
17
117. c. Plaintiffs report to Remus did not come to any conclusions as to whether
2
there had been a violation of campaign finance law; it only reported the
3
information revealed to Plaintiff by multiple parties.

4
117. d. The employee of the State of Arizona who made this disclosure to the FBI
5
was Margaret J. Hinchey, Plaintiff herein.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
117. e. The nature of the alleged violation of law was that while a candidate for Attorney General in 2010, Horne coordinated directly with Winn regarding receipt and expenditure of funds raised by a Political Action Committee, (PAC) controlled by Winn. These funds are known as independent expenditures. Plaintiffs timeline to the FBI disclosed the statements made by multiple parties that there had been coordination between Horne and Winn as to so-called independent campaign expenditures. 117. f. The range of dates on which the violations of the Independent Expenditure Statute occurred was during 2010, both before and after the 2010 Republican Primary election, while Horne was running for Attorney General. 118. At that time Plaintiff did not report this information to any AGO employee. 119. On about September 29, 2011, AAG Mike Flynn, (Flynn), told Plaintiff in the presence of Plaintiffs immediate Supervisor, Rubalcava, about both the grant-related alleged fraud and the campaign finance fraud, his statement corroborating Rezzonicos previous disclosure. 119. a. At this time Plaintiffs immediate supervisor became aware of the
25 26
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
allegations and this was reported to Criminal Division Chief Keppel. 119. b. Both were advised that Hinchey had reported these concerns to the FBI and both agreed this was proper due to the obvious conflict of interest in reporting the allegations to person or persons accused of committing the crimes alleged. 120. Plaintiff and Rubalcava then reported to Keppel on this date, advising him of Flynns disclosures. 121. At that time, Plaintiff reported to Keppel and Rubacalva that she had turned the allegations regarding the alleged grant fraud, the alleged private work being done by Winn and the disclosure about Winns improper handling of the independent expenditures to her supervisor at the FBI.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
122. Keppel and Rubacalva approved of this action by Plaintiff. 123. Thereafter they and Plaintiff reported developments on these issues to each other and to the assigned Special Agents within the FBI but not to Horne or Bistrow for obvious law enforcement reasons. 124. By about September 30, 2011, Plaintiff reported the Rezzonico and Flynn criminal allegations to the FBI. 124. a. Plaintiff submitted this information to the FBI Public Corruption Squad in the form of a signed and dated timeline of events citing the specific allegations and the fact that an election official in Maricopa County identified the alleged wrongdoing as a violation of Arizona Revised 19
Statutes.
2
124. b. The employee who reported this information was Margaret J. Hinchey,
3
Plaintiff herein.
4
124. c. The nature of the information related to Hornes alleged illegal

5
coordination with the expenditures from Winns PAC.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
124. d. The range of dates on which the violations of the Independent Expenditure Statute occurred was during 2010, both before and after the 2010 Republican Primary election, while Horne was running for Attorney General. 125. Plaintiff never investigated the truth or falsity of the allegations and disclosures naming Horne and/or Winn. 126. Plaintiff merely disclosed these allegations to an appropriate independent
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
outside law enforcement agency. 127. In another matter, Plaintiff disagreed with Horne when, on about October 7, 2011, he asked Rubalcava and Plaintiff if they would accept information he obtained, possibly through a surreptitious recording of a phone call, and not report that the information had been obtained illegally. 128. Both agents immediately and clearly told Horne they could not and would not accept such information and fail to report it if appropriate.
23 24 25 26
129. Plaintiff explained to Horne at this time that she has an oath to the people of Arizona, not to the Attorney General personally, which she could not violate 20
1 2
and that included a duty to report unlawful conduct. Concealment of the Leak Investigation Disclosures
3 4 5 6 7
130. On about December 7, 2011, in a briefing with Horne, Horne agreed that Plaintiff maybe should interview Winn, but asked Plaintiff to give him a couple of days to think about it. 131. Thirty minutes following that meeting, Bistrow came to Plaintiffs office to
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
say that she was not to interview Winn because Winn will only lie to you and we know Horne wont fire her or words to that effect. 132. On about December 12, 2011, Bistrow met with Keppel to discuss whether or not the AGO could destroy Plaintiffs internal investigation file and/or wipe her computer of all related documents. 133. Keppel told Bistrow that would be illegal as a violation of public record laws. 134. Bistrow asked Keppel if Plaintiff would be okay with that.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
135. Keppel told Bistrow that Plaintiff would not be a part of breaking the law. 136. Bistrow asked Keppel if the AGO could title Plaintiffs memos or reports as drafts as a way to protect them from public records requests or to place the investigation file in a personnel file to avoid releasing any information about Plaintiffs investigation to the public. 137. Keppel told Bistrow he did not believe that these steps would prevent the information being released as public records if requested, per statute. 21
1 2
138. Later on December 13, 2011, Bistrow told Plaintiff he wanted the confidential internal investigation considered inactive.
3 4 5 6 7
139.
Bistrow also instructed Plaintiff not to write up the memos from the interviews she conducted on December 12, 2011.
140. Plaintiff understood this would violate statute so with the approval of Rubalcava and Keppel, she wrote the appropriate reports memorializing the
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
interviews. 141. In her usual meticulous fashion, Plaintiff documented the evidence disclosed to and obtained by her in conformance with AGO protocols and her training and responsibility as an investigating officer. 142. Plaintiff acted at all times in good faith, conforming to appropriate law enforcement protocols and duties. 143. On about December 13, 2011, Plaintiff reported to the office early to scan her
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
case file in order to protect it from destruction as is required of her by statute. 144. Plaintiff subsequently provided a copy of the disk to the FBI based on concerns about destruction of her files. 144. a. The disk was a copy of Plaintiffs written witness interview reports and supporting documents relating to the administrative internal investigation and subsequently the witness disclosures relating to the independent expenditure issue. 144. b. The disk was provided to FBI Special Agent Brian Grehoski, (Grehoski), 22
a member of the FBI Public Corruption Squad.

