Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 1 of 19

1
ANDREW P. THOMAS
2 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
3 Lisa M. Aubuchon, #013141
4 Deputy County Attorney
100 West Washington Suite 2100
5 Phoenix, AZ 85003
6 Telephone: (602) 372-0036
FAX: (602) 372-7210
7 Email: Aubuchon@mcao.maricopa.gov
8
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9

10

11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
13

14 Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official

15
capacity as Maricopa County Sheriff, Case No.
and Andrew P. Thomas, in his official
16 capacity as Maricopa County Attorney, COMPLAINT
17
Plaintiffs, VIOLATIONS OF THE RACKETEER
18 INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
v. ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18.U.S.C.
19
§§1961, et seq.)
20
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors,
21
a body politic and corporate; Fulton
22 Brock, Supervisor, Maricopa County DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Board of Supervisors; Andrew
23
Kunasek, Supervisor, Maricopa County
24 Board of Supervisors; Donald T.
Stapley, Jr., Supervisor, Maricopa
25
County Board of Supervisors; Mary
26 Rose Wilcox, Supervisor, Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors; Max
27
Wilson, Supervisor, Maricopa County
28 Board of Supervisors; David Smith,
County Manager; Sandi Wilson, Deputy

1
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 2 of 19

1
County Manager; Wade Swanson,
2 Office of General Litigation; Barbara R.
Mundell, Judge of the Superior Court of
3 Arizona, Anna Baca, Judge of the
4 Superior Court of Arizona, Gary
Donahoe, Judge of the Superior Court
5 of Arizona, Kenneth Fields, Judge of
6 the Superior Court of Arizona, in their
official capacities; Thomas Irvine,
7 attorney; Edward Novak, attorney; and
8
Polsinelli Shughart P.C.,

9 Defendants.
10

11 Joseph Arpaio, in his official capacity as Maricopa County Sheriff, and Andrew P.
12 Thomas, in his official capacity as Maricopa County Attorney, by and through their
13 undersigned attorney, allege as follows:
14 INTRODUCTION
15
1. This action arises from a concerted scheme to hinder the criminal investigation and
16
prosecution of elected officials and employees of Maricopa County, Arizona and their
17

18 attorneys in the course of committing the predicate offenses described herein related to
19
the funding and construction of the Maricopa County Superior Court Tower. The scheme
20
involved numerous acts enumerated below, including but not limited to: coordinated
21

22 efforts by all defendants to protect defendant Donald Stapley Jr. from criminal

23 investigation and prosecution, improperly end other proper criminal investigations, and
24
intimidate and retaliate against county prosecutors and law-enforcement personnel; use of
25

26
public money for the corrupt purpose of locating surveillance devices authorized by law

27 enforcement in order to avoid detection of crimes; threats against Maricopa County’s

28
chief prosecutor and his wife if he challenged the unlawful actions of certain defendants

2
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 3 of 19

1
in court; repeated attempts to block investigations and prosecutions of certain defendants,
2
threaten and extort county officials and employees, and intimidate any prosecutor who
3

4 might be involved in these efforts by, inter alia, corruptly seeking to deny prosecutors

5 their license to practice law in Arizona; other acts of bribery, extortion and hindering and
6
obstruction of prosecution, some of which are ongoing.
7

8
2. As a result of the scheme, criminal investigations and prosecutions have been

9 impeded.
10
3. Large and undisclosed amounts of taxpayer funds have been spent on defendant
11

12
attorneys and possibly other defendants or their associates in violation of law.

13 4. Defendants’ actions have deprived plaintiff Arpaio, a consumer of civil legal services
14
from the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO), of these services, to which he is
15
entitled by state law.
16

17 5. Defendants’ actions have deprived plaintiff Thomas and MCAO of authority and
18
funds required to provide civil legal services to plaintiff Arpaio and other county
19
agencies. As a result of defendants’ concerted actions, funding to the MCAO Civil
20

21 Division was cut by approximately $6 million in violation of law, thereby preventing

22
MCAO from fulfilling its statutory duties to the Sheriff’s Office and other county clients.
23
This money has been transferred to legal offices created through the concerted and illicit
24

