Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of

13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No: 10-cv-00649-CMA-MJW

DANIEL JOYCE and

ROBERT LOPEZ,
Plaintiffs,

v.

NORTH METRO TASK FORCE,

THE CITY OF NORTHGLENN, COLORADO,
THE CITY OF THORNTON, COLORADO,
JAMES NURSEY, CHIEF, THORNTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his official and
individual capacities,
RUSSELL VAN HOUTEN, CHIEF, NORTHGLENN POLICE DEPARTMENT, in his
official and individual capacities,
JACK BELL, in his official and individual capacities,
DANTE CARBONE, in his official and individual capacities,
TIMOTHY HERSEE, in his official and individual capacities, and
RICHARD REIGENBORN, in his official and individual capacities,
Defendants.
.
______________________________________________________________________________

ATTORNEY’S AMENDED AFFIDAVIT AS TO RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS

AND TESTIMONY
______________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to regulations found at 28 C.F.R. §§16.21, et seq, I, Patricia S. Bangert, state

that I have personal knowledge of and am competent to testify about the facts stated in this
affidavit, and state as follows:
1. I am the attorney representing Plaintiffs in this matter. With the approval of
Assistant U.S. Attorney Pestal, Plaintiff Lopez and I reviewed and took notes regarding the
DEA’s summary of the report of the investigation into the leak in the Oak Chin case. On the
basis of that review, Plaintiffs and I believe that the summary and report, including all
attachments, as well as deposition testimony about the investigation and report by Special Agent
Paul Roach, are relevant and necessary to the case at hand.

Page 1 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of
13

2. I am preparing this affidavit based upon my review of the summary of the report
into the leak in the Oak Chin case and my review of the notes of Plaintiff Lopez’ review of the
summary, and my knowledge of facts discovered to this point in the case. Typed excerpts of the
hand-written notes of my review are attached hereto as Exhibits A-1. Those notes indicate the
specific page in the report upon which quoted materials are located.

RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS
3. The summary of the report of the investigation indicates that the report contains
the following assertions:
Background and Suspicion of Sergeant Carbone
a. The investigation into Dan Tang and his associates was initiated by the
North Metro Task Force (hereinafter “the Task Force” or “NMTF”) in July of 2007. Dan Joyce
was the lead agent on the case. Joyce was supervised by Sergeants Carbone and Bell. The
investigation focused on a large operation that grew and distributed marijuana and laundered
money secured from that business. The Task Force asked DEA to get involved in in criminal
investigation in September of 2007. Wiretaps were initiated in January, 2008. On February 13,
2008, three additional wiretaps were put into place, including a wiretap of Dan Tang’s wife’s
phone. The next day, February 14, 2008, investigators overheard conversations that lead them to
believe that the members of the Dan Tang organization knew that the organization was being
investigated.
b. Then-Sergeant Carbone fought against having investigators move in and
arrest the members that day. [Carbone was later promoted to the rank of Commander by the
Thornton Police Department]. When investigators did start arrests and take downs of marijuana
grow houses two days later, they found a letter in an envelope in the back of a closet in an
apartment rented by Yue De Deng (Brother #3) at 11801 York Street. The letter was addressed
to: “Heaven Dragon, Attention Dan Tang.” It was postmarked February 13, 2008. The letter
warned Tang about the investigation and offered to “minimize” the damage to Tang. Tang was
instructed to call a certain number. Tang’s associates had written their number and $300,000 on

