horne/hinchey

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

SUZANNE. M. DALLIMORE, P.C. 1253 E. Bishop Drive Tempe, Arizona 85285 Telephone: (480) 584-4010 Facsimile: (480) 584-4145 e-mail: [email protected] Suzanne M. Dallimore, Bar No. 014151 Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA MARGARET J. “MEG” HINCHEY, an individual Plaintiff, vs. TOM HORNE, as an individual and as Attorney General the State of Arizona; Jane Doe Horne, an individual; RICHARD BISTROW, as an individual and as Chief Deputy Attorney General; Jane Doe Bistrow an individual; and STATE of ARIZONA, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. CV-13-00260-PHX-DGC FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demand)

Plaintiff, Margaret J. (“Meg”) Hinchey, through counsel of record, for her

causes of action against Defendants hereby alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. During the course of an unrelated internal investigation, assigned to and

conducted by supervising Special Agent Margaret J. “Meg” Hinchey,

(“Plaintiff”), witnesses revealed possible criminal activity implicating

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Attorney General Tom Horne, (“Horne”) and his aide Kathleen Winn,

(“Winn”).

2. Faced with the obvious conflict of interest in reporting this information to

Horne or to Chief Deputy Attorney General Rick Bistrow, (“Bistrow”),

Plaintiff correctly reported it to an outside law enforcement agency, the FBI.

3. The FBI undertook an investigation that resulted, on October 2, 2012, in the

Maricopa County Attorney’s charging Horne and Winn with a civil penalty

for Horne’s receipt of approximately $500,000 in illegal campaign

contributions, money raised and handled by Winn through a sham Political

Action Committee.

4. On about January 23, 2012, Horne learned and advised his Chief Deputy

Defendant Rick Bistrow, (“Bistrow”), that Plaintiff had been the source of

the original information that prompted the FBI investigation.

5. Beginning about that time Horne, Bistrow and various attorneys and aides

employed with the Attorney General’s Office, (“AGO), agreed to and did

launch a smear campaign intended to discredit Plaintiff and are currently

engaged in attempting to drive her to quit her position and to destroy her law

enforcement career.

6. Horne personally, Bistrow and their co-conspirators have used express and

implied threats, slander, libel, spreading salacious rumors, concealment and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

possible destruction or obstruction of evidence implicating Horne.

7. Horne has personally been involved in slander against Plaintiff; Bistrow has

been involved in libel, among others in the AGO acting under Horne’s and

Bistrow’s direction.

8. Horne and Bistrow, and various co-conspirators, despite the obvious conflict

of interest, agreed to and did initiate a sham, illegal process to conduct an

“internal investigation” of Plaintiff based on false allegations by former

criminal defendants asserted in a statutory Notice of Claim.

9. Horne’s conduct is motivated by Horne’s desire to protect himself and Winn

from potential criminal and civil liability arising from illegal campaign

activities.

10. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators, continue the attack on Plaintiff,

now motivated by discrediting Plaintiff as a potential witness against Horne

and Winn in upcoming hearings to determine whether Horne will have to pay

$1.5 million in civil penalties for illegal campaign financing.

11. Bistrow’s motivation is his desire to protect Horne and his own position of

power and authority.

12. Separately, Horne’s and Bistrow’s attacks on Plaintiff are part of Horne’s

persistent efforts to identify and punish employees who he deems are not

loyal to him and/or who are Democrats and/or who supported his Democrat


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

rival in the 2010 Attorney General elections, attorney Felecia Rottelini.

13. Plaintiff’s claims are: Conspiracy; Defamation; Defamation - False Light;

Unlawful Disciplinary Action Against Sworn Peace Officer violating A.R.S.

§38-1101; Unlawful Retaliation Against State Employee violating A.R.S. §

38-532; Abuse of Process; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress with

personal injury; Invasion of Privacy; Violation of State and Federal Civil

Rights under Color of State Law, (First Amendment) ,Violating 42 U.S.C §

1983; Respondiat Superior).

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

14. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint pursuant

to A.R.S. §§12-122; 12-123; 38-1104(E); 38-532(D); 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

16. The Defendants reside or do business in Maricopa County, Arizona and the

obligations alleged arose therein. Therefore, venue is proper in this Court

pursuant to A.R.S. §12-401 (1), (4), (5), (6) and (7).