25 efforts of defendants, staffed by attorneys who report to defendants and serve as

26 taxpayer-funded public advocates of criminal suspects and targets of ongoing criminal
27
investigations.
28

3
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 4 of 19

1
6. Defendants have conspired to deprive plaintiff Thomas and MCAO prosecutors of a
2
cognizable property interest, namely their license to practice law in Arizona, in retaliation
3

4 for investigation and prosecution of defendants’ actions, to deter other prosecutors from

5 attempting to enforce the criminal laws against defendants, and for other illicit purposes.
6
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7
7. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and 18
8
U.S.C. §§1961-1964. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1965(a) and
9
28 U.S.C. § 1391.
10
PARTIES
11

12
8. Joseph M. Arpaio (“Arpaio”), in his official capacity as Maricopa County Sheriff, is a

13 plaintiff in this action and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

14
9. Andrew P. Thomas (“Thomas”), in his official capacity as Maricopa County Attorney,
15

16
is a plaintiff in this action and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

17 10. Defendant Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) is composed of five

18
elected officials that are formed under Arizona Revised Statutes §11-201 et seq.
19
11. Defendant Fulton Brock (“Brock”) is an elected member of the Board and a resident
20

21 of Maricopa County, Arizona.

22
12. Defendant Andrew Kunasek (“Kunasek”) is an elected member of the Board and a
23
resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
24

25 13. Defendant Donald T. Stapley, Jr. (“Stapley”) is an elected member of the Board and
26
a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
27
14. Defendant Mary Rose Wilcox (“Wilcox”) is an elected member of the Board and a
28

resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

4
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 5 of 19

1
15. Defendant Max Wilson is an elected member of the Board and a resident of
2
Maricopa County, Arizona.
3

4 16. Defendant David Smith (“Smith”) is the Maricopa County Manager, hired by and

5 serving at the pleasure of the Board, and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
6
17. Defendant Sandi Wilson is the Deputy Maricopa County Manager, hired by and
7

8
serving at the pleasure of the Board and/or the County Manager, and a resident of

9 Maricopa County, Arizona.

10
18. Defendant Wade Swanson (“Swanson”) is an attorney, hired by and serving at the
11

12
pleasure of the Board and/or the County Manager, who works for a law office created by

13 the Board, and who is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

14
19. Defendant Barbara R. Mundell (“Mundell”) is the Maricopa County Superior Court
15
Presiding Judge and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
16

17 20. Defendant Anna Baca (“Baca”) is a retired Maricopa County Superior Court Judge
18
who was, at all times referred to in this action, the Maricopa County Superior Court
19
Criminal Presiding Judge and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
20

21 21. Defendant Gary Donahoe (“Donahoe”) is currently the Maricopa County Superior
22
Court Criminal Presiding Judge and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
23
22. Defendant Kenneth Fields (“Fields”) is a retired Maricopa County Superior Court
24

25 Judge and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

26 23. Defendant Thomas Irvine (“Irvine”) is an attorney with the law firm of Polsinelli
27
Shughart, P.C. and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
28

5
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 6 of 19

1
24. Defendant Edward Novak (“Novak”) is an attorney with the law firm of Polsinelli
2
Shughart, P.C. and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.
3

4 25. Defendant Polsinelli Shughart, P.C. (“Polsinelli”) is a corporation and law firm doing

5 business in Maricopa County, Arizona.

6

7 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
8 26. In approximately November 2006, the Maricopa County Superior Court hired
9 defendant Irvine and the law firm of Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, which later merged
10 into defendant Polsinelli, as counsel and “space planner” for the new Maricopa County
11 Superior Court Tower (“Court Tower”). The Court used a City of Phoenix contract for
12 this hiring rather than going through the normal procurement process. At some point,
13 defendant Board also hired defendants Irvine and Polsinelli as attorneys to represent the
14 defendant Board on the same Court Tower project.
15 27. The Board approves the annual budget and supplemental budgets and appropriations
16 for the Maricopa County Superior Court.
17 28. In a series of votes from 2007 to 2009, the Board approved the expenditure of
18 approximately $341 million in public monies to fund and construct the new Court Tower.
19 The Court Tower is the most expensive public-works project in the history of Maricopa
20 County government.
21 29. Upon completion, this new Court Tower will house Maricopa County Superior Court
22 Judges and supporting courtrooms and facilities. The Court Tower will contain such
23 amenities as marble, travertine and wood flooring, and individual “robing rooms” for
24 Superior Court Judges.
25 30. Defendant Mundell and other Superior Court Judges and Superior Court personnel
26 have worked closely with defendants Stapley, Board, Smith and Sandi Wilson in
27 planning, coordinating and facilitating funding for the Court Tower.
28 31. In approximately October 2007, defendants Mundell, Fields and other current and
retired Maricopa County Superior Court Judges conspired and acted outside the scope of

