ARIZONA: $30 Million gambling case - Sheriff's Office fought for case

[clevfan]

Sheriff's Office fought for case
Michael Kiefer
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 21, 2007 12:00 AM

There was $30 million at stake, money seized from an illegal gambling operation, and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office fought bitterly over who would prosecute the case and pocket the money.

An MCSO chief refused to cooperate with the agency appointed to try the case and called in its lightning-rod attorney Dennis Wilenchik.

The resultant battle was so bitter and vitriolic that a veteran prosecutor called a Wilenchik missive "the most outrageous and unprofessional correspondence I have ever received from another attorney in my thirty-three years of practicing law."

Wilenchik, in turn, called the prosecutors petty and vicious and criticized them for having outrageous tactics that "smack of interference with the law enforcement process."

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard sent the case to the Pima County Attorney's Office to avoid the perception of conflict of interest. The Sheriff's Office took issue.

The battle only came to light Thursday in documents obtained by The Arizona Republic and the Tucson Citizen through a contested public-records request.

It raged in June and July, months before Wilenchik found himself at the center of two October courthouse debacles that cost him his job.

In the letters and e-mails, Wilenchik asked why the Pima County Attorney's Office couldn't step up its enforcement of the state's human-smuggling and death-penalty statutes.

He suggested that Pima County "spend some time cleaning your own house ... and spend more quality time helping our citizenry rid itself of the evil that permeates our society rather than focusing on how you might help Terry Goddard in his political wranglings and machinations."

Goddard is under investigation by the Maricopa County Sheriff's and Attorney's Offices.

"If he had sent the case to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, it could have looked like he was trying to pay them off by giving the forfeiture assets to them," said Chief Deputy Pima County Attorney Amelia Cramer.

But that's exactly where Sheriff Joe Arpaio wanted the case to go.

"Why would Pima County get all this money when they had nothing to do with this case?" said Arpaio, whose office is facing budget woes. "It was my detectives that worked hard. This county did all the work."

Arpaio put Wilenchik to work on the case, and Wilenchik delivered.


A war of words


Wilenchik's combative style came into the public eye in October, first when he demanded that a Maricopa County Superior Court judge step down from all cases involving the County Attorney's Office and then when his office ordered that two New Times executives be arrested over revealing the contents of a grand jury subpoena.

This case, however, started in April, when sheriff's deputies broke up four associated online gambling rings after serving search warrants and arresting 31 people in Phoenix, Los Angeles and Las Vegas and seizing assets in the amount of $30 million to $35 million.

That money can be split among the court, the prosecuting and investigating agencies under racketeering laws.

No criminal charges have yet been filed. But the civil case needed to take the seized money is well under way.

In mid-June, facing investigation by the Maricopa County Sheriff's and Attorneys Office over his office's handling of former state Treasurer David Petersen's case, Goddard decided to send the forfeiture case to Pima County prosecutors. They in turn would try the case in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Wilenchik immediately sent a letter to Goddard and Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall, calling the move an "unlawful exercise of authority, dominion or control over the Sheriff's files."

And he threatened to sue.

Then on June 22, MCSO Chief David Hendershott, according to the documents obtained, told chief criminal Pima County Attorney Berkman that his department would not cooperate.

Wilenchik accused Berkman's office of "interfering in the matter set in Maricopa County for no good reason other than to carry Mr. Goddard's water."

In response, Berkman called Wilenchik unprofessional and Wilenchik upped the ante.

"Your effort to create a conflict is vindictive, beyond petty, and is damaging to the case and client.

" ... Your purposeful rant is noted but rejected as being just that. Any more hysterical and self-serving comments will be similarly rejected."

By July 12, the Citizen had become aware of the dispute and attempted to obtain this correspondence, and the court battle shifted.