PARTIES

Plaintiff

17. Plaintiff, known as Meg Hinchey, is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

18. Plaintiff has been a sworn peace officer in the State of Arizona since 1999,

Comment [d1]: Glendale


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

having graduated first in her class from the Arizona Law Enforcement

Academy.

19. Plaintiff swore her oath to protect and serve the people of the State of

Arizona on June 18, 1999.

20. From 1999 to 2004, Plaintiff was an officer then Detective with the Tempe

Police Department, commended for, among many other commendations,

most felony arrests by a squad in a single month, and for a superior

investigation of rival East Valley Street Gangs.

21. Plaintiff became a criminal investigator with the title Special Agent for the

AGO in 2004 where in 2008 she was promoted by to Supervising Special

Agent.

22. Plaintiff received a commendation from Attorneys General Terry Goddard

and has been commended twice by Attorney General Tom Horne for superior

investigative work.

23. Plaintiff has also received commendations from the New York District

Attorney’s Office, the Arizona Department of Revenue, and the Avondale

Chief of Police for her integrity and professionalism.

24. At times material to this case, Plaintiff served as the only outside member of

the FBI Public Corruption Task Force and as a special deputy U.S. Marshall,

25. As of January, 2011, Plaintiff’s responsibilities for the AGO included


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

investigating complex financial crimes, organized crime and public

corruption.

26. Plaintiff swore out the criminal complaint against John Junker and others

arising from alleged mishandling of Fiesta Bowl funds. Plaintiff investigated

City of Phoenix Police Department, (“PPD”), officers for alleged

misappropriation of private funds in connection with security services

provided by off-duty officers to private parties.

27. Plaintiff has testified at probable cause hearings, grand jury proceedings and

criminal trials.

28. Prior to the events alleged herein, Plaintiff’s reputation was exceptional for

competence, honesty, integrity, professionalism and service to the people of

Arizona above and beyond the norm.

Named Defendants

29. Defendant Tom Horne is the Attorney General of the State of Arizona,

having been elected to that office in 2010.

30. Horne is the former Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of

Arizona.

31. Horne is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

32. Horne is an attorney licensed to practice in Arizona and regulated by the

State Bar of Arizona.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

33. Horne is the Defendant in the matter of Tom Horne, Tom Horne for Attorney

General Committee, Kathleen Winn, Business Leaders of Arizona, CF2012-

0001, following an Order of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office finding

that Horne and Winn engaged in illegal campaign financing. (A true copy of

the County Attorney Order is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein.)

34. Defendant Rick Bistrow is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

35. Bistrow is the Deputy Attorney General of the State of Arizona, having been

appointed to that office by Horne after he took office in January, 2011.

36. Bistrow is a former law partner of Horne and worked on Horne’s campaign

for Attorney General.

37. Bistrow is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona.

Un-Named Co-Conspirators

38. Charles Johnson, (known as “Chuck”, hereafter “Johnson”), is a resident of

Maricopa County, Arizona.

39. Johnson is an Assistant Attorney General, (“AAG”), employed by the AGO.

40. Johnson is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona.

41. Johnson’s employment as an AAG had been terminated by Attorney General

Terry Goddard.

42. Steve Duplissis, (“Duplissis”), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

43. Duplissis is an Assistant Attorney General, employed by the AGO.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8

44. Duplissis is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona

45. Andrew Pacheco, (“Pacheco”), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

46. Pacheco is employed as an Assistant Attorney General by the AGO.

47. Pacheco was appointed to the position of Criminal Division Chief after his

predecessor, James Keppel, resigned in about May, 2012.

48. Pacheco is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona.

49. Amy Rezzonico, (“Rezzonico”), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

50. Rezzonico has been the Public Information Officer for Horne for many years

and for the AGO since January, 2011 and remains in that post until her

resignation becomes effective about February 28, 2012.

51. Rezzonico was active in Horne’s Attorney General election campaign.

52. Kathleen Winn, (“Winn”), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

53. Winn is employed as the Community Affairs Director by the AGO.

54. Winn worked on Horne’s Attorney General Campaign and founded and

managed Business Leaders of Arizona, (“BLA”), a Political Action

Committee, (“PAC”).