6
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 7 of 19

1
their judicial offices to instigate frivolous investigations of plaintiff Thomas and other
2
MCAO prosecutors and deputies by the State Bar of Arizona. This effort began in the
3
wake of differences between plaintiff Thomas and defendant Mundell and her
4
subordinates regarding enforcement of state laws governing illegal immigration and
5
related issues and public debate regarding same. A total of 13 such investigations were
6
initiated after emissaries of this group of judges (“the Mundell-Fields faction”)
7
approached leaders and officials of the State Bar and urged them to “do something” about
8
Thomas. Eventually, the State Bar dismissed all of these investigations.
9
32. The Mundell-Fields faction met, communicated and/or conspired outside the scope
10
of their judicial offices for these illicit purposes and have continued with these actions,
11
and with these illicit purposes, to the present.
12
33. At all times in the allegations listed in subsequent paragraphs in this Complaint, and
13
upon information and belief, defendants Mundell, Baca, Donahoe and Fields worked in
14
concert with themselves, the other defendants and other parties, some of whom are
15
currently unknown to plaintiffs, to facilitate the payment of public monies by the Board
16
to the Superior Court to fund the Court Tower, as well as to defendants Irvine, Novak and
17
Polsinelli, in exchange for hindering and providing prosecution from criminal
18
investigation and prosecution for defendants Stapley, Board, Board members, Smith,
19
Sandi Wilson and Swanson, as well as other illicit services.
20
34. At all times in the allegations listed in subsequent paragraphs in this Complaint, and
21
upon information and belief, defendants worked in concert to threaten and extort
22
plaintiffs Arpaio and Thomas and employees of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office
23
(MCAO) and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) to hinder and obstruct
24
criminal investigations and prosecutions of themselves.
25
35. On December 2, 2008, MCSO deputies served defendant Stapley with a 118-count
26
indictment returned by the Maricopa County Grand Jury.
27
36. Within a few days of service of the indictment, the Board and other defendants hired
28
a contractor at public expense to “sweep for bugs” in order to determine if any law

7
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 8 of 19

1
enforcement agency had placed listening devices in county offices. While the Board and
2
its employees later justified this action publicly as necessary to comfort county
3
employees, interviews of county employees by sheriff’s deputies showed otherwise and
4
specifically that these actions were taken solely to protect defendant Board, as well as
5
defendants Brock, Kunasek, Stapley, Wilcox, and Max Wilson (hereinafter “Board
6
members”) and their staff, from potential criminal investigation and prosecution.
7
37. Initially, the Stapley criminal case was randomly assigned to a Maricopa County
8
Superior Court Judge pursuant to the standard policies of the Maricopa County Superior
9
Court. These practices require a “blind draw” to ensure the impartial administration of
10
justice. However, on December 8, 2008, defendant Mundell violated those policies by
11
interceding and reassigning the Stapley case to defendant Fields.
12
38. Defendant Fields repeatedly had demonstrated bias against plaintiff Thomas and
13
MCAO. This bias was well known to defendants Mundell and Baca, whom Mundell
14
appointed to her position as Presiding Criminal Judge and who served in said position at
15
Mundell’s pleasure.
16
39. The evidence of defendant Fields’ bias was extensive. A Superior Court employee,
17
Robin Hoskins, had reported defendant Fields’ bias to defendant Baca. Defendant Fields
18
had actively campaigned for plaintiff Thomas’s opponent in the 2008 election; publicly
19
criticized plaintiff Thomas to the media; filed a frivolous complaint with the State Bar
20
against Thomas, which was dismissed; denounced plaintiff Thomas to the media the day
21
before Election Day 2008; and had taken other public actions to demonstrate bias, in
22
addition to taking other private actions evidencing bias known to defendants Mundell and
23
Baca but currently unknown to plaintiffs.
24
40. Four esteemed experts in legal ethics retained by the State stated that Fields was
25
ethically required to recuse himself from the Stapley case. The State disclosed these
26
expert opinions to defendants Mundell, Baca and Fields.
27