Page 2 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of
13

the back of the envelope. The letter was addressed to Tang, with his birth date noted after his
name.
c. Two DEA agents, Mike Santavicca and Paul Roach were appointed to
investigate the leak. The Board assigned two officers to provide assistance as needed – Sergeant
Villano and Officer Williams. The DEA agents kept Sergeant Villano apprised of the
investigation “from start to finish.”
d. The DEA investigation revealed that the number mentioned in the letter
belonged to a phone purchased at Westminister Mall on the afternoon of February 7, 2008. The
sales person remembered that a young girl in her teens purchased the phone. The name and
address the girl gave was Taylor Adams, at 6280 Allison Street, Arvada 2003. The house
number was non-existent Allison Street.
e. The DEA agents could never find a girl named Taylor Adams with the
birthdate given and determined that the name was an alias.
f. The DEA interviewed numerous employees within DEA and the Task
Force in the course of its investigation. “However, many NMTF employees expressed serious
concerns about talking to investigators. They worried that what they said could lead to
retribution either at the NMTF or at their parent police departments.” “Many employees
commented on the amount of case specific details in the letter that should have been known only
to those intimately involved in the Tang investigation,” and the use of “cop speak.” Some of
those interviewed also commented that the “tone [of the letter] suggested an established
relationship.” There were six officers identified who had the most knowledge of the case: DEA
Special Assistant Marshall, Task Force sergeants Carbone and Bell, and Task Force detectives
Joyce, Garcia, and Oser.
g. The contents of the letter suggested that the person leaking the
investigations was from the NMTF because, among other reasons, (i) it was common for NMTF
members to put birth dates after names; while it was not common for DEA agents to do so; (ii)
the letter mentioned a friendly rivalry between Tang and his wife, something NMTF members
knew, but DEA members did not; and (iii) NMTF detectives were more familiar with
surveillance in the case than DEA agents.

Page 3 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of
13

h. “But of the 29 DEA and NMTF employees interviewed approximately half

questioned Sergeant Carbone’s integrity and/or suspected that he may have been involved in
compromising the Tang investigation.”
i. In April and May of 2008, polygraph examinations were conducted by the
DEA of the six suspects. Detectives Joyce and Oser passed. Sergeant Bell declined to take the
examination. Detective Garcia’s examination showed deception. “On May 13, 2008, DEA
polygrapher Special Agent Robert Dwyer administered the examination to Sergeant Carbone. In
the opinion of SA Dwyer, Sergeant Carbone was deceptive in answering ‘no’ to the relevant
questions. Special Agent Dwyer determined that the result of Sergeant Carbone’s polygraph
examination was ‘Deception Indicated.’ Special Agent Dwyer noted that as the polygraph testing
began, Sergeant Carbone began to sweat profusely. According to Special Agent Dwyer, at one
point Sergeant Carbone asked a question to the effect of, ‘Does everyone sweat like me.’”
j. According to investigators, Sergeant Bell advised detectives not to take
polygraph examinations. “Specifically, Detective Garcia and some other detectives at the NMTF
reported to the investigators, prior to Detective Garcia’s polygraph examination, that Sergeant
Bell was attempting to organize a group of detectives who would refuse to take the polygraph
examination.” “When later asked about the claims, Sergeant Bell stated that he was simply
relaying information from upper management at the Westminister Police Department that a
refusal to take the polygraph examination would not be looked upon unfavorably by the
management at the Westminister Police Department.”
k. The investigators investigated two subjects in particular, Detective Oser
and Dante Carbone. They found no concrete evidence to support accusations against Oser. Oser
stated that “the author of the letter undermined the safety of everyone working the case.” Oser
also thought that “Sergeants Carbone and Bell demanded constant updates on the case, which
Detective Oser considered unreasonable.” According to Detective Oser, Sergeant Carbone
criticized Detective Oser and the NMTF case agents for allowing DEA agents to seize control of
the investigation.”
l. “Approximately half of those interviewed, including two of the other three
members of the NMTF management, questioned Sergeant Carbone’s integrity and/or suspected