2
144. c. The disk was given to FBI Special Agent Grehoski on about December 13,
3
2011.
4
144. d. The nature of the alleged illegality was Hornes alleged involvement in
5
directing funds raised by Winn for her PAC.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
144. e. The range of dates on which the violations of the Independent Expenditure Statute occurred was during 2010, both before and after the 2010 Republican Primary election, while Horne was running for Attorney General. 145. On about January 11, 2012, Bistrow requested that Plaintiff meet with him. 146. At that meeting Bistrow explained that Plaintiffs internal investigation was then to be considered suspended and that she was to take no further action.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
147. Plaintiff immediately thereafter turned over her investigative notebook to Rubalcava as was proper and established protocol. 148. Bistrow later advised Rubalcava that the internal investigation was not to be considered suspended or closed, as previously discussed, but was to be kept in an open status, now assigned to Rubacalva. The First Scheme to Discredit Plaintiff - The Smear Campaign 149. On information and belief, on about January 23, 2012, Horne attended a
23 24 25 26
dinner also attended by a person believed to be Mark Goldman, (Goldman). 23
1 2
150. Goldman was a fundraiser for the Horne Attorney General Campaign. 151. On information and belief Goldman told Horne he was under investigation
3 4 5 6 7
by the FBI. 152. Sometime shortly after January 23, 2012, Horne came to believe this was a result of Plaintiff disclosing the above-described allegations to the FBI. 153. On information and belief, through a series of meetings, and communications
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
by various means, Horne and Bistrow concocted a scheme to destroy Plaintiffs good name as an investigating officer by portraying her as a rogue investigator with a political agenda who set out to do political harm to Horne. 154. On information and belief, through additional meetings and communications by various means, Horne and Bistrow enlisted the aid of co-conspirators Johnson, Rezzonico and Winn to gather and/or spread lies and/or rumors
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
about Plaintiffs integrity, competence, demeanor, personal life and motivation. 155. Horne and Bistrow had, by this time, developed a personal animosity toward Plaintiff, believing her to be the cause of Hornes legal troubles. 156. Horne and Bistrow each personally took one or more actions in aid of this scheme. 157. This hostility toward Plaintiff would escalate as the FBI conducted its 24
1 2
investigation into the illegal campaign finance issue. 158. The weeks of January 23, 2012 to February 3, 2012, rumors began spreading
3 4 5 6 7
about Horne making inquiries about Plaintiff and her abilities, trustworthiness, and loyalty to Horne. 159. On about February 3, 2012, Horne and Bistrow told Keppel that Plaintiff cant be trusted. They refused to disclose why at that time.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
160. During a subsequent meeting with Bistrow, Bistrow asked Keppel if he thought Plaintiff would notice if her case file notebook was missing from her office. 161. Keppel expressed concern if the investigation records contained within the notebook were out of Plaintiffs control and otherwise unsecured. 162. Keppel told Bistrow that Plaintiff would notice because she is not stupid. 163. On about February 13, 2012, then AAG Gerald Richard, (Richard), advised Plaintiff that Winn had relayed statements to various AGO employees and to Horne that contained information that had come directly from Plaintiffs investigative interview memos Plaintiff had given to the appropriate person in her chain of command. 164. Witnesses interviewed by Plaintiff had been given assurances of confidentiality as was proper internal investigation protocol. 165. Winns making statements taken from these interviews implied either that 25
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 2
Winn had access to Plaintiffs internal investigative files or that Horne or Bistrow were disclosing information from witness interviews to a potential
3 4 5 6 7
target. 166. Either of these events would violate internal AGO investigation protocols. 167. As is proper in internal investigations, Plaintiff had told witnesses that Plaintiffs interviews of them would remain confidential.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
168. On about February 22, 2012, Duplissis told Keppel that Horne had called him personally at home during the previous long weekend, between February 17 and 20, 2012. 169. Duplissis reported to Keppel that Horne told him that Plaintiff may have been having some form of personal, intimate relationship with former Attorney General Candidate Rotellini. 170. Horne told Duplissis that Plaintiff cannot be trusted.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
171. Horne told Duplissis that Plaintiff had become hostile towards Horne. 172. Horne told Duplissis that Plaintiff is a political hack. 173. Horne had asked Duplissis if Plaintiff was a registered Democrat. 174. Horne asked Duplissis about his knowledge of any involvement Plaintiff had in Rotellinis campaign. 175. Horne told Duplissis that he would likely be hearing from criminal defense attorney Larry Debus, (Debus), about these issues. 26
1 2
176. Duplissis later reported to Keppel that he did meet with Debus and became uncomfortable with the direction of questioning as it implied that Plaintiff
3 4 5 6 7
was a rogue investigator. 177. During about the last week of February, 2012, AAG Johnson contacted SAS Charles Loftus, (Loftus), soliciting a blanket memo from Loftus, To whom it may concern stating that Meg [Plaintiff] is difficult to work with.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
178. Johnson stated to Loftus that Horne is learning that Plaintiff had more of a relationship with former candidate Rotellini than she had let on. 179. On about March 20, 2012, Keppel and Rubalcava met with Johnson to ask him why he had issues or concerns about Plaintiff. 180. Rubalcava advised Johnson of the serious nature of looking into the credibility of a sworn police officer or documenting unfounded negative information and about the Brady v. Maryland letters stating that there is no
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
undisclosed exculpatory evidence in a criminal prosecution. 181. This would include negative information about an agents honesty and integrity. 182. Part of Rubacalvas job as Chief Special Agent was, and is, to sign off on a letter to be disclosed to defense counsel saying that either there is or is not negative information relating to the officer for every AGO agent testifying in court. 27
1 2
183. On about March 22, 2012, Horne and Bistrow told Keppel that Plaintiff cannot be trusted because she went to the FBI reporting alleged baseless
3 4 5 6 7
criminal activity by Horne related to campaign finance. 184. Keppel asked what they intended to do about Plaintiff. 185. Horne and/or Bistrow said nothing because she is a whistleblower or words to that effect.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
186. On March 23, 2012, counsel for Plaintiff put Horne and Bistrow on notice that Plaintiff was aware of the smear campaign against her. 187. Plaintiff through counsel asked to be informed if she was under investigation by the AGO. 188. Plaintiff through counsel demanded that Horne and Bistrow cease and desist. (A true copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein.) 189. On about March 27, 2012, Horne answered the demand letter personally
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
saying there were no smear campaign and no investigation. (A true copy of Hornes letter is attached as Exhibit 3.) 190. Horne wrote that he had no personal knowledge of any smear campaign against Plaintiff, other than the claimed independent actions by AAG Johnson. 191. On about March 27, 2012, Keppel met with Bistrow and told Bistrow it would not have been appropriate for Plaintiff to report evidence of a crime 28
1 2
possibly committed by Horne to Horne or his chief deputy. 192. Keppel told Bistrow that the FBI does not investigate things on a whim.
3 4 5 6 7
193. Keppel resigned his position as Criminal Division Chief on about March 28, 2012. 194. Horne thereafter appointed Pacheco as Criminal Division Chief.
195. On about April 2, 2012, Plaintiff learned that she was being disparaged by
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Rezzonico. 196. Rezzonico was in a position to spread slanderous remarks about Plaintiff throughout the AGO, State government and the media. 197. Plaintiff had previously enjoyed a very good working relationship with Rezzonico. 198. Plaintiff was aware, but was not a part of, the FBIs ongoing investigation. 199. Plaintiff was not involved in the issuance of FBI subpoenas, witness
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
interviews or other activities conducted by the Bureau. 200. Various media outlets had begun to report about the FBI investigation with Horne and Winn as targets by the end of March, 2012. 201. Plaintiff has never personally talked to any reporter or any media representative about any issue relating to Horne. 202. Plaintiff has never provided information in the form of documents or other data to a media representative. 29
1 2
203. On information and belief, Horne and Bistrow believed Plaintiff was a source of information to the media.
3 4 5 6 7
204. On about April 2, 2012, Horne publicly denied the allegations of illegal campaign financing through the use of illicit independent expenditures. 205. Horne told the media that the accusations were conjured up by AAG Don Dybus, (Dybus), a former campaign supporter whom he described as a
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
disgruntled employee. 206. Horne knew at that time that although this Dybus had claimed to be the whistleblower it was Plaintiff who was the true source of the original information to the FBI. 207. On about April 25, 2012 Plaintiff heard from various sources that she was being labeled a liar. 208. Sometime between January 23, 2012 and April 25, 2012, Cutler has claimed
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
he personally attempted to contact members or former members of the Tempe Police Department, to dig up dirt on Plaintiff. 209. On about April 25, 2012, Cutler stated to an AGO employee that Plaintiff was under investigation, that she was a liar and that he had gone to the Tempe Police Department to poke around about Plaintiff. 210. It had become evident to Plaintiff on May 2, 2012 that she was not receiving assignments she normally would. 30
1 2
211. The environment at the AGO became more tense and hostile as media reports about Horne and Winns campaign violations continued.
3 4 5 6 7
212. On information and belief, AGO employees were being forced to take sides against Plaintiff. 213. It had become dangerous to be friend, defend or support Plaintiff. 214. Plaintiff was no longer selected to serve as acting chief in Rubacalvas
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
absence whereas previously she had been selected to serve in that capacity almost exclusively. 215. Plaintiff was no longer tasked to highly sensitive public corruption cases. 216. Plaintiffs name was not listed on an operations plan for a security detail for Horne, in spite of the fact she was expected to serve in that capacity. 217. This was all due to the continuing slander and rumor-mongering going on, on information and belief, at the behest of Horne and Bistrow.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