28

8
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 9 of 19

1
41. Despite knowledge of defendant Fields’ bias, defendants Mundell, Baca and Fields
2
conspired to retain Fields as the judge in the Stapley case, in violation of Arizona law,
3
rules of court and the standard practices of the Maricopa County Superior Court.
4
42. Defendants Mundell and Baca refused to grant MCAO a hearing on the State’s
5
motion to remove Fields for bias. This action violated Arizona’s rules of court, which
6
require a prompt hearing upon the filing of such a motion.
7
43. In written rulings and statements, defendants Mundell and Fields improperly implied
8
that MCAO attorneys had committed ethical violations simply by asking questions about,
9
and then challenging, the selection and retention of defendant Fields for the Stapley case.
10
In these actions, defendants Mundell and Fields revealed the forthcoming modus
11
operandi of the Mundell-Fields faction, namely, to level false ethical allegations against
12
MCAO attorneys, including but not limited to plaintiff Thomas, in order to intimidate
13
prosecutors, illicitly protect defendant Stapley and the Board, and corruptly deprive
14
plaintiff Thomas and other MCAO prosecutors of their license to practice law.
15
44. In a series of actions commencing in December 2008, actions made in retaliation for
16
the Stapley indictment and to illegally enrich defendants Irvine and Polsinelli, defendants
17
Board, Board members, Smith, Sandi Wilson, Irvine and Polsinelli unlawfully usurped
18
plaintiff Thomas’ authority to serve as legal counsel to the Board and to defend Maricopa
19
County in civil actions, including county clients such as plaintiff Arpaio and MCSO.
20
45. On December 31, 2008, Arpaio and Thomas filed a lawsuit challenging the Board’s
21
illegal attempt to oust Thomas from his civil legal duties as Maricopa County Attorney.
22
46. Defendants Irvine and Polsinelli acted as counsel for the Board in this civil action.
23
They did not disclose to MCAO or the public that they were serving at the same time as
24
attorneys for the Superior Court in the Court Tower matter.
25
47. As she had done in the Stapley case, defendant Mundell personally selected the judge
26
to hear this civil suit. Mundell chose another politically active retired judge, Donald
27
Daughton, whose biases were known to her and other Superior Court Judges and
28

9
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 10 of 19

1
employees, in an attempt to ensure an outcome favorable to the Board and the lawyers
2
shared with the Board and detrimental to plaintiff Thomas and MCAO.
3
48. On January 10, 2009, defendants Irvine and Polsinelli filed a pleading in Superior
4
Court falsely claiming numerous conflicts of interest on the part of plaintiff Thomas and
5
MCAO. Defendants Irvine, Novak and Polsinelli refused to disclose to the public their
6
own numerous and genuine conflicts of interest as they were receiving payments of
7
public funds, from defendant Board and the Maricopa County Superior Court, at a rate at
8
or above $340 per hour.
9
49. Known conflicts of interest by defendants Irvine, Novak and Polsinelli include
10
serving simultaneously as counsel to both the Maricopa County Superior Court and the
11
Board, as well as the general contractor, on the Court Tower project and transactions;
12
advising defendant Board on alleged conflicts of interest by plaintiff Thomas and MCAO
13
and then accepting legal work and compensation from the Board based on Irvine’s
14
alleged finding that conflicts existed; representing private parties in actions against
15
defendant Board without a proper waiver of said conflict; representation of Conley
16
Wolfswinkel, a business associate of defendant Stapley, Wolfswinkel business interests,
17
and defendant Stapley himself and/or Stapley business interests; representing defendant
18
Board in quashing grand-jury subpoenas decided before defendant Donahoe in criminal
19
investigations in which defendants Irvine, Novak and Polsinelli knew they were targets of
20
same; and filing a lawsuit and request for orders before defendant Donahoe to unlawfully
21
shield themselves and county officials and employees from any criminal investigation or
22
prosecution by Maricopa County prosecutors, thereby seeking to unlawfully prevent
23
plaintiff Arpaio from submitting criminal investigations and cases to Maricopa County’s
24
duly elected prosecutor.
25
50. On February 6, 2009, in response to a motion filed by the Board and defendants
26
Novak, Irvine and Polsinelli, defendant Donahoe quashed a grand-jury subpoena into
27
expenditures for the Court Tower project. Defendant Donahoe ignored state law and
28
disqualified MCAO from the investigation in order to hinder and effectively terminate it.