55. Winn’s PAC contributed approximately $500,000 to Horne’s Attorney

General Election campaign.

56. Winn is a defendant Tom Horne, Tom Horne for Attorney General

Committee, Kathleen Winn, Business Leaders of Arizona, CF2012-0001.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

9

57. Lawrence Cutler, (“Cutler”), is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.

58. Cutler is a Special Assistant Attorney General employed at the AGO.

59. Cutler is an attorney licensed and regulated by the State Bar of Arizona

ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ALL COUNTS

Plaintiff’s Reputation in 2011

60. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 59 above and incorporates them

herein.

61. As of January 23, 2012, Plaintiff’s reputation for competence, intelligence,

meticulous investigation skills, honesty and integrity was un-impeachable.

62. As of that date, there were no negative reports about Plaintiff that had to be

disclosed to the defense in criminal proceedings under the U.S. Supreme

Court case of Brady v. Maryland.

63. As of January 23, 2012, Plaintiff enjoyed a position of respect and

importance as the Supervising Special Agent for the Special Investigations

Section of the Criminal Division of the AGO.

64. Plaintiff’s performance evaluations while employed by the AGO through

2011 were excellent without exception, including the latest one received on

November 26, 2012.

65. After he was elected Attorney General, Horne gave Plaintiff a substantial

raise in recognition of her excellent skills and reputation.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10

66. Plaintiff’s chain of command at material times was Chief Special Agent

Andy Rubalcava, (“Rubalcava”), former Criminal Division Chief James

Keppel, (“Keppel”), current Criminal Division Chief Andrew Pacheco,

Deputy Attorney General Bistrow and Attorney General Horne.

67. Prior to about January 23, 2012, Horne had every confidence in Plaintiff’s

integrity and competence as an investigator and frequently contacted her

personally to request answers to questions and to seek her assistance.

Horne’s “Loyalty” Agenda

68. Early in 2011, Plaintiff learned from other AGO personnel that prior to

taking office, Horne had met with AGO employees, including former

Criminal Division Chief Don Conrad, to find out what AGO employees

might be members of the wrong party, (Democrat), and/or who supported the

Democratic candidate Felicia Rotellini, (“Rotellini”).

69. Prior to his taking office, Plaintiff understood that Horne had received

assurances that Plaintiff’s party affiliation, (then Democrat), would have

nothing to do with her work product or ability to support whoever held the

office as Attorney General.

70. Susan Schmaltz, (“Ms. Schmaltz”), the Human Resources Director at the

time Horne took office, testified in an interview with agents from the Federal

Bureau of Investigations, (“FBI”), on June 20, 2012, that within the first few


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

11

weeks of his taking office, Horne came to her and expressed concerns about

any AGO employee who had raised funds for or contributed campaign funds

to Rotellini.

71. Horne’s concern was that such people would not be “loyal” to him.

72. Ms. Schmaltz assured Horne that most of the AGO personnel had been there

for many years and were dedicated public servants.

73. Plaintiff became concerned about Horne’s agenda due to her party affiliation

and the few contacts she had had with Rotellini.

74. As a representative of Fraternal Order of Police, (“FOP”), Plaintiff met with

Rotellini for the purpose of educating Rotellini about the Special

Investigations Section and to learn Rotellini’s positions on various issue to

take back to the FOP during the Democratic primary process.

75. Plaintiff liked Rotellini as a candidate personally and was impressed by her

experience.

76. Plaintiff went to two or three events at which Rottelini appeared briefly,

including a fundraiser for Rotellini’s birthday at which Plaintiff left her a gift

worth $53.00.

77. Plaintiff assisted the Rottelini campaign with signs on at least two occasions.

78. Based on various comments by AGO personnel after Horne took office,

Plaintiff felt the threat that she would be targeted for retaliation or even fired


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

12

due to her party and prior contacts with Rotellini increasing.

79. On July 22, 2011 Plaintiff felt compelled to change her party registration

from Democrat to Independent due to this threat.

The Chenal Leak Internal Investigation

80. The high esteem Plaintiff enjoyed within the AGO reached Horne again

when Ms. Schmaltz, who later resigned due to her concerns about improper

personnel practices, recommended Plaintiff for an internal investigation

Horne felt needed to be conducted.

81. Rubacalva mentioned Plaintiff’s name among others to Horne as a good

choice to conduct the internal investigation.