Page 4 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of
13

his involvement with the compromising of the investigation.” The “most frequently mentioned
reason” was “that Carbone had a prior relationship with Tang that he did not mention to NMTF
and DEA employees.” Carbone and Tang admitted that they “had known each other for years.”
Tang said that Carbone “has eaten at Heaven Dragon a couple of times per month for many
years” and said that he had known Sergeant Carbone for 6 or 7 years. When Tang was
interviewed on February 18, 2008, he “said that he was disappointed because he looked bad in
front of his friend, Dante.” Further, while the investigation was active and ongoing, Carbone
continued to eat at Tang’s restaurant, Heaven Dragon, even taking other NMTF detectives there
on February 8, 2008.
m. Detectives also stated that Carbone “micromanaged” the Tang
investigation, wanting to “know every detail” and “wanted to direct and control the case
himself.” In addition, “Sergeant Carbone seemed concerned about the political implications of
the Tang investigation.” Carbone also “seemed to have little interest in discovering who had
compromised the Tang investigation.”
n. Commander Hersee described Carbone’s behavior as “unusual or
suspicious.” “Commander Hersee said that he and Sergeant Carbone discussed the investigation
of the compromising of the case nearly every day, with Sergeant Carbone attempting to obtain
information from Commander Hersee. Commander Hersee stated that he shared with Sergeant
Carbone details about the investigation that he had learned from the investigators. According to
Commander Hersee, Sergeant Carbone told him several times that he thought that the author of
the letter never thought that it would be discovered.” “Commander Hersee said that he was
eventually directed by Broomfield Police Chief Deland to stop sharing information with Sergeant
Carbone. Commander Hersee stated that once he stopped discussing the investigation with
Sergeant Carbone, Sergeant Carbone became ‘unduly concerned’ and ‘extremely nervous’ about
the investigation.”
o. The investigators stated that their investigation showed instances of
questionable ethics on Sergeant Carbone’s part. In an earlier leak of information about a case,
the person receiving the information, Carl Scherk, a former Westminister Police Officer fired for
corruption, said that he learned everything from Carbone. In another instance, a gang member

Page 5 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of
13

claimed to be an in-law of Carbone. Also, an officer came to Carbone with suspicions of a dirty
cop and Carbone discouraged the officer from pursuing the matter.
The Timing of the Cell Phone Purchase and the Mailing of the Letter to Tang
p. Special Agent Marshall, one of the DEA officers assigned to the Oak Chin
case, told Carbone on February 5 or 6, 2008, that he was going to get a warrant to tap Tang’s
wife’s phone. The wiretapping actually started on February 13, 2008. The cell phone whose
number was listed in the leak letter to Tang, was purchased on February 7 and the letter was
mailed on February 8, 2008. The NMTF learned on February 13, 2008, that Tang and his
associates knew that they were being investigated. Detective Joyce urged immediate action
against the organization. Carbone was strongly against taking immediate action. The DEA
finally made the decision to go forward a day or two later.
q. In an interview with Carbone, Carbone told investigators that he had seen
the letter in a Board of Governor’s meeting on February 28, 2008. The investigators found that
Carbone was only one of 25 officers who did not comment on the contents of the letter, just
asking whether there was a photograph of the girl buying the cell phone.
Investigation of the Purchase of the Cell Phone Described in the Letter Mailed to Tang
r. Investigators found that a relative of Carbone had been in the vicinity of
Westminster Mall, when the cell phone was purchased on February 7, 2008.
Tang’s Political Connections
s. The investigators found that Dan Tang was very politically connected.
Tang knew Dante Carbone’s first name. Tang’s closest relationships were with Kent Fenzel, a
former police officer. He was also close with Tom Meyer, a Thornton police officer. Tang was
close friends with Noel Busck, former deputy Mayor of Thornton. He had a close relationship
with Marty Flaum, former Adams County Commissioner and a lobbyist for the Republicans.
Tang reported being friends with Thornton Mayor Eric Hansen and all City Council members. He
also knew: Sean Ford, the former Mayor of Commerce City; Joanne Schaefer, wife of Fred
Schaefer and the Chairwoman of the Adams County Education Foundation; Mary Lee Bella,
Thornton Police Department Lieutenant; Don Quick, District Attorney, and Adams County
Sheriff Doug Darr.