10
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 11 of 19

1
At the time of his ruling, defendant Donahoe had succeeded defendant Baca as Presiding
2
Criminal Judge, and he serves in this position at the pleasure of defendant Mundell.
3
51. Defendant Donahoe’s order did not disclose the attorney-client relationship that
4
existed between the Superior Court, the Board and defendants Irvine, Novak and
5
Polsinelli on the very same Court Tower project.
6
52. The Donahoe order falsely accused plaintiff Thomas of a conflict of interest. This
7
claim was made in an attempt to intimidate county prosecutors and improperly end the
8
investigation. The ruling ignored Arizona statutes and rules of ethics governing both
9
attorneys and judges. Peter Jarvis, one of the nation’s leading experts in legal ethics,
10
filed an affidavit avowing there was no conflict of interest on the part of plaintiff Thomas
11
or MCAO.
12
53. News of the Donahoe order was leaked to a criminal defense attorney representing
13
defendant Stapley hours before it was released to the public or the State. MCAO
14
possesses written evidence of this improper communication. This sharing of confidential
15
information among the parties demonstrated the concerted nature of defendants’ actions
16
to impede investigation and prosecution of said matters.
17
54. On February 25, 2009, attorneys for Wolfswinkel, a convicted felon and business
18
partner of defendant Stapley, filed a Motion to Controvert a Search Warrant in Superior
19
Court challenging a search warrant served by MCSO on Wolfswinkel’s businesses. The
20
pleading in Superior Court was facially and procedurally improper, as the search warrant
21
was issued by a Maricopa County Justice Court and not the Superior Court, and the
22
motion accordingly should have been filed in Justice Court. Nevertheless, defendant
23
Donahoe, who somehow learned of the filing almost immediately, improperly assigned
24
the matter to himself the day after filing and set a hearing.
25
55. Defendant Irvine has worked as the attorney for Wolfswinkel and/or his businesses
26
or businesses of Wolfswinkel’s relatives. Despite requests from MCAO for disclosure,
27
Irvine has refused to disclose to MCAO and the public the nature, extent and current
28

11
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 12 of 19

1
status of his representation of and relationships with Wolfswinkel, said corporate entities,
2
and defendant Stapley.
3
56. On February 26, 2009, defendant Swanson filed a pleading that urged a Superior
4
Court Judge to impose personal sanctions on the MCAO prosecutor handling the Stapley
5
case. Defendant Swanson filed this pleading at the behest of defendant Board, Board
6
members, and defendants Smith and Sandi Wilson. This pleading was filed after MCAO
7
and MCSO had attempted to obtain a transcript of a deposition of Wolfswinkel taken in a
8
civil case.
9
57. During oral argument in court, defendants Irvine and Novak stood in the courtroom
10
alongside Stapley defense counsel and laughed at the prosecutor as she was verbally
11
assailed. The Arizona Court of Appeals later held that the MCAO prosecutor did nothing
12
wrong and overturned sanctions against MCAO. The Swanson filing was meant to
13
intimidate, and it corruptly inured to the benefit of Stapley and Wolfswinkel in a matter
14
in which the Board was not a party.
15

16 58. On approximately March 4, 2009, an anonymous State Bar complaint was filed

17 against plaintiff Thomas for his prosecution of defendant Stapley. Upon information and

18 belief, the complainant was defendant Novak, who was then employed as counsel for the

19 Board and held the position of President of the State Bar. The State Bar of Arizona

20 regulates the practice of law in Arizona and may suspend or revoke attorney licenses.