The Internal Investigation of Plaintiff Scheme 218. On information and belief, in about March, 2012, Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco, among others, through a series of meetings and other communications concocted a new scheme to further defame Plaintiff and discredit her as a possible witness in the event criminal or enforcement proceedings were commenced against Horne and Winn. 219. The new scheme was, on information and belief, either to incite former PPD 31
1 2
criminal defendants who had been investigated by Plaintiff to serve a statutory Notice of Claim on the State claiming that Plaintiff had lied or
3 4 5 6 7
fabricated testimony in a grand jury proceeding that had resulted in a nowpublically known remand order or to seize upon the PPD Notice of Claim as a vehicle to discredit and ultimately deprive Plaintiff of her position. 220. The new scheme was to launch a formal internal investigation based on the
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
above-referenced former PPD officer Notice of Claim into whether Plaintiff did testify truthfully and to publish the fact of the investigation into her honesty as a testifying officer through the AGO and eventually to the media. 221. On about April 5, 2012, Pacheco and Bistrow met with Rubalcava in his office. They mentioned that a Notice of Claim, (NOC) had been filed against the State and Plaintiff by three PPD officers previously indicted as a result of the work of Plaintiff and many others.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
222. Rubalcava was advised at this time not to tell Plaintiff, which he did not do. 223. On about April 11, 2012, four former PPD officers who had previously been indicted by the AGO in a case investigated by Plaintiff and other AGO and PPD investigators, filed a Notice of Claim alleging that Plaintiff had fabricated facts to the grand jury that had indicted them. 224. These former criminal defendants had obtained a remand of the indictment, (the record of which is now public), and the AGO, AAG Todd Lawson, 32
1 2
(Lawson), and his chain of command elected not to re-indict four of the five defendants.
3 4 5 6 7
225. Lawson, based on the same case file and on Plaintiffs testimony, did reindict one of the defendants. 226. That prosecution was re-assigned to AAG Doug Clark, (Clark), from in the Tucson AGO.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
227. Clark reported to Rubacalva that the PPD case file showed one of the best complex financial crimes investigations he had ever seen. 228. Clark further stated that the NOC filed by the PPD officers made no sense to him as it was obvious the Plaintiff went to great lengths to avoid the very acts being alleged in the NOC. 229. The case resulted in a plea bargain by the re-indicted defendant. 230. Prior to the implementation of the internal investigation scheme, the
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
protocols within the AGO were, upon receiving a Notice of Claim, to send that to the Liability Management Section of the AGO and to wait to see if the claimant actually filed suit. 231. It was unprecedented in the last two decades or more for the AGO to conduct an internal investigation into the credibility of a Special Agent based on the allegations of disgruntled criminal defendants contained in a Notice of Claim. 232. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco knew, or should have known, that to commence 33
1 2
any investigation into an officers credibility would create a record that would forever after have to be disclosed if the officer were ever again to
3 4 5 6 7
serve as a testifying investigating officer. 233. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff is entirely immune from civil liability of any kind for testifying before a grand jury as a matter of law.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
234. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco knew, or should have known, that the presentation of evidence before a grand jury is not in the control of the testifying officer, but in the control of the prosecutor presenting the case. 235. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco knew, or should have known that Lawson had asked certain questions of Plaintiff in the PPD grand jury which had elicited honest answers. 236. Bistrow and Pacheco told Rubacalva that an internal investigation should be opened into Plaintiffs testimony as alleged in the Notice of Claim. 237. Rubalcava said he thought they should follow the normal course. 238. Rubalcava assured Horne and Bistrow that Plaintiff was his most honest, dependable and ethical investigator and that they would be making a mistake to open an investigation into her veracity based on an NOC from former criminal defendants. 239. Rubalcava told them the Special Investigations Section would not do the 34
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
1 2
internal investigation of one of their own because it would be a conflict of interest.
3 4 5 6 7
240. On information and belief, Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco moved forward to retain an outside attorney to conduct an internal investigation of Plaintiffs veracity and investigation in the PPD case. 241. Plaintiff became aware of the new investigation by obtaining a copy of a
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
memo issued by Bistrow on May 3, 2012 and widely distributed within the AGO. (A true copy of the Bistrow Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 4 and is incorporated herein, hereafter the Bistrow Memo.) 242. The Bistrow Memo was disguised as a screening memo to keep certain matters outside the knowledge of Horne. 243. Bistrow sent this memorandum to at least fourteen persons in the office. 244. A copy of the Bistrow Memo was sent to Horne.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
245. The Bistrow Memo repeated allegations by the former PPD criminal defendants that Plaintiff had fabricated facts to a grand jury and other slurs. 246. This statement is false as are other allegations by the PPD former defendants. (A true copy of the PPD Notice of Claim is attached as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein.) 247. There are protocols within the AGO for screening the Attorney General or an AAG from a matter where a conflict might exist. 35
1 2
248. Bistrow did not need to publish the Notice of Claims false and defamatory words in the Bistrow Memo to accomplish any legitimate AGO objective.
3 4 5 6 7
249. As the Bistrow Memo states, the AGO hired an outside attorney, Dale A. Danneman, (Danneman), of Lewis & Roca to conduct a special investigation into the allegations against Plaintiff. 250. Horne has in the past worked for Lewis & Roca as a private attorney.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
251. The Bistrow Memo was part of the scheme to discredit Plaintiff and to protect Hone by pretending that Horne was not involved. 252. Plaintiff, thorough counsel, objected to this unprecedented process. (A true copy of the letter from Plaintiffs counsel dated May 17, 2012 is attached as Exhibit 6 and incorporated herein.) 253. Bistrows May 25, 2012, response to Plaintiffs counsel was typed by Hornes personal administrative assistant. (A copy of Bistrows letter is
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
attached as Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein.) 254. On about May 4, 2012, Pacheco told various individuals in the AGO that the private investigation was his idea and his precedent. 255. On about May 4, 2012, Plaintiff attempted to speak to the prosecutor on the case that had resulted in the NOC against Plaintiff, AAG Lawson. 256. Lawson told Plaintiff his file was gone and that he had been ordered by Pacheco not to speak to anyone, including Plaintiff, about the case. 36
1 2
257. Lawson later amended this statement to others by saying he had been directed by Danneman, not Pacheco, with Bistrow present.
3 4 5 6 7
258. Lawson stated it is odd that the PPD criminal defendants Notice of Claim named Plaintiff, but not him as prosecutor or the usual chain of command. 259. Lawson told Plaintiff on this date that he had been questioned at length the prior day by Bistrow.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
260. The Bistrow Memo sent the message that Horne and Bistrow believed the PPD officers Notice of Claim allegations to have the ring of truth. 261. The Memo also accused Plaintiff of having a personal conflict with Horne, which was not true. 262. Bistrow was acting with the knowledge and authority of Horne in launching the outside investigation and circulating the Bistrow Memo. 263. Horne stood to benefit from discrediting Plaintiffs reputation for honesty in
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
criminal proceedings in that Plaintiff could one day be called to testify against Horne in the event of an enforcement action following the FBI investigation. 264. Plaintiff was shocked and dismayed by the Bistrow Memo. 265. On May 4, 2012, Pacheco falsely told Plaintiff that Rubalcava had agreed the outside investigation should be done. 266. Between February 2012 and May 2012, Horne told Keppel that Horne had 37
1 2
personally spoken to at least three AGO special agents about Plaintiff. 267. On information and belief, Horne and/or Bistrow claim to have obtained
3 4 5 6 7
statements from AGO employees Charlie Loftus, Mark Roberts, and Chuck Boyd that wherein they heard Plaintiff say she cannot work with a Republican. 268. Such statements, if they were made, are false.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
269. Plaintiff is a personal friend of former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, a Republican, and had agreed to work for him if he won the election for Maricopa County Attorney in 2010, but he did not. 270. Plaintiff was also offered a position with the Maricopa County Attorneys Office in February 2011, serving Republican County Attorney Bill Montgomery. 271. Unfortunately for due to a newer formula for calculating salaries in the
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
County, the pay was severely lower than expected so Plaintiff could not accept at that time. 272. On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff began medical leave. 273. In either late May or early June, 2012, Pacheco approached Lisa Rodriguez, (Ms. Rodriguez), the criminal division administrative assistant, and inquired about her thoughts of Plaintiff. 274. Ms. Rodriguez spoke highly of Plaintiff. 38
1 2
275. On about June 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Notice of Claim with the AGO. (A true copy of Plaintiffs NOC is attached as Exhibit 8 and incorporated
3 4 5 6 7
herein.) 276. On about June 11, 2012, while defending himself with the media, Horne distributed the PPD former defendants Notice of Claim alleging Plaintiff had lied to a grand jury to all AGO employees.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
277. This was the first time Plaintiff saw the NOC filed by the PPD officers, as she had never been personally served nor provided a copy. 278. Horne did this deliberately with the intent that the media, the public and at least some AGO employees would believe these allegations against Plaintiff. 279. On about June 18, 2012, Horne personally came and took AAG Chuck Boyd, (Boyd), into his office and attempted to extract from Boyd comments Plaintiff may or may not have made years before.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
280. On about August 22, 2012, Bistrow issued a memo to the press stating that it had been determined by the AGO that when Winn came on board to the AGO, that she had an ethical duty to finish her mortgage broker transactions. 281. Bistrows press memorandum is contrary to what Bistrow told Keppel, Rubalcava and Plaintiff in about August 2011 when the concerns over Winns private real estate practice were first brought to Bistrow. 282. On about August 24, 2012, Horne, through his assistant, Patti Carl, (Carl), 39
1 2