Page 6 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of
13

t. Tang also raised money or contributed to numerous campaigns. He raised

$50,000 for Bill Owens, and raised funds for Senator Allard, Governor Ritter, Bob Beauprez,
Governor Hickenlooper, Senator Salazar, and Senators Salazar, Udall and Campbell. Tang
contributed money to Bob Beauprez, Senator Salazar, Senator Udall, President Bush, Senator
John Thune, Representative Robert Schaffer, Rick O’Donnell, George Allan, Mike Coffman, and
Sheriff Doug Darr. He also contributed to the Republican Campaign Committee, the Colorado
Democratic Party, and Americans for Truth in Politics.
u. The investigators found that, at the end of May, 2008, Quick was heard to
say that “he did not want to prosecute [Tang] because Tang was a significant political contributor
to various elected officials, and also contributed financially to the community as a whole.”
Quick supposedly said at a subsequent meeting “that he did not want to prosecute Tang because
Tang and Busck are friends of his.” After Tang’s arrest, Tang stated that Carbone said to him:
“Dan, this looks bad for the community.”
Incidents Involving Noel Busck
v. Noel Busck, the former deputy mayor of Thornton, is a friend of Tang’s
and Carbone’s. He is a Tang confidant, having known him for 20 years. Busck is also a friend
of Carbone’s, describing Carbone as his “bud” who “watches my back.”
w. On February 17, 2008, a friend told Busck that Tang was likely to be
arrested. On February 20, 2008, after his arrest, Tang asked Busck to hold $400,000 for him.
Busck took the money and eventually put it in a safe deposit box at a local bank. On February
21, Tang asked Busck to give the money to Tang’s wife. Busck refused and Tang came to
Busck’s house and took back the money. Another officer heard about this matter from Dan
Joyce. The officer, Detective Dudley, told Carbone about the incident on February 26, 2008, at
which point Carbone “became ‘visibly upset,’ ‘irrational,’ and was ‘physically shaking.’”
Carbone threatened to fire Joyce.
x. On March 7, 2008, Carbone and Wayne Campbell, an assistant U.S.
Attorney on the Tang case, met and decided not to prosecute Busck. Carbone and Campbell had
been friends for a long time. Campbell said that he did not know what to do with Campbell at
that lunch.

Page 7 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of
13

y. After lunch with Wayne Campell, Carbone called Busck and told him that
Busck would be ‘a witness’ and not a “suspect’ in the Tang case. Busck called back and said
“Thanks, Dante, I know you had something to do with this.” Busck does not remember being
told that he was a witness, he never testified in front of the Grand Jury, and he was not contacted
by authorities for months after the call from Carbone.
Possible Motives
z. The investigators said that a possible motive for Carbone to author the
letter, if he did so, was political, that is to”limit the exposure of Tang and associates,” especially
after the warrant was allowed for the tap of Tang’s wife’s phone.
aa. The investigators heard that “Tang is close to Thornton’s city officials and
was “a favorite” in Thornton. The investigators were also told that everyone knows Tang’s
restaurant is involved in tax evasion.
Declination to Prosecute
4. Plaintiff Lopez reported to me that he was told, by a source within the U.S.
Attorney’s Office: (i) that DEA investigators had presented the case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office
for prosecution and (ii) that office declined to prosecute.
5. Based upon the summary of the report, which is detailed in part above,
Plaintiffs believe that the report is relevant to their case for a number of reasons, including:
a. First, the report details the specific speech in which Plaintiffs engaged.
Although the summary does not include details of specific conversations, presumably the report
does. Details of conversations with Plaintiffs would presumably prove that Plaintiffs engaged in
speech about matters of public concern, such speech including that a Task Force sergeant was the
source of the leak, suspicions that certain members of the Task Force were corrupt, that the Task
Force was dragging its feet in finding corruption within its ranks, that prosecutors were not
pursuing the case to its full extent, and, in fact, were refusing to prosecute certain political
figures.
b. Second, the report may show a motive for Defendants’ retaliation against
officers Joyce and Lopez. The summary shows that an independent investigatory entity focused
on a Task Force sergeant – then-Sergeant Carbone – as a primary suspect in the leak. At that