"The conduct exhibited by your office is nothing less than appalling," Wilenchik wrote to Cramer. " . . . It is blatantly clear ... that your office has turned to a journalistic plant ... as a means to publicize your vindictiveness against the Maricopa County Attorney's Office."



The Pima County Attorney's Office threw up its hands, especially in light of MCSO's supposed refusal to cooperate.

"That would make it physically impossible to prosecute," Cramer said.

It asked MCSO which agency it would work with, and the case went to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

MCSO Capt. Paul Chagolla declined to comment on the particular language Wilenchik used in correspondence with Pima County. However, Chagolla said that "he must have been effective because (the civil case) came back to the county."

Goddard's office did not comment.

Special Assistant Maricopa County Attorney Barnett Lotstein summed up his office's opinion.

"We feel that the sheriff acted absolutely appropriately in an attempt to recover that particular case . . . in view of the fact that the Sheriff's Office and the Maricopa County taxpayers footed the bill for the investigation," he said.

And in an e-mail to The Republic, Wilenchik said, "Other than the fact that we finally prevailed on them to return the files they were wrongfully withholding there is not much else to say about it."

Cramer was left with a bad taste in her mouth.

"The most disturbing aspect from our standpoint was that it didn't appear he or his clients were most focused on the best interests of the state but upon some political process."



Republic reporter Lindsey Collom contributed to this article.

[clevfan]

12.22.2007

Prying the lid off messy can of worms
MICHAEL A. CHIHAK
Tucson Citizen

Zeroing in on public corruption is one of the more important roles of the free press in our democracy.

Zeroing in on public inanity is something we rarely set out to accomplish. But it is what we fairly regularly encounter.

This is the tale of such an encounter, coming at considerable expense to us and to you as taxpayers.

The Tucson Citizen published a lengthy story about it Friday.
The legal bill for the Citizen, so far, is $20,000. What taxpayers have coughed up for this episode likely is much more.

It began in July, when Citizen Associate Editor Mark Kimble requested public documents under the Freedom of Information Act from the Pima County attorney.

Kimble wanted information about the state Attorney General's Office sending a Maricopa County case to Pima County.

The case: breakup of an online gambling ring and seizure of $30 million in assets.

Under state law, the attorney general decides on distribution of such assets to law enforcement agencies in these cases.

All of this was fraught with political shadings because Maricopa County legal officials had opened an investigation of Attorney General Terry Goddard over his handling of the case of David Petersen, who had resigned as state treasurer.

Goddard thus sent the case to Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall's office.

So let's set the scene:

• The case belonged to Joe Arpaio, Republican Maricopa County sheriff. He wanted Republican Maricopa County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas to handle it.
• Democrat Goddard had control of the case and sent it to fellow Democrat LaWall.

To say there's bad blood among these four is an understatement. They likely wouldn't deny their odium for one another.

LaWall decided not to handle the case after Arpaio's officers said they wouldn't cooperate with Pima County prosecutors.

Then came a fight over the documents, a collection of vitriolic letters and e-mails between Arpaio's hired lawyer, Dennis I. Wilenchik, and David L. Berkman, chief criminal deputy in the Pima County Attorney's Office.

A five-month legal battle ensued, including numerous motions, changes in assigned judges and Arpaio and Wilenchik's claims that releasing the information would harm investigation of the gambling case.

Pima County Superior Court Judge Charles V. Harrington read the files and rejected that argument in ordering the documents' release Monday.
They arrived Thursday, revealing the true reason Arpaio wanted them kept under wraps: to hide his greed.

"Why would Pima County get all this money when they had nothing to do with this case?" Arpaio told The Arizona Republic. "It was my detectives that worked hard. This county did all the work."

So we spent a lot of money but didn't expose any corruption. That's OK.
We did expose inanity, churlishness and downright political nastiness by elected and appointed officials.

You can judge whether that was worthwhile. We think so, because it fits our role to hold accountable, on behalf of the public, the words and deeds of public officials.