summoned Rubalcava to a deposition. 283. When he arrived and during normal working hours, Rubacalva was subjected
3 4 5 6 7
to an approximately three hour defense interview by Bistrow and Hornes private civil counsel regarding Plaintiffs Notice of Claim. 284. On information and belief, the AGO is using other Special Agents to conduct and/or assist in this internal investigation.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
285. Plaintiff received inquiries from a subordinate agent asking for her help in going through the PPD investigation files. 286. When Plaintiff asked Who is this for? the agent said she did not think she was allowed to tell Plaintiff. 287. At that time and currently, Plaintiff is represented by private counsel appointed by the state to defend the lawsuit the former PPD officers brought. 288. By October 2012, the internal investigation had evolved.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
289. Danneman was asking Plaintiff questions about documents she had never had possession of, such as grand jury transcripts. 290. On October 1, 2012, Maricopa County Attorney issued its enforcement order seeking reimbursement or civil penalties against Horne and Winn due to illegal campaign contributions. 291. The County Attorneys Order was based on the FBIs investigative reports, now public record. 40
1 2
292. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff returned to work at the AGO, having exhausted her leave options.
3 4 5 6 7
293. Pacheco denied Plaintiffs request through her supervisor that she resume her duties with the FBI Public Corruption Squad, stating in light of how things have turned out, I do not think Tom would think that was a good use of her time, although Plaintiff would have of course only worked on cases
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
unrelated to Horne or the AGO. 294. At that time it was revealed to Plaintiff that a number of people had wanted to donate leave to her but were afraid to given the hostility toward her by Horne and Bistrow. 295. Such donations of leave were historically confidential but in the Horne administration such things were no longer private. 296. On October 2, 2012, Plaintiff was compelled to meet with Pacheco in
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Rubacalvas office, at which time Pacheco delivered a version of a so-called Garrity admonition to Plaintiff, informing her that she was under investigation 297. Plaintiff asked precisely what it was she was being investigated about, since there were a number of claims being asserted by the former PPD defendants. 298. Pacheco did not clarify which of the PPD allegations were being investigated nor did he advise her of which policies she was accused of violating. 41
1 2
299. Danneman has not provided Plaintiff with an answer to these questions. 300. While Plaintiff was out on medical leave others at AGO were assigned to
3 4 5 6 7
collect, gather and move all of Plaintiffs PPD corruption investigation notebooks, case file, and grand jury exhibits into a separate locked office. 301. On about October 3, 2012, Plaintiff was advised that she would be left alone in the room with the PPD investigative and grand jury files.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
302. Plaintiff immediately requested in writing that she not be required to be alone in the room, for fear she would be accused of falsifying or manipulating or destroying evidence. 303. Pacheco denied Plaintiffs request. 304. Other employees of the AGO have had access to these documents and have been able to move, rearrange and remove documents related to the PPD claim and suit and Danneman internal investigation.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
305. Plaintiff has observed and learned that some items are missing and some were never placed in same office, leaving an incomplete file for her to review. 306. On information and belief, Horne and/or Bistrow, through Pacheco, are attempting to set up a scenario where Plaintiff must investigate herself and will be held responsible for any missing documents. 307. By about October 5, 2012, AAG Cutler had begun repeatedly walking past 42
1 2
Plaintiffs office loudly stating his personal loyalty to Horne. 308. On about October 10, 2012, Plaintiff wrote a memo to Pacheco to determine
3 4 5 6 7
under what authority she could disclose grand jury proceedings to investigator Danneman. 309. Pacheco said Danneman had been appointed as a Special Assistant Attorney General.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
310. At that time, Plaintiff was struggling to answer detailed questions put to her by Danneman, the answers to which required extensive review of the old investigative files. 311. On about October 22, 2012, Bistrow paused to glare at Plaintiff for several minutes while she spoke on a telephone in a conference room. 312. On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff again raised concerns about being alone in the room with the PPD investigative and grand jury materials.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
313. Plaintiff pointed out that she had been accused of fabricating evidence in the PPD grand jury and was not comfortable with the lack of document control. 314. On information and belief, the Danneman investigation is not truly independent but is being guided by Pacheco who is receiving inside information about developments in the investigation. 315. Through public records, Plaintiff has learned that Dannemans firm, Lewis & 43
1 2
Roca, also represents a contributor to Winns PAC, for whom the Maricopa County Attorney has sought repayment from Horne and Winn.
3 4 5 6 7
316. Danneman cannot ethically represent both Hornes interest in discrediting Plaintiff as a potential witness against Horne on the illegal campaign financing case and the contravening the interest of a contributor to the illegal PAC.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
317. On information and belief, Pacheco receives information from Danneman and reports it to his chain of command, Horne and/or Bistrow. 318. On about November 5, 2012, Rubacalva placed Plaintiff on a stand-by detail in connection with a different election fraud case because Plaintiff knows the most about election fraud. 319. Pacheco questioned Plaintiffs being involved in such activity. 320. As of November 13, 2012, Plaintiff came to believe that AGO HR Director
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Jackson has proxy access to her e-mail. 321. On information and belief, Plaintiffs communications are being monitored at the direction of Horne, Bistrow and/or Pacheco. 322. On November 13, 2012, Pacheco effectively stripped Plaintiff of her supervisory position, directing a new agent in SIS to report to the assistant chief, and not to Plaintiff. 323. Despite another written request on November 14, 2012, outside investigating 44
1 2
attorney Danneman has declined to advise Plaintiff of exactly what allegations against her are being investigated other than to say they are the
3 4 5 6 7
issues raised in the PPD Notice of Claim. 324. On November 26, 2012, Pacheco directed that Plaintiff work on nothing other than the investigation against herself. 325. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Danneman informing him
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
that there were documents now missing from the room housing the PPD investigation and grand jury materials. 326. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff became aware that private civil attorneys for Horne and Bistrow were asking AGO personnel who Plaintiff had supported in the last election. 327. On December 3, 2012, Danneman advised Plaintiff she must come to his office to submit to an interview.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
328. At that time, Dannemans e-mail raised concerns about missing documents which Plaintiff took to be suggesting she might be responsible. 329. Plaintiff e-mailed Danneman to reiterate her prior concerns about the open storage situation. 330. Plaintiff has not at any time removed any document from the location in which Pacheco had them put. 331. Plaintiff has moved some papers around within the same room so as to re45
1 2
familiarize herself with time lines and the like. 332. At that time, Plaintiff e-mailed Pacheco asking that, pursuant to state statue
3 4 5 6 7
A.R.S. 38-1101 relating to investigations of sworn peace officers where conflicts of interest exist, the investigation against Plaintiff be sent to a truly independent law enforcement agency. 333. Pacheco refused to conflict out the investigation of Plaintiff.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
334. On December 3, 2012, Pacheco expressed that Plaintiffs assertions that the investigation against her was unorthodox and unfair were insubordination. 335. On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at Dannemans office with a nonlawyer representative to find a court reporter waiting to record her statements. 336. Plaintiff gave truthful and honest answers to Danneman to the best of her then-current ability to remember and articulate the complicated investigation
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
into the former PPD defendants financial malfeasance. 337. On December 14, 2012, Pacheco called Plaintiffs personal counsel in the PPD lawsuit and falsely represented that Plaintiff had complained of being pressured by deadlines on that case. 338. On that date Pacheco denied directing Lawson not to speak to Plaintiff previously and advised that Lawson could now speak to Plaintiff. 339. But Pacheco had given Plaintiff a Garrity admonishment so Plaintiff could 46
1 2
not thereafter speak with Lawson. 340. On about December 19, 2012, Plaintiff received communication from the
3 4 5 6 7
AGO HR department asking for medical information about whether her medications had caused cognitive impairments that made her unfit for work, stating that they had learned this based on Plaintiffs answers to questions posed in Dannemans so-called confidential internal investigation.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
341. On information and belief, Plaintiffs medication due to stress was reported by Danneman to Pacheco, up to Horne and Bistrow, and back down to the HR Director. 342. On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff requested that Danneman advise her of whether she would be needed for further questioning. 343. Danneman has not replied to this communication. 344. Plaintiff expects and believes that once this complaint is filed, Horne may
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
release a Danneman investigative report finding fault with Plaintiff in accordance with Hornes, Bistrows and Pachecos pre-existing expectations and desires. Pain and Suffering the Medical and Mental Effects of Stress 345. Beginning in about April, 2011, Plaintiff began to have serious concerns about the agenda and intent of Horne and his inability to understand criminal law. 47
1 2
346. Plaintiff remained worried that her former Democratic affiliation and contacts with Rotellini would cost her job.
3 4 5 6 7
347. Plaintiff began to experience an increase in stomach distress and pain due to stress in July, 2011, for which she sought medical treatment. 348. As Plaintiff became more aware that the internal investigation pointed at Winn and that she had to take action regarding what she had learned, in about
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
September, 2011, she began to experience increased headaches, shoulder and neck pain for which she sought medical treatment. 349. By February, 2012, Plaintiff had begun to grind her teeth, was experiencing difficulty sleeping and stomach pain and had developed chest pains. 350. Plaintiff sought and received medical treatment for these symptoms. 351. Faced with the rumors and tension in relationships within the AGO, in about February, 2012, Plaintiff explored other employment options.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