82. Horne wanted to find out who within the AGO was leaking negative

information about the State Bar of Arizona licensing problems of his alleged

mistress, AAG Carmen Chenal, (“Chenal”), to the Phoenix New Times.

83. Ms. Schmaltz told Horne that the person leaking the information could be

Winn due to conflicts between Winn and Chenal. [from the FBI report]

84. On about July 7, 2011, Horne personally assigned Plaintiff to conduct the

confidential internal investigation in the presence of and/or with the full

knowledge of Bistrow, Rubacalva and Chief of Staff Margaret Dugan,

(“Dugan”).

85. Plaintiff was to report her findings directly to Horne initially and later


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

13

directly to Bistrow.

86. There are certain procedures and protocols involved in conducting an internal

investigation within the AGO, including, but not limited to, writing up

reports and/or memos of interviews and copying and compiling documentary

evidence.

87. Among these protocols are that Plaintiff was obliged to report her findings to

her direct chain of command.

88. Between July 7, 2011 and December 12, 2011, Plaintiff conducted an internal

investigation with the full authority vested in her by Horne, Bistrow and

Dugan as well as her chain of command including Rubacalva and Keppel.

89. Throughout the course of the investigation Plaintiff received approval

through her chain of command prior to taking any specific investigative

actions or conducting related interviews.

90. Other AGO personnel provided Plaintiff with support, access, information or

assistance with this investigation including other Special Agents and the

Human Resources and Information Technology Directors.

91. Plaintiff was properly asking questions of AGO personnel about

communications between AGO personnel and reporter Stephen Lemons at

the Phoenix New Times.

92. A number of AGO employees reported that the leak was likely Winn, who


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14

had claimed to be “closer” to Horne than was Chenal and who talked about

her dislike of Chenal publically within the AGO.

93. Plaintiff documented her interviews in notes and copied documents.

94. On about July 28, 2011, in a meeting with Horne, Bistrow, Keppel and

Rubacalva, Plaintiff briefed Horne that the evidence suggested that Winn was

the most likely source of the Phoenix New Times leak.

95. Horne said: “I can’t fire her. She can really hurt me.”

96. Without prompting or invitation, in about July and August of 2011, a number

of AGO personnel told Plaintiff that AGO Winn had been engaged in the

following apparently illegal conduct:

a. Working on her real estate business on AGO time;

b. Providing false information to the Arizona Governor’s Office in

connection with a grant application; and

c. That Winn and Horne had coordinated and managed an “independent

expenditure” election fund for AGO Horne in connection with his

campaign for Attorney General in connection with the Horne campaign.

97. Plaintiff discovered corroborative information that Winn was engaging in her

private real estate business while being paid by the State.

98. Plaintiff personally briefed Bistrow of these statutory and policy concerns in

August and September, 2011.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

15

99. Bistrow ultimately reported back to Plaintiff that the Winn issues had been

explained and were not a problem.

100. Bistrow told Plaintiff Winn was conducting constituency and community

outreach assistance and not performing work for her own benefit.

101. Plaintiff later learned that one or more employees who had given information

about Winn to Plaintiff had been previously threatened and/or reprimanded

for reporting this information to the AGO executive office.

Evidence of Illegal Campaign Financing Involving Horne and Winn

102. On about September 27, 2011, recently-resigned AGO Public Information

Officer Rezzonico came to Plaintiff’s office on other matters and through the

course of the conversation spontaneously disclosed to Plaintiff that Horne

and Winn had coordinated “independent expenditures” for Horne’s 2010.

103. Rezzonico implied to Plaintiff that she thought Horne had already told

Plaintiff about this, but Plaintiff did not confirm or deny this comment.

104. At that time, Plaintiff understood “independent expenditures” had to do with

campaign finance but did not know specifics about the offense.

105. Rather than assume the Rezzonico disclosure raised criminal violation

concerns, on about September 28, 2011, Plaintiff met with Maricopa County

Elections Director, Karen Osborne, (“Ms. Osborne”), and asked Ms. Osborne

to give Plaintiff a lesson on independent expenditures.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

16

106. Plaintiff had previously worked with Ms. Osborne on other election fraud

issues.

107. After speaking with Ms. Osborne, Plaintiff’s concerns about the Rezzonico

disclosure grew.