Page 8 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of
13

time, Sergeant Carbone was a supervisor at the North Metro Task Force and, in fact, was the
primary supervisor of the Oak Chin case. Plaintiffs raised concerns about Sergeant Carbone as
the leak to his supervisors, to the DEA and to prosecutors, and urged that Carbone be taken off
the Task Force until the investigation into the leak was completed, as appears to be standard
amongst police agencies.
The report may show that the Board of Governors, a Defendant in this case, was aware of
every aspect of the investigation through its representatives, Officers Villano and Williams. The
report may indicate that the Board failed to vigorously pursue the investigation into the leak. For
example, Sergeant Bell, another Task Force Sergeant, attempted to organize a group of detectives
who would refuse to take the polygraph examination. When later asked about the claims,
according to the summary, Sergeant Bell stated that he was simply relaying information from
upper management at the Westminister Police Department that a refusal to take the polygraph
examination would not be looked upon unfavorably by the management at the Westminister
Police Department. The report may show that the Board also refused to move Carbone from the
Task Force while the investigation was ongoing, even while telling Commander Hersee not to
give Carbone any information about the investigation.
Further, as indicated above, the report may inclufe information implicating Carbone in
the leak of information. After the investigation was completed, Thornton police department
promoted Carbone to Commander. The report and the resulting promotion may be used to raise
reasonable inferences about Thornton’s opposition to the leak investigation, its position with
regard to my clients’ calls to do an investigation, and its retaliation against Plaintiff Lopez.
c. Third, the report may also show that there may well have been substantial
political influence exerted in the Oak Chin case, providing yet another motive for the Board and
other defendants to silence the Plaintiffs. The report may identify close friends of Dan Tang, the
head of the organized crime activity in the Oak Chin case, including Tom Meyer, a Thornton
police officer, Noel Busck, former deputy Mayor of Thornton, Marty Flaum, former Adams
County Commissioner and a lobbyist for the Republicans. In the summary, Tang also reported
being friends with Thornton Mayor Eric Hansen and all City Council members. He also knew,
according to the summary: Sean Ford, the former Mayor of Commerce City, Joanne Schaefer,

Page 9 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 10
of 13

wife of Fred Schaefer and the Chairwoman of the Adams County Education Foundation; Mary
Lee Bella, Thornton Police Department Lieutenant, Don Quick, District Attorney, and Adams
County Sheriff Doug Darr.
The summary of the report also details political gifts and fund raising on the part of Dan
Tang, including the fact that he raised $50,000 for Bill Owens, and raised funds for Senator
Allard, Governor Ritter, Bob Beauprez, Governor Hickenlooper, Senator Salazar, and Senators
Salazar, Udall and Campbell. The summary also shows that Tang contributed money to Bob
Beauprez, Senator Salazar, Senator Udall, President Bush, Senator John Thune, Representative
Robert Schaffer, Rick O’Donnell, George Allan, Mike Coffman, and Sheriff Doug Darr. The
summary of the report also shows that Tang contributed to the Republican Campaign Committee,
the Colorado Democratic Party, and Americans for Truth in Politics.
The summary of the report details the incident in which Dan Tang asked former Deputy
Mayor Noel Busck to hold $400,000 for him. Noel Busck did so even after being told that Dan
Tang would be shortly arrested. The summary also shows that, less than a month after Plaintiffs
spoke to supervisors, Wayne Campbell, a prosecutor, and Carbone told Busck that he would not
be prosecuted, but rather, Carbone informed Busck that he would be a witness. The summary of
the report shows that Busck was never used as a witness in the case and was not even
interviewed until months after the arrest of Dan Tang.
The summary of the report also indicates that District Attorney Dan Quick was quoted as
saying that he would not prosecute Tang because he and Busck were friends. The summary also
indicates that the report details many of the activities of the organized crime enterprise in the Oak
Chin case, raising possible reasonable inferences about the motive of the failure to charge Tang
and others with a RICO violation, carrying a much higher sentence than the 18 months sentence
finally agreed to by federal prosecutors.
d. Fourth, the report may show that other members of the Task Force were
concerned about retribution from the Task Force or their home police agencies for cooperating
in the DEA investigation into the leak. Again, although the summary does not include details of
specific conversations, presumably the report does. Details of conversations with officers may
prove that the Task Force, or individual police agencies have a history of retaliating against