352. By February , 2012, Plaintiff had qualified for and was offered a position with the Maricopa County Attorneys office, but in learning of the low pay level could not afford to take the position. 353. Plaintiff felt trapped at the AGO in an atmosphere that ranged from tense to outright hostile. 354. By March, 2012, Plaintiff was experiencing symptoms of depression and severe anxiety. 48
1 2
355. Plaintiff sought and received psychological as well as medical treatment, which continues to the present.
3 4 5 6 7
356. By April, 2012, Plaintiff was obliged to take multiple medications to threat the physical symptoms of stress. 357. Following Bistrows May 4, 2012 memorandum giving credence to the idea that Plaintiff lied to a grand jury her stress symptoms escalated.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
358. By May 8, 2012 Plaintiffs primary care physician recommended that Plaintiff be on medical leave until November 2012. 359. On May 22, 2012, a medical test revealed that Plaintiff had developed a hiatal hernia, stomach ulcer, acid reflux, and bleeding in her esophagus from the acid reflux. 360. Plaintiffs physicians indicated this is likely to the increase in acid reflux due to stress.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
361. Plaintiff had undergone a similar testing in 2009, with no bleeding noted. 362. On about July 11, 2012, Plaintiff underwent a cardiac stress test and echocardiogram which indicated a moderate level of mitral valve prolapse or leakage. 363. On about August 10, 2012, Plaintiff learned from her cardiologist that there did seem to be a correlation between increased activity and chest pain and tightness and diagnosed Plaintiff with angina. 49
1 2
364. Plaintiff was thereafter obliged to take more medication for chest pain and tightness, including nytroglicerin.
3 4 5 6 7
365. Plaintiff was advised that if two doses of the nitro did not work, she was to call 911 and go to the hospital immediately. 366. Since that time Plaintiff has had to take this medicine three times due to chest pain and tightness.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
367. At various times, various doctors changed Plaintiffs medication for stomach distress, inability to sleep and signs of depression. 368. Plaintiff did begin to improve with medical treatment away from the AGO environment, but her family leave and donated sick leave ran out. 369. Plaintiff returned to the hostile AGO environment on October 2, 2012. 370. On October 19, 2012, Horne and Winn filed their Response to the County Attorneys Order requiring that they pay back the BLA contributors from
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
whom they had obtained illegal campaign contributions coordinated by Horne. (A true copy of Hornes and Winns Response to Order requiring Compliance is attached as Exhibit 9 and incorporated herein.) 371. On about November 5, 2012, after about a month back at work at the AGO, Plaintiffs neck and shoulder tension had returned. 372. Due in part to the publicity surrounding the Maricopa County Attorneys order directing Hone and Winn to repay the so-called independent 50
1 2
expenditures or face $1.5 million in civil penalties, the atmosphere at the AGO was even more tense at this time.
3 4 5 6 7
373. It was evident that Plaintiff was blamed as the cause of Hornes legal troubles. 374. Plaintiff developed new symptoms including pain, numbness and tingling down her left arm and increased pressure on Plaintiffs spinal cord in the
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
cervical area. 375. In about November 2012, Plaintiff had to purchase an over-the-counter night guard to protect her teeth from grinding and her jaw from the pressure. 376. On about November 30, 2012, Plaintiff learned that she has bone spurs putting pressure on her spine and bulging or herniated disks in the spine, at the C-5, C-6, and C-7 location, a condition made more serious and painful by stress.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
355. Plaintiff had to give up her service weapon on May 7, 2012 due to her necessary use of antidepressants and other medications and her physicians direction that she work in a light duty status. 356. Plaintiff has experienced occasional cognitive disruptions due to the many medications taken including memory lapses and loss of focus. 357. Plaintiff currently experiences jaw pain, sore teeth, headaches, extreme fatigue, exhaustion, a reduced ability to focus or concentrate other than on 51
1 2
paperwork, a slowing down of her ability to process paper, mood changes that include irritability, depression, sadness, anger, apathy and lack of
3 4 5 6 7
motivation. 358. Plaintiff works in an environment where people stare at her and she is treated as a leper, or pariah. 359. The internal investigation into her grand jury testimony hangs over
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Plaintiffs head. 360. Plaintiff has requested the status of the investigation multiple times, with no response. 361. There is no obvious end to the stress under which Plaintiff works at the AGO. Economic Losses 362. Plaintiff has remained at the AGO to hold on to her income and other
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
benefits, including health insurance and pension benefits, for as long as possible. 363. Plaintiff has suffered the loss of salary, overtime and other benefits while on medical leave due to the physical, mental and emotional harm caused in fact by Horne and Bistrow, acting on their own and a as agents of the State. 364. At this time, Plaintiff is able to perform desk duty at the AGO as assigned but cannot medically be involved in any activities requiring that she be armed, 52
1 2
that involves her in protecting the safety of others or involves other stressful situations.
3 4 5 6 7
365. In about September, 2012, Plaintiff lost the opportunity to be selected as an Assistant Chief Special Agent, although her record qualifies her for the position for the reason, among others, that Bistrow, Pacheco and Duplissis sat on the selection panel.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
366. In about September, 2012 Pacheco again denied Plaintiffs request to be tasked back to the FBI which would allow her to work in an alternate location and so lessen the stress. 367. Plaintiffs mental health care provider has monthly recommended that Plaintiff be permitted to work in an off-site location at which she could complete the types of tasks being assigned to her. 368. The AGO has never approved this request.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
369. Plaintiffs most recent AGO evaluation for the period February 1, 2011 to January 31, 2012 was completed on November 20, 2012 reflects among the highest ratings possible. (A true copy of that evaluation is attached as Exhibit 10 and is incorporated herein). 370. On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff was one of two Supervisory Special Agents who received an e-mail from Rubacalva commending her for her first rate evaluations. 53
1 2
371. In spite of the fact Plaintiff had been contacted two other outside law enforcement agencies and advised they would have liked her to apply for
3 4 5 6 7
promotional positions, Plaintiff is no longer able to pass the required AZ POST medical exam. 372. Due to the unresolved AGO internal investigation pending against Plaintiff, it is unlikely that any other law enforcement agency would hire her
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
to do the kind of work she had been doing at the AGO prior to Hornes and Bistrows schemes to attack her reputation. 373. Beginning in the Spring of 2012, Plaintiff has taken steps to become qualified in other areas of work but has not found suitable employment outside the AGO as of the date of this Complaint. 374. Plaintiff believes she will be terminated by Horne if the results of the Danneman internal investigation falsely accuse her of wrongdoing.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
375. Plaintiff will thereupon lose her salary, her benefits, participation in the very favorable Arizona Public Safety Retirement program and medical benefits, future overtime and holiday pay and other economic benefits she would have earned through retirement as a public servant of this state. CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS 376. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 375 and incorporates them herein by this reference. 54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Causation 377. Hornes and Bistrows conduct as alleged herein, together with that of their co-conspirators, undertaken both as individuals and as employees and agents of the State, in fact caused damage and injury to Plaintiff as follows: a. Irreparable damage to Plaintiffs reputation for veracity, integrity, honesty and competence among members of the public and persons working
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
within the criminal justice system in Arizona who do not know Plaintiff personally; b. Irreparable damages to Plaintiffs reputation as a person of high moral standards and personal fidelity; c. Irreparable damage to Plaintiffs ability to find alternate suitable employment as a sworn peace officer at a level commensurate with her skills and competence before the injuries alleged herein for the remainder
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
of her working life; d. Physical harm and injury to Plaintiff due to the infliction of emotional distress; e. Psychological harm and injury to Plaintiff due to the infliction of emotional distress; f. Economic harm past, present and future in an amount to be proved at trial. 378. Horne and Bistrow and their co-conspirators, individually and as agents for 55
1 2
the State also proximately caused Plaintiff the harm and injury alleged above. 379. Hornes, Bistrows and their co-conspirators tortious conduct was
3 4 5 6 7
undertaken without legal privilege or right because they failed to follow AGO policies and procedures and Arizona law on the proper procedures to employ in internal administrative investigations involving a sworn peace officer employee as found, for example, in A.R.S. 38-1101, which
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
procedure is accepted practice in other Arizona law enforcement agencies. COUNT I CONSPIRACY 380. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 379 and incorporates them herein. 381. Defendants named herein and the unnamed co-conspirators, through direct and indirect communications, meetings, electronic and written correspondence, in person and by other means, agreed, combined and conspired to do the following, at least:
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
a. Slander Plaintiff verbally by communicating, directly and indirectly, false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff, her veracity and integrity, her fidelity, her demeanor and her competence; b. Libel Plaintiff by directly or indirectly, publishing false and defamatory written statements about Plaintiff, her veracity and integrity, her fidelity, her demeanor and her competence;
56
1 2
c. Ruin Plaintiffs reputation for honesty both as a person, as a criminal investigator and as a testifying witness by the above means;
3 4 5 6 7
d. Destroy Plaintiffs career as a sworn peace officer by making her unemployable by other law enforcement agencies due to having been investigated and discredited; e. Cause Plaintiff intense stress and anxiety;
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
f. Drive Plaintiff to quit her position; g. Invade Plaintiffs privacy; h. Coordinate and orchestrate negative opinion about Plaintiff among AGO employees, the media and the public; i. Create the impression that Plaintiff is a liar, hard to work with, a political hack, a perjurer and a vindictive rogue investigator; and j. Other actions unknown to Plaintiff.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