[Oddessa]

lol @ the govt fighting over so hard over criminal money

[jr476]

I know some people tied up in this case, and to say the least, it is a mess. Some guys aren't expecting trial for two years at the earliest! The only people that are going to win in this whole ordeal is the lawyers.

[clevfan]

December 23, 2007 - 9:40PM

Gambling probe could be county windfall

Gary Grado
East Valley Tribune

What began as a tip on a few gamblers has blossomed into an immense wiretap investigation and could become a massive payoff for Maricopa County.

No one has been indicted after almost three years of investigation, but a civil case in which the county seeks millions of dollars in property, cash and liability from 46 defendants accused of running illegal gambling organizations in the East Valley and Scottsdale is moving forward.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said the criminal investigation isn’t dead.

“I expect there will be a final resolution in the next two or three months,” Arpaio said. “We expect to have arrests in the near future.”

The sheriff’s office cited the investigation as one of the reasons it had spent its entire overtime budget for the year by October. Search-and-seizure warrant affidavits and other court documents provide a glimpse into the immensity of the probe and the money at stake.

The investigation has amassed more than 120,000 pages of police reports and seized financial documents, and the county has hired a consulting firm to help manage them.

The case also involves litigation in Nevada and California, where some defendants are challenging the process used to seize property in those states and have it transferred to Arizona to become part of the civil forfeiture case.

The state alleges the individuals are personally liable for the proceeds they generated in the conspiracy.

For example, the Dipiero-Burgi Organization — run by Ralph Dipiero Jr., 77, his two sons, Ralph Dipiero III and Chris Dipiero, and Anthony Burgi, a Gilbert attorney who died March 27 in a one-car crash — would each have to pay between $57.3 million and $96 million if they lose their civil case.

The elder Dipiero declined comment at the advice of his attorney.

“I’ve got plenty to say,” Dipiero said.

Leaders of other organizations included Eugene Valentini, Lloyd Melton and Steven Pokrass.
Authorities allege the four organizations raked in more than $250 million.

When the sheriff’s office arrested and released them in April, the office said little except that four distinct yet connected Web-based gambling organizations were operating out of the East Valley. What made it illegal, sheriff’s officials said, was that the wins and losses were settled in restaurants and bars.

The organizations also engaged in loan-sharking, which is extortion, and money laundering, authorities said in April.

One of the reasons they couldn’t say much then is because the investigation involved wiretaps, and documents pertaining to them were sealed by the court until last summer.

Arpaio still wouldn’t discuss wiretaps in a recent interview.

Court documents show investigators received their first tip on March 29, 2005, and two days later two detectives made their first contact at Jilly’s American Grill in Chandler.

Detectives spotted a man looking at betting lines in a newspaper and writing them down on a napkin. He stepped away and made a call on his cell phone.

When he returned, the detectives struck up a conversation with him and he connected them with an Internet gambling site run by Melton.

Judge Brian Ishikawa of Maricopa County Superior Court began giving approvals for 14 wiretaps on Oct. 13, 2006. Investigators also got approval to bug Melton’s office with audio and video equipment at Venice Ristorante Italiano in Ahwatukee Foothills.

Investigators had already identified Melton’s, Valentini’s and Pokrass’ organizations, but it wasn’t until after the wiretaps that they discovered the Dipieros and Burgi.

According to documents, the Dipieros were also involved in selling cocaine, and Burgi obtained large quantities of prescription narcotics from a physician for resale.

The organization also had a “clubhouse,” a home in Scottsdale where they kept the drugs in a safe and partied.

In one recorded conversation, Dipiero Jr. grew angry after being informed Burgi was selling cocaine to limousine drivers and women none of them knew.

Documents also detail how Burgi drew up paperwork to refinance the home of a woman whose gambler son was heavily in debt to the organization.

Detectives believe the woman’s name was forged on the paperwork, and the person who notarized the paperwork isn’t registered as a notary public with the state.