21
59. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in Thomas v. State Bar of Arizona that
22
State Bar investigations then involving plaintiff Thomas were to be handled by an
23
investigator acting independently of the State Bar. However, the investigator hired for
24
the Stapley investigation, retired judge Rebecca Albrecht, did not act independently.
25
Instead, she circulated a draft dismissal letter soliciting comment among Bar counsel and
26
officers, including upon information and belief defendant Novak, thereby coordinating
27
her efforts with Novak in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines. Albrecht’s
28
dismissal letter contained admonitory language that ignored state law and was

12
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 13 of 19

1
contradicted by a later ruling by defendant Fields, but which served to intimidate further
2
investigation or prosecution of the defendants. Novak obtained this outcome corruptly
3
and for the benefit of defendant Stapley and other Board members in exchange for
4
compensation by defendant Board.
5

6 60. On March 6, 2009, defendant Smith falsely accused plaintiff Thomas of a conflict of

7 interest for his attempt to enforce Arizona’s public-records laws and denied him public

8 monies to hire an attorney to challenge the Board’s violation of these laws. Defendants

9 Smith and Swanson have repeatedly refused to authorize payments to outside law firms

10 retained by MCSO or MCAO to challenge unlawful actions by defendant Board, a pattern

11 and practice that continues to the present.

12 61. On March 6, 2009, defendant Smith threatened to seek recovery of legal fees from

13 plaintiff Thomas and his wife if Thomas sued defendant Board when it acted unlawfully.

14 The threat included seeking “reimbursement for internal staff time.” This threat was

15 made despite defendant Board’s open and ongoing actions in violation of law and

16 Thomas’ legal duty, as Maricopa County Attorney, to sue to correct such violations.

17 62. On August 25, 2009, defendant Fields dismissed all misdemeanor counts from the

18 indictment of defendant Stapley. As a result of this improper ruling, which offered

19 reasoning never before embraced by an Arizona court, prosecutors were forced to dismiss

20 the rest of the Stapley case.

21 63. On August 26, 2009, Judge Daughton upheld defendant Board’s illegal takeover of

22 MCAO’s civil functions. His brief minute entry, which cited no basis in law for his

23 conclusions, has wrought havoc in Maricopa County government and deprived plaintiff

24 Arpaio of the civil legal services from MCAO to which he is entitled by state law. This

25 ruling improperly inured to the benefit of defendants Board and Polsinelli, which

26 appeared in this legal action on behalf of defendant Board despite their simultaneous

27 service as attorneys for the Superior Court.

28 64. In his minute entry, Judge Daughton found plaintiff Thomas had violated the rules of
professional responsibility governing attorneys. In neither his minute entry nor final

13
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 14 of 19

1
judgment did Judge Daughton specify how plaintiff Thomas had violated these rules. In
2
oral argument prior to issuing his final judgment, Judge Daughton was unable to state
3
what plaintiff Thomas had done to violate the ethical rules, despite being asked directly
4
and repeatedly by plaintiff Thomas’ counsel in open court. Judge Daughton’s finding of
5
a violation of the rules of professional responsibility against plaintiff Thomas, which he
6
could not explain or defend, was made for the purpose of illicitly aiding defendants
7
Board, Irvine and Polsinelli and in furtherance of the efforts of the Mundell-Fields faction
8
to encourage the State Bar to take adverse and unjust action against plaintiff Thomas and
9
potentially other MCAO attorneys.
10
65. Throughout 2008 and 2009, despite numerous requests for public records under
11
applicable statutes on various topics by both plaintiffs, Maricopa County failed to provide
12
records of public expenditures and other matters to MCAO and MCSO. Instead,
13
defendant Board adopted policies to prevent the plaintiffs from obtaining public records.
14
Judge Daughton upheld these denials in violation of Arizona’s public-records statutes
15
with a ruling that ignored Arizona law and that was intended to aid defendants Board,
16
Irvine and Polsinelli.
17
66. On August 30, 2009, Maricopa County employees who served as project managers
18
for the Court Tower project publicly questioned the need for, and propriety of, hiring
19
defendants Irvine and Polsinelli. In interviews with the media, one project manager
20
noted defendant Irvine and attorneys in his firm seemed to have been hired simply to
21
“take minutes” in meetings. Another manager said he saw “no need” to hire them.
22
These county employees work for defendants Board, Smith and Sandi Wilson.
23
67. Despite the classic signs of graft that have come to light regarding the Court Tower
24
project, defendant Board has paid defendant Polsinelli at least $1.2 million in legal fees
25
over the last fiscal year. This figure excludes what the Superior Court has paid them
26
separately for the Court Tower project.
27
68. On October 19, 2009, defendants Smith and Swanson prepared and/or released a
28
written memorandum for defendants Smith, Board and Board members, seeking to justify