382. Defendants took one or more actions in aid of their conspiracy as alleged herein. 383. Every Defendant and co-conspirator is the agent of every other Defendant and co-conspirator. 384. Every statement by a Defendant is the statement of every other Defendant and co-conspirator.
57
1 2
385. Every action by a Defendant is the act of every other Defendant and coconspirator.
3 4 5 6 7
COUNT II DEFAMATION SLANDER AND LIBEL 386. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 385 and incorporates them herein. 387. Horne and Bistrow and their co-conspirators acting as individuals and as agents for the State, by means of telephone calls, meetings, verbal
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
conversations, memoranda, e-mail, other electronic communications and publication of various writings to AGO personnel and to the public, directly and indirectly castigated and falsely attacked Plaintiffs honesty, integrity, loyalty to her oath of office, her fidelity and her demeanor and her competence as alleged herein. 388. Among the pejoratives spoken and/or implied by Horne in his personal verbal and/or written communications, directly and indirectly, were that
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Plaintiff is hard to work with, cant be trusted, is or was an intimate of Rotellini, is a political hack, a rogue investigator, a liar and incompetent and other defamatory words of which Plaintiff is not aware. 389. Among the pejoratives spoken and/or implied by Bistrow in his personal verbal and written communications, directly and indirectly, were that Plaintiff is hard to work with, she cant be trusted, she is a rogue investigator, she is a fabricator of grand jury evidence, a perjurer and 58
1 2
incompetent and other defamatory words of which Plaintiff is not aware. 390. Among the pejoratives spoken written and/or implied by the unnamed co-
3 4 5 6 7
conspirators were hard to work with, (Johnson), liar (Rezzonico), involved with Rotellini in the Baker to Vegas run, and politically passionate about Rotellini, (Duplissis), that Plaintiff was just trying to get Winn into trouble, (Winn), and other defamatory and derogatory words of
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
which Plaintiff is not aware. 391. Each of the above statements is false. 392. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew their statements were false when they spoke or published them, or acted with reckless disregard of their truth. 393. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew that prior to their defamation of Plaintiff, Plaintiffs reputation for honesty, integrity professionalism and competence was excellent.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
394. Defendants and their co-conspirators acted with improper intent to discredit and ruin Plaintiffs reputation for honesty, among other objectives. 395. Defendants and their co-conspirators defamed Plaintiff knowingly, intentionally, with malice, and with an evil mind guiding an evil hand. 396. Defendants and their co-conspirators intended to harm Plaintiffs reputation by these spoken and published statements. 397. Defendants and their co-conspirators defamation in fact caused and 59
1 2
proximately caused Plaintiff the harm and injury alleged herein. 398. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for actual and
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 399. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount fixed by the Court. COUNT III DEFAMATION FALSE LIGHT 400. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 399 and incorporates them herein. 401. Horne and Bistrow, acting as individuals and as agents of the State, and their co-conspirators, directly and indirectly through various means of communication and public statements, published false and defamatory information about Plaintiff to journalists and other members of the media. 402. The publications contained statements that were false, such as that Plaintiff fabricated facts in a grand jury proceeding.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
403. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew the pejorative statements about Plaintiff were false and/or unfounded when they spoke or published them, or acted with reckless disregard of their truth. 404. These media publications cast Plaintiff in a false light to the public as a rogue investigator who would lie to a grand jury. 405. Defendants and their co-conspirators defamed Plaintiff in this way knowingly, intentionally, with malice, and with an evil mind guiding an evil 60
1 2
hand. 406. Defendants and their co-conspirators intended to harm Plaintiffs reputation
3 4 5 6 7
by these spoken and published statements. 407. Defendants and their co-conspirators false light defamation in fact caused and proximately caused Plaintiff the harm and injury alleged herein. 408. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for actual and
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 409. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount fixed by the Court. COUNT IV UNLAWFUL DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST A SWORN PEACE OFFICER WITHOUT JUST CAUSE VIOLATING A.R.S. 38-1101 410. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 409 and incorporates them herein. 411. A law enforcement officer shall not be subject to disciplinary action except for just cause under A.R.S. 38-1104(A). 412. Horne and Bistrow, as individuals, and their co-conspirators, acting as agents of the State, have taken one or more actions in the nature of disciplining Plaintiff including but not limited to: a. Conducting a sham independent investigation into a routine Notice of Claim by former criminal defendants;
24 25 26
b. Forcing Plaintiff to investigate herself;
61
1 2
c. Denying Plaintiff the chance to be promoted to Assistant Chief Special Agent;
3 4 5 6 7
d. Denying Plaintiffs request to resume her position with the FBI Task Force; e. Denying Plaintiff favorable and lucrative details and assignments; f. Failing to defend Plaintiff as an agent of the AGO;
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
g. Attempting to force Plaintiff to resign; h. Effectively terminating Plaintiff from the position she enjoyed and all benefits prior to about January 23, 2012. 413. Plaintiff has a private right of action in Superior Court against Horne and Bistrow and is entitled to a hearing by the Court pursuant to A.R.S. 381104(E). 414. Horne and Bistrow, as individuals and as agents of the State, have effectively
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
terminated Plaintiff without just cause within the meaning of under A.R.S. 38-1101(3). 415. Plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to her position as it existed prior to January, 2011 under A.R.S. 38-1104(F). 416. Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages for her lost salary, overtime and benefits caused by Defendants actions under A.R.S. 38-1104(F). 417. Plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable attorneys fee under A.R.S. 3862
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1104(G). COUNT V UNLAWFUL RETAILIATION AGAINST AN ARIZONA STATE EMPLOYEE VIOLATING A.R.S. 38-532 418. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 417 and incorporates them herein. 419. It is a prohibited personnel practice for an employee who has control over personnel actions to take reprisal against an employee for a disclosure of information of a matter of public concern by the employee to a public body that the employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law or an
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
abuse of authority. 420. As alleged above, Plaintiff, an employee of the State of Arizona, disclosed information to the FBI that she reasonably believes evidenced a violation of law. 421. Plaintiffs belief that Horne and his aide Winn may have engaged in illegal campaign financial transactions was reasonable. 422. The FBI found the information of sufficient concern that the Bureau launched an investigation into the information Plaintiff turned over to it and later turned over the results of its investigation to the Maricopa County Attorneys Office. 423. The Arizona Secretary of State found probable cause to conclude that Horne
24 25 26
and Winn had broken campaign finance law.
63
1 2
424. The Maricopa County Attorney on October 2, 2012, issued its order that Horne and Winn had violated campaign finance laws by illegally handling
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
independent expenditures. 425. A.R.S. 38-531(4) defines "Personnel action" as including: . (b) Promotion, [or lack thereof]. (c) Disciplinary or corrective action. (d) Detail, transfer or reassignment.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
(e) Suspension, demotion or dismissal. . (j) Decision concerning pay, benefits or awards. . (l) Other significant change in duties or responsibilities that is inconsistent with the employee's salary or grade level. 426. Defendants Horne and Bistrow, as agents of the State, have engaged in one or more personnel actions adverse to Plaintiff as alleged herein. 427. Horne and Bistrow intended to retaliate, and did retaliate, and continue to retaliate and to conduct reprisals against Plaintiff for having acted properly by turning over evidence of a possible crime to the FBI. 428. Plaintiff, as an employee against whom a prohibited personnel practice is committed has a private right of action in Superior Court against the
24 25 26
employer State of Arizona pursuant to A.R.S. 38-532(D).
64
1 2
429. Horne, Bistrow and the State are not privileged to conduct personnel affairs in a way that violates the statute.
3 4 5 6 7
430. Therefore, pursuant to the statute, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for: a. back pay; b. general and special damages; c. full reinstatement for any reprisal;
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
431.
d.
all costs and reasonable attorneys fees as provided by A.R.S. 38-
532(D). COUNT VI ABUSE OF PROCESS 432. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 431 and incorporates them herein. 433. Rules and protocols exist within the AGO for handling an internal investigation regarding allegations against any employee. 434. Special rules and protocols apply in handling such an internal investigation
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
regarding a criminal investigating agent due to the issues raised by the Brady v. Maryland case. 435. When a sworn peace officer is being investigated due to having discovered evidence against the executives of his or her own agency, there is a factual conflict of interest. 436. One administrative method by which to conduct an internal investigation into the conduct of a sworn peace officer is set forth in A.R.S. 38-1101. 65
1 2
437. This process is intended to protect a sworn peace officer and his or her career from damaging, unfounded allegations and accusations.
3 4 5 6 7
438. This process identifies the parameters of a fair method for handling a situation where it appears the agency has an unduly political, improper or biased agenda. 439. Horne, Bistrow, Pacheco and/or Danneman owed a duty to Plaintiff to refer
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
the internal investigation into the PPD defendants Notice of Claim to a truly independent outside law enforcement agency for further investigation. 440. There is no AGO or other State of Arizona rules or protocols that allow the retention of an attorney in private practice to conduct an outside internal investigation of a sworn peace officer in a situation such as Plaintiffs. 441. In the latter case, the matter must also be investigated by an independent law enforcement agency.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