Detectives listened to a conversation as Dipiero III hollered to Burgi that they were “robbing the world.”

“I love it,” Burgi said.

[clevfan]

Sheriff says gambling probe to lead to arrests in coming months


Associated Press - December 24, 2007 2:54 PM ET

MESA, Ariz. (AP) - Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he expects to resolve an immense investigation into allegations of illegal gambling operations within the next two or three months.

No one has been indicted after almost three years of investigation, but a civil case is moving forward.

In the civil case, the county is seeking millions of dollars in property, cash and liability from 46 people accused of running illegal gambling organizations in Scottsdale and other communities in eastern metropolitan Phoenix.

Arpaio says the criminal investigation isn't dead and that he expects arrests in the near future.

[dinque]

if forfeiture money went to cancer research no one would ever get busted......

[stevo]

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Man is absolutely insane. His track record for large busts not good.

I believe the biggest last mistake was when he had Swat go into a house on intel a large wanted crack dealer was in there.

Destroyed the inside of house. Scared the shit out of the family and the only guy they got was for outstanding trafffic tickets.

[Uncle B]

Originally Posted by stevo

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Man is absolutely insane. His track record for large busts not good.

I believe the biggest last mistake was when he had Swat go into a house on intel a large wanted crack dealer was in there.

Destroyed the inside of house. Scared the shit out of the family and the only guy they got was for outstanding trafffic tickets.

So long as his name is in the news, i doubt he cares if it's good or bad...Dude is a serious attention whore.

[clevfan]

Judge orders Arpaio office to pay Citizen's lawyer fees

The Arizona Republic
Published: 02.12.2008

For the second time in a week, an Arizona court found that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office did not comply with the Arizona Public Records laws and ordered that it pay lawyer's fees to a newspaper.
A Pima County Superior Court judge on Monday awarded more than $25,000 to the Tucson Citizen over public records the newspaper requested in July 2007 but did not receive until December.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is fighting battles over such requests.
On Feb. 5, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the sheriff's department failed to turn over public records to the Phoenix New Times in a timely manner.
The appellate court sent the case back to the Maricopa Superior Court to determine lawyer fees.
"The message is that members of the public should not be obliged to litigate against Sheriff Arpaio whenever they hope to inspect public records, in this case, records that the Pima County attorney wanted to disclose but could not because of Sheriff Arpaio's objections," said Phoenix attorney David Bodney, who represented the Citizen.
The Sheriff's Office intends to appeal the latest ruling.
"Judges make mistakes," Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre said. "We never refused a public records request to the Tucson Citizen."
Monday's ruling came out of a Citizen inquiry into a dispute between the Pima County Attorney's Office and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office over who should prosecute a racketeering case and claim more than $30 million of assets seized in the investigation.
The seizure occurred when Maricopa sheriff's deputies broke up four associated online gambling rings in April; 31 people in Phoenix, Los Angeles and Las Vegas were arrested in the case.
That money can be split among the court, the prosecuting and investigating agencies under racketeering laws, commonly called RICO statues.
State Attorney General Terry Goddard's office would normally have handled the prosecution.
In mid-June, Goddard decided to send the case to Pima County prosecutors to avoid a potential conflict given his office was facing an investigation by the Maricopa County Sheriff's and Attorney's offices over the handling of an unrelated case.
The sheriff's attorney, Dennis Wilenchik, immediately sent a letter to Goddard and Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall, calling the move an "unlawful exercise of authority, dominion or control over the sheriff's files."
Wilenchik threatened to sue the other government entities.
The ensuing communication was vitriolic, but Wilenchik succeeded in getting the case - and the RICO money - sent to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.
By July 5, the Citizen had become aware of the dispute and attempted to obtain copies of the missives from Pima County.
Then the court battle shifted. LaWall was willing to turn over the documents, but consulted first with Wilenchik, who accused the Pima County Attorney's Office of using a "journalistic plant," and said that the office would be violating its attorney-client privilege by honoring the public records request.
LaWall asked the court to decide, and Pima County Superior Court Judge Charles V. Harrington ruled Dec. 17 that most of the material had to be turned over by the county attorney to the Citizen.
The Citizen asked the court to make the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office pay the newspaper's lawyer's fees, and that the judge find the sheriff's actions "groundless, harassment and in bad faith and to determine that Arpaio's defense was primarily motivated to delay."
On Monday, Harrington awarded the cash to the Citizen without other determinations.