14
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 15 of 19

1
the Board’s refusal to approve special prosecutors selected by plaintiff Thomas. This
2
memorandum used groundless legal reasoning never previously used by the Board to
3
reject a special-prosecutor appointment, and did so in order to block the proper
4
appointment of special prosecutors to handle potential criminal investigations and
5
prosecutions involving the Board, Board members, and other county officials and
6
employees.
7
69. On or about October 20, 2009, defendants Smith and/or Swanson made false
8
statements to the media regarding MCAO’s attempt to appoint special prosecutors. They
9
claimed any possible prosecution of defendant Stapley was a “witch hunt,” that plaintiff
10
Thomas was “playing politics,” and that said special prosecutors would be paid $900 an
11
hour. These false statements were non-legal in nature and made for the purpose of
12
intimidating prosecutors and corruptly advocating for defendant Stapley at taxpayer
13
expense.
14
70. On October 26, 2009, defendant Smith sent a letter to members of plaintiff Thomas’
15
office demanding disclosures of information relating to “blogging” on the Internet or
16
other discussions had by MCAO employees with anyone relating to people in Maricopa
17
County, whether on personal or business time. Said demands constituted extortion of
18
plaintiff Thomas and MCAO in that defendant Smith impliedly threatened to file a
19
complaint with the State Bar if plaintiff Thomas and MCAO did not consent to his
20
request. Fulfillment of defendant Smith’s request would have required violating the civil
21
rights of MCAO prosecutors and employees under federal and state law.
22
71. On or about November 2, 2009, defendant Wilcox told the media that defendant
23
Board was not going to approved the requested special prosecutors.
24
72. On November 6, 2009, defendant Novak sent an email to an attorney for plaintiff
25
Arpaio extorting a non-party to their action, plaintiff Thomas and MCAO, by threatening
26
to release a videotape of a minor vehicular accident involving an MCAO prosecutor in a
27
Maricopa County parking garage if plaintiff Arpaio did not withdraw his demand for
28

15
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 16 of 19

1
videotape of the arrest of defendant Stapley in the same garage. Such demand corruptly
2
inured to the benefit of defendant Stapley.
3
73. On November 13, 2009, defendants Board, Irvine and Polsinelli filed a motion on
4
behalf of the Board and at taxpayer expense seeking an order from defendant Donahoe
5
blocking plaintiff Thomas and MCAO from investigating or prosecuting any member of
6
defendant Board or any county employee for any crime. Said actions corruptly inured to
7
the benefit of defendants.
8
74. The above-described actions by defendants have served to unjustly enrich defendants
9
Irvine, Novak and Polsinelli in violation of law.
10
75. The above-described actions by defendants have allowed the Board to cut $6 million
11
in funds from MCAO’s civil budget and oust MCAO from its rightful role in defending
12
county litigation. Said actions have deprived plaintiff Arpaio and other Maricopa County
13
officers of the counsel and law offices which, by law, are to represent him when he or
14
MCSO is sued.
15
76. On November 17, 2009, defendant Smith, on behalf of defendants Board, Board
16
members, Sandi Wilson and Swanson, filed a written complaint with the State Bar
17
against plaintiff Thomas and other MCAO prosecutors. The complaint cited the rulings
18
improperly obtained from defendant Donahoe and Daughton, along with the attempts to
19
coerce disclosure of private blogging information from plaintiff Thomas and MCAO, as
20
purported grounds for professional discipline. In filing this complaint, defendant Smith
21
perfected the coordinated efforts of defendants to corruptly deprive plaintiff Thomas and
22
MCAO prosecutors of their license to practice law in Arizona.
23