442. Horne, Bistrow, Pacheco and their co-conspirators are not legally privileged to make up a sham process for investigating a sworn peace officer employee. 443. This sham process has obeyed none of the requirements of A.R.S. 381101(A)(2) before a sworn peace officer is subjected to an investigative interview, which requirements include the following: a. informing the officer of the alleged specific facts that are the basis investigation; 66 of the
1 2
b. informing the officer of the specific nature of the investigation; c. informing the officer of his or her status in the investigation;
3 4 5 6 7
d. disclosing to the officer with all known allegations of misconduct are the reason for the interview.
that
444. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco have seized upon a process through which to unlawfully retaliate and conduct another reprisal against Plaintiff because of
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
her prior protected activity, and have abused that process. 445. The Danneman investigation process is neither lawful nor fair. 446. These defendants abused their own process of investigating a Notice of Claim by former criminal defendants. 447. Defendants and their co-conspirators enjoy no immunities or privileges in connection with their abuse of process. 448. Horne and Bistrow and their co-conspirators acted intentionally, with malice,
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
and with an evil mind guiding an evil hand. 449. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators are motivated by personal animus toward Plaintiff and a desire both to protect Hornes defensive position, to force Plaintiff out of her position and to ruin her career. 450. Defendants and their co-conspirators conduct in fact caused and proximately caused Plaintiff personal, physical and economic harm as alleged herein. 451. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for actual and 67
1 2
compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 452. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
fixed by the Court. COUNT VII INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WITH PERSONAL INJURY 453. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 452 and incorporates them herein. 454. Hornes and Bistrows and their co-conspirators actions, as individuals and as agents of the State, as alleged herein were and are cruel, malicious,
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
punitive and vengeful. 455. Their conduct is so outrageous, improper and/or illegal and extreme that it shocks the conscious of an orderly society that places trust in its criminal justice processes and personnel. 456. Hornes, Bistrows and their co-conspirators cruel treatment of Plaintiff were intended to cause Plaintiff extreme emotional distress and anguish and the physical injuries that arise from extreme stress. 457. The Defendants and their co-conspirators conduct in fact and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer extreme anguish and emotional distress, together with physical injuries that are the manifestations of extreme stress as described below.
24 25 26
458. Defendants and their co-conspirators acted intentionally, with malice, and
68
1 2
with an evil mind guiding an evil hand. 459. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for pain and suffering
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 460. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount fixed by the Court. COUNT VIII INVASION OF PRIVACY 461. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 460 and incorporates them herein. 462. Horne personally on more than one occasion has made comments to AGO personnel, including, but not limited to, Duplissis, falsely suggesting that Plaintiff had been engaged in certain actions in her private life, particularly as it related to AG candidate Rottelini. 463. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators, individually and as agents of the State, directly or indirectly perpetuated these false rumors about Plaintiffs
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
private life. 464. Plaintiff and other employees of the AGO, and especially sworn peace officers, are entitled to and expect privacy in their personnel affairs so long as those matters do not affect their work. 465. Horne, Bistrow, and their co-conspirators, individually and as agents of the State, invaded Plaintiffs privacy by spreading false rumors about her personal life. 69
1 2
466. This invasion of Plaintiffs privacy was an unlawful act by government in contravention of the Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, 8, and unlawful at
3 4 5 6 7
common law. 467. Horne, Bistrow, and their co-conspirators, individually and as agents of the State had no right or privilege to comment on any aspect of Plaintiffs private life in the workplace other than matters concerning her medical leave.
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
468. Plaintiff is entitled to absolute privacy and to keep secret her choice of candidates and her exercise of her right to vote her conscience by Arizona Constitution, Art. 7, 1. 469. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators had no right to investigate or learn of Plaintiffs or any other employee of the AGOs vote in any election. 470. Hornes, Bistrows and their co-conspirators rumors and innuendos, including disparaging her choice of political party and candidate, have caused
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Plaintiff additional anxiety and stress. 471. The Defendants and their co-conspirators conduct in fact and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer anguish and emotional distress, together with the physical manifestations of stress through their invasion of her privacy. 472. Defendants and their co-conspirators acted intentionally, with malice, and with an evil mind guiding an evil hand. 473. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for pain and suffering 70
1 2
damages in an amount to be proved at trial. 474. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount
3 4 5 6 7
fixed by the Court. COUNT IX CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, 48 U.S.C. 1983 475. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 474 and incorporates them herein. 476. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators have employed the might and
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
power of the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Arizona, of the Office of the Attorney General and of the attorneys, investigators and staff beholden Horne, at taxpayer expense, to attack an Arizona sworn peace officer engaged in the proper discharge of her duties at law. 477. Horne, Bistrow and their co-defendants attacked Plaintiff on the grounds of her association with candidate Rotellini, her prior political party affiliation, and her association with other persons of her own choosing.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
478. Hornes, Bistrows and their co-defendants conduct was intended to, and did, intimidate Plaintiff into changing her political party out of fear of retaliation. 479. Horne and Bistrow have attacked other AGO employees or taken other actions against them due to their personal and political associations and opinions. 480. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators, have used their power under color 71
1 2
of state law, to deprive Plaintiff of the protected rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to free political association, and free
3 4 5 6 7
speech, and to her right of suffrage, to exercise her freedom of political choice and to vote her conscience. 481. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators, have used their power under color of state law, to deprive Plaintiff of a property right, namely, the economic
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
benefits of her position, including a promotion, and attendant increase in pay that she would have had had these Defendants not used their official offices to intimidate, attack and discredit her because of her party and her choice of candidate. 482. The conduct of the Defendants and their co-conspirators usurped the powers of Plaintiff as a citizen and deprived her of Arizona State-protected civil rights in Violation of the Arizona Constitution Art. 2, 2, 5, 6, 8, 21and
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Art. 7, 1. 483. Horne and Bistrow and their co-defendants, individually and as agents of the State, acted under color of state law without right, privilege or immunity. 484. In so doing, Defendants violated 42 U.S.C 1983. 485. The actions of Defendants and their co-conspirators were intended to deprive Plaintiff of federally-protected constitutional rights enjoyed by every citizen.
72
1 2
486. The Defendants and their co-conspirators deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights in fact and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer loss of
3 4 5 6 7
property in an amount to be proved at trial. 487. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for her property loss. 488. Plaintiff is entitled to an order of the court directing Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators from continuing to harass and punish employees whose party
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
and personal votes they do not like. 489. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys fees under 48 U.S.C. 1988. COUNT X NEGLIGENCE ECONOMIC LOSS AND PERSONAL INJURY 490. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 489 and incorporates them herein. 491. Defendants Horne and Bistrow, in their individual capacities and as agents of the state, and the State of Arizona owed duties of care prescribed by statute and common law to Plaintiff as a sworn peace officer of the State of Arizona and as an employee of the AGO and of the State. 492. As described herein, Defendants Horne, Bistrow and the State breached their duties of care to Plaintiff. 493. Defendants breaches of their duties of care in fact and proximately caused plaintiff both physical injury and economic loss as described elsewhere
24 25 26
herein.
73
1 2
494. Plaintiff committed no act of comparative negligence and had no control over the conduct of the Defendants.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
495. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against all Defendants for her present, past and future economic losses and the economic value of her personal injuries. COUNT XI - RESPONDIAT SUPERIOR 496. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 495 and incorporates them herein. 497. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators are employees and officers of the State of Arizona. 498. The State of Arizona is liable for their actions under the doctrine of respondiat superior. 26. To the extent Plaintiff is entitled to monetary relief against Horne and Bistrow, Plaintiff is entitled to the same relief against the State of Arizona,
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
with the exception of punitive damages. WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS AS FOLLOWS: 1. For judgment against the Defendants as alleged above for the economic losses, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by Defendants conduct in an amount to be proved at trial; 2. For an award of punitive damages against Horne and Bistrow individually, in an amount to be fixed by the Court; 74
1 2
3.
For an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. 12-341.01; 38-1104(F); 38-352(D); 42 U.S.C. 1988 and as otherwise
3 4 5 6 7
provided by law. 4. 5. For costs of court; For such further relief as the Court deems just. DATED this 28th day of October, 2013
SUZANNE M. DALLIMORE, P.C.