[Uncle B]

this assclown sheriff seems to cost the city tons of money, yet, the idiots keep re-electing him over and over again.

dude makes me ill.

[clevfan]

Sheriff's Office Loses Again in Tucson Citizen Public Records Case; Must Pay Lawyer's Fees

By Ray Stern in News
Phoenix New Times
Monday, Jun. 1 2009 @ 4:09PM

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's refusal to turn over public records as required by the law has once again cost taxpayers.



The Arizona Supreme Court announced today it would not consider a 2007 case between the Tucson Citizen and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. That means an appeals court ruling from December, which requires the sheriff's office to pay more than $25,000 in legal fees, will stand.



You'd think the public would get tired of such rulings, but Arpaio's re-election in 2008 means taxpayers will be propping up the sheriff's closed-door approach to records for a few more years. (Perhaps the lost court cases are having an effect, though -- we have to admit that the office seems to be responding to records requests faster these days).


The defunct Tucson newspaper's battle with the sheriff's office began after a squabble between the Sheriff Arpaio and Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard over a criminal gambling case that included a multi-million-dollar seizure (a.k.a. payday) for the sheriff's office. For background, see the articles posted by the gambling site, majorwager.com. The records in question gave an insight into the workings of inter-governmental relations -- showing how ugly they could get. For instance, in a letter obtained by reporters, Dennis Wilenchik, the ethically challenged Phoenix attorney who was behind the dirty "grand jury" investigation of New Times, accuses Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall of using a "journalistic plant" to make Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas look bad.

Ironically, the sheriff's office is now attempting to play public records crusader, suing Maricopa County in a bid to force county officials to turn over public records.

Taxpayers could have saved tens of thousands of dollars if only the sheriff's office had taken on this new attitude a few years ago.

Phoenix - Valley Fever - Sheriff's Office Loses Again in Tucson Citizen Public Records Case; Must Pay Lawyer's Fees

[jr476]

This whole thing was a joke from the start. All but a handful of the 36 charged in this case have plea bargained down to a misdermeanor that will be off their record in a year. Currently not one of the pleas resulted in jail time.

Of course you don't see Sheriff Joe or the AZ medial talking about this!

[clevfan]

RICO law criticized as open to abuse

Police accused of being zealous in seizing assets

by JJ Hensley - Oct. 5, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

When Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies shut down a suspected gambling ring in April 2007 that stretched from the Southeast Valley to Costa Rica, the case was hailed as a victory for Arizona, legally and financially.

The announcement of the bust also came with pronouncements of a potential windfall for the participating law-enforcement agencies. Sheriff's officials boasted that law-enforcement agencies expected to collect $145 million in confiscated assets before Operation High Stakes was done.

Hopes by the Sheriff's Office of reaping more than $100 million were dashed in September when a judge formally dismissed charges against one of the final defendants involved, James Bennitt, after others pleaded to low-level misdemeanors.

Just over $8 million was seized, and attorneys estimate that 90 percent of that was returned.

As the case has fizzled, defense attorneys say state laws allowing seizure of cash and property from defendants suspected of committing a variety of crimes for financial gain encourage police to first lay claim to everything they can, and then later try to link the seized assets to criminal activity.

Defense attorneys contend there is a potential for abuse from law enforcement, which reaps the seized assets and spends the proceeds on an array of items ranging from office supplies to take-home cars for top administrators.