24
CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25 (Liability for all defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) 18 U.S.C. §1962 et seq.)
26

27
77. Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-76 above and further
28
allege:

16
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 17 of 19

1
78. Defendants all constitute persons under 18 U.S.C. §1961. The defendants are
2
involved in an enterprise as they are all related by contract association, as a legal entity or
3
as a group of individuals associated in fact. These enterprises engage in or participate in
4
activities which affect interstate commerce including but not limited to hiring the out-of-
5
state National Center for State Courts as consultants and national firms as contractors on
6
the Court Tower project; participation in the National Association of Counties, of which
7
defendant Stapley was past president; federal funding received by Maricopa County and
8
used for some or all of the county operations discussed in this Complaint; and
9
participation in interstate programs such as interstate compact supervision by the Board,
10
its members and defendant judges.
11
79. Plaintiffs have suffered injury as set forth in paragraphs 1-76 as required under 18
12
U.S.C. §1964(c) based on the defendants prohibited activities in 18 U.S.C. §1962.
13
66. Defendants have engaged in conduct constituting a pattern of racketeering activity as
14
stated in the above referenced paragraphs and defined in 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(A).. The
15
prohibited conduct is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 (b), (c), and (d). This conduct
16
includes bribery and extortion as chargeable under state law, Arizona Revised Statutes
17
§§13-1804 and 13-2601 et seq., punishable by more than one year imprisonment, in that
18
the conduct described above has facilitated the taking of funds, property and/or
19
cognizable property interests from Maricopa County and State of Arizona taxpayers,
20
MCAO, MCSO, the plaintiffs, and employees of the plaintiffs.
21
80. The conduct of the defendants as outlined in the above paragraphs constitutes at least
22
two acts of racketeering activity and includes threats to hinder prosecution of those
23

24 involved in illegally giving or receiving county, state or federal funds; exposing other

25 security and privacy concerns; and causing plaintiffs to part with funds, property or
26
cognizable property interests and legal services to which they were entitled by law. In
27

28
addition, the conduct complained of includes seeking to obtain any benefit from another

17
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 18 of 19

1
person upon a claim or representation that they can or will improperly influence the
2
action of a public servant, or a person who offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit
3

4 upon a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant's vote, opinion,

5 judgment, exercise of discretion or other action in his or her official capacity as a public
6
servant or solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit upon an agreement or
7

8
understanding that his or her vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion or other

9 action as a public servant or party officer may thereby be influenced.

10
81. The plaintiffs further assert that a conspiracy exists between the defendants to commit
11
bribery and/or extortion by hindering the prosecution of county officers, employees or
12
associates for the racketeering activities alleged.
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14

15
Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

16
1. Judgment in its favor against all of the defendants in an amount triple the damages
17
each has caused plaintiffs through their racketeering activity, pursuant to 18
18

19 U.S.C. §1964(c), and specifically sufficient damages to make whole plaintiff

20
Arpaio, a consumer of legal services corruptly denied those services from MCAO
21
due to the coordinated efforts of defendants;
22

23 2. Costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuing this action pursuant to Federal
24
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 54; and/or 18 U.S.C. §1964;
25
3. Such relief as is necessary to allow plaintiffs Arpaio and Thomas to enforce the
26

27 criminal and civil laws of the State of Arizona without improper or corrupt
28
hindrance by defendants;

18
 Case 2:09-cv-02492-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 19 of 19

1
4. Such relief as is necessary to protect plaintiffs and employees of MCAO and
2
MCSO from defendants’ actions and practices complained of herein; and
3

4 5. Any such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

6 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

7 Plaintiffs demand a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
8 38 (b).
9

10 DATED this 1 day of December, 2009.

11
ANDREW P. THOMAS
12 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
13

14
By: s/ Lisa M. Aubuchon
Lisa M. Aubuchon
15 Deputy County Attorney
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19