9 10 11 12 13
By /s/Suzanne M. Dallimore Suzanne M. Dallimore Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 28th day of October, 2013, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk of the United States District Court the District of Arizona by using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal 14 for to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing, and paper copies will be mailed to those indicated as non-registered participants.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Andrew Federhar afederhar@fclaw.com Lori Higuera lhiguera@fclaw.com Bryan F. Murphy bmurphy@bcattorneys.com James M. Stipe jstipe@bcattorneys.com
Melissa G. Iyer miyer@bcattorneys.com 22 Laura J. Meyer 23 lmeyer@bcattorneys.com

24 25 26
/s/ Suzanne M. Dallimore
75
Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55-1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 77

Horne/Hinchey

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Horne/Hinchey

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 2 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 3 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 4 of 75

Comment [d1]: Glendale

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 5 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 6 of 75

investigating complex financial crimes, organized crime and public corruption.

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 7 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 8 of 75

51. 52. 53.

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 9 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 10 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 11 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 12 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 13 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 14 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 15 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 16 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 17 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 18 of 75

information revealed to Plaintiff by multiple parties.

was Margaret J. Hinchey, Plaintiff herein.

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 19 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 20 of 75

124. c. The nature of the information related to Hornes alleged illegal

coordination with the expenditures from Winns PAC.

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 21 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 22 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 23 of 75

a member of the FBI Public Corruption Squad.

directing funds raised by Winn for her PAC.

dinner also attended by a person believed to be Mark Goldman, (Goldman). 23

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 24 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 25 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 26 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 27 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 28 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 29 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 30 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 31 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 32 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 33 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 34 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 35 of 75

internal investigation of one of their own because it would be a conflict of interest.

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 36 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 37 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 38 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 39 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 40 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 41 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 42 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 43 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 44 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 45 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 46 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 47 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 48 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 49 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 50 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 51 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 52 of 75

Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55 Filed 10/28/13 Page 53 of 75