Prosecutors say the initial seizure prevents defendants from transferring assets and stashing cash that police could never recover if they had to wait for a conviction in a criminal case.

"A person who has ill-gotten gains is going to try to hide them or transfer them as soon as he realizes that the police are on to him," said Cameron Holmes, senior litigation counsel in the Arizona Attorney General's Office.

"That's one of the basic necessities of seizure."


Motivation questions

Law-enforcement agencies in Maricopa County collected more than $17 million in state and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act funds during the last budget year. That's a small fraction of the combined annual budgets for all the law-enforcement agencies in the county.

But when police are experiencing layoffs, furloughs and spending cuts, seizures can take on heightened importance, attorneys said.

"Especially in a time of budget crisis, there is a concern . . . that agencies are going to be more aggressive because they can take care of some of their budget problems on the backs of people who haven't been convicted of a crime and aren't in a position to defend themselves," said Bennitt's attorney, Jean-Jacques Cabou.

Under the state and federal RICO laws, police agencies and prosecutors can keep confiscated property and cash linked to a variety of crimes committed for financial gain and use that money later for gang prevention, substance-abuse treatment and fighting crime.

Arizona's RICO law, based on 1970 federal legislation, was passed in 1978 and is similar to other state laws allowing agencies to seize cash and property to fund future criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Arizona's law also rewards individual departments with the proceeds from their officers' seizures instead of placing those revenues in the general fund, said James Belanger, a defense attorney who represented another suspect in the Operation High Stakes case.

The state statute also allows agencies to seize assets not directly linked to a criminal enterprise without a hearing, which leaves suspects with the burden of proving their houses, cars and bank accounts aren't the product of criminal activity - something that's difficult to do when funds to hire a lawyer are frozen, Belanger said.

"Even a well-intended law can be used for malicious purposes," he said.

"Law enforcement, they're incentivized. That's how human nature works. If the money they seize goes back into their pockets, there's at least some incentive to abuse forfeiture laws."


Limits on seizures

The asset-forfeiture process begins with a law-enforcement agency offering facts that show cash, property and other assets are probably linked to criminal activity and a judge signs a seizure order along with a search or arrest warrant.

Judges frequently limit the amount of property that agencies can seize and will occasionally place restrictions that keep officers from taking items of sentimental value, such as wedding rings.

Those limitations aren't always heeded, however, leaving suspects to ask police to return certain items.

Holmes said Arizona's RICO statutes were rewritten in 1994 to change the burden of proof for prosecutors from probable cause to a preponderance of evidence because the old laws were thought to be too favorable to the government. Defendants also can have a forfeiture hearing to challenge the seizure.

"The idea that things are just sort of whisked away and never seen again is just false," he said.

After the assets are seized, liens are placed on items like homes - though defendants can frequently live there until the case is resolved - bank accounts are frozen and the seized property is kept, like evidence in a criminal case, in storage until the case is adjudicated.

Asset forfeiture is a civil matter, meaning that even if defendants are found not guilty in their criminal trials, authorities may still prevail in keeping the seized assets.

If the civil case goes against the defendants, the assets are sold at auction and the money flows through the County Attorney's Office back to the agency that did the investigation with a portion going to the prosecuting agency and the trial courts.

Phoenix police took in the most RICO funds last year among agencies in Maricopa County with a combined total of $3.2 million between state and federal seizures. The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office gained more than $385,000 in that same time.

From the time it's seized, money and assets can take years to return to the investigating agency because defendants frequently file motions to stay the civil proceedings, which determine what becomes of the seized assets, while the criminal proceedings move forward.

By the time the cases are over, assets such as cars will have depreciated in value, and defendants who stay in their homes have been known to ransack the property on their way out if the proceedings don't go their way, Holmes said.

"We have paid dearly for that over the years," he said.

[nino brown]

pinko commy bastards