Page 10 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 11
of 13

officers who speak out on matters of public concern, or who cooperated with the DEA in this
investigation.
e. Fifth, the report may also verify Plaintiffs’ beliefs that their lives might be
in jeopardy if they were required to work with and under a corrupt police sergeant. An
independent investigation by the DEA appears to determine that Sergeant Carbone was the prime
suspect in the leak to Dan Tang. An element in Plaintiff Joyce’s case is constructive termination.
The report may verify that Plaintiff Joyce had a reasonable fear that his continued employment at
the Task Force put his safety in jeopardy. In addition, the summary of the report indicates that at
least one other officer also believed the situation endangered the safety of officers on the Task
Force.
f. Sixth, the report might shed light on the credibility of Defendants. For
example, Defendant Hersee testified under oath that he did not recall anyone telling him not to
share information about the investigation into the leak with Sergeant Carbone. In contrast, the
summary of the report indicated that Hersee stated that he was instructed by Broomfield Police
Chief Deland not to share information with Carbone.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT AND ITS SUMMARY CANNOT BE OBTAINED
ELSEWHERE .
6. To this point in time, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has refused to produce the report
of the investigation to anyone. The members of the Board of Governors have testified that they
were allowed to read only the summary of the report, and, then, could not take notes. Further,
attorneys for the Defendants are claiming “executive privilege” for any discussion occurring in
executive session of the Board of Governors, including discussions of the investigation into the
leak and/or briefings concerning the investigation. Thus, there is no way for Plaintiffs to receive
the report or know its contents from sources other than the federal government.

RELEVANCE AND UNAVAILABILITY OF ROACH TESTIMONY

7. Plaintiffs wish to depose Paul Roach and have sent a subpoena to that effect.

Page 11 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 12
of 13

8. According to the summary of the report, Special Agent Roach was assigned, along
with Special Agent Santavicca, to investigate the leak in the Oak Chin case. As such, Special
Agent Roach can testify as to:
a. What he learned in his investigation, which is relevant as discussed above;
b. The facts underlying the opinions in the report;
c. Any gaps in the report or other relevant information not included in the
report;
d. The identity and authenticity of the report of the investigation and/or its
summary, as well as the author of the report;
e. Whether the report was presented to prosecutors and the response from the
prosecutors.
9. Because the investigation into the leak in the Oak Chin was performed by the
DEA, and the report of the investigation was authored by the DEA and presented to federal
prosecutors, there is no one else who can supply complete information on the investigation and
resulting report. While the Board of the Task Force assigned two officers to the investigation,
they were assigned only to provide assistance as needed.
Dated this 15th day of February, 2011.
Sgnd
____________________________________
Patricia S. Bangert

Page 12 of 13
Case 1:10-cv-00649-CMA -MJW Document 37-6 Filed 02/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 13
of 13

STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss:
COUNTY OF DENVER )

Subscribed and sworn to before me by Patricia S. Bangert this _____ day of February,
2011.

Witness my Hand and Official Seal

My Commission Expires on:

Sgnd
_________________________
Notary Public

Page 13 of 13