108. Plaintiff asked Ms. Osborne who would investigate that type of crime.

109. Ms. Osborne said it would be the Attorney General’s Office.

110. Plaintiff asked who would investigate if there was a conflict of interest within

the AGO’s office.

111. Ms. Osborne stated that perhaps a county attorney or the FBI, depending on

the charges sought and where the money came from.

112. Plaintiff did not mention Horne’s name or disclose the identities of any

possible parties involved.

113. Among Plaintiff’s other regularly-assigned duties at that time, she was

assigned as a Task Force Officer in the Public Corruption Squad of the

Phoenix Division FBI.

114. Plaintiff also correctly understood that there would be a conflict of interest as

a matter of fact if she reported this information directly to Horne and his

confidant, Winn.

115. Plaintiff correctly understood that she had a duty as a sworn peace officer to

report allegations of potentially criminal activity to an appropriate outside


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

17

law enforcement agency in such a situation.

116. Following her meeting with Ms. Osborne and based on her ongoing

relationship with the FBI, Plaintiff correctly determined that the Bureau

would be an appropriate law enforcement agency to which to report the

evidence of collateral wrongdoing her investigation was producing.

117. Based on Plaintiff’s concerns about prior alleged criminal violations being

“explained away” and learning that Deputy AG Bistrow was inquiring of

Criminal Division Chief Jim Keppel if they could remove, change, or

manipulate Hinchey’s written records, she reported these allegations to a

public body, an appropriate outside law enforcement agency, by reporting the

allegations to the FBI Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI, Phoenix

Division Public Corruption Squad, Kurt Remus, (“Remus”).

117. a. Plaintiff submitted the information that had been revealed to her by

Rezzonico and others verbally to Remus on about September 30, 2010.

117. b. Plaintiff submitted this information to Remus in the form of a written

timeline that identified all allegations related to the illegal campaign

financing disclosures made by multiple parties to Plaintiff during the course

of her unrelated administrative internal investigation and her entire

administrative internal investigation file containing witness interview write-

ups, memoranda and copies of documents.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

18

117. c. Plaintiff’s report to Remus did not come to any conclusions as to whether

there had been a violation of campaign finance law; it only reported the

information revealed to Plaintiff by multiple parties.

117. d. The employee of the State of Arizona who made this disclosure to the FBI

was Margaret J. Hinchey, Plaintiff herein.

117. e. The nature of the alleged violation of law was that while a candidate for

Attorney General in 2010, Horne coordinated directly with Winn regarding

receipt and expenditure of funds raised by a Political Action Committee,

(“PAC”) controlled by Winn. These funds are known as “independent

expenditures.” Plaintiff’s timeline to the FBI disclosed the statements made

by multiple parties that there had been coordination between Horne and

Winn as to so-called “independent campaign expenditures.”

117. f. The range of dates on which the violations of the Independent Expenditure

Statute occurred was during 2010, both before and after the 2010

Republican Primary election, while Horne was running for Attorney

General.

118. At that time Plaintiff did not report this information to any AGO employee.

119. On about September 29, 2011, AAG Mike Flynn, (“Flynn”), told Plaintiff in

the presence of Plaintiff’s immediate Supervisor, Rubalcava, about both the

grant-related alleged fraud and the campaign finance fraud, his statement

corroborating Rezzonico’s previous disclosure.

119. a. At this time Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor became aware of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

19

allegations and this was reported to Criminal Division Chief Keppel.

119. b. Both were advised that Hinchey had reported these concerns to the FBI and

both agreed this was proper due to the obvious conflict of interest in

reporting the allegations to person or persons accused of committing the

crimes alleged.

120. Plaintiff and Rubalcava then reported to Keppel on this date, advising him of

Flynn’s disclosures.

121. At that time, Plaintiff reported to Keppel and Rubacalva that she had turned

the allegations regarding the alleged grant fraud, the alleged private work

being done by Winn and the disclosure about Winn’s improper handling of

the “independent expenditures” to her supervisor at the FBI.

122. Keppel and Rubacalva approved of this action by Plaintiff.

123. Thereafter they and Plaintiff reported developments on these issues to each

other and to the assigned Special Agents within the FBI but not to Horne or

Bistrow for obvious law enforcement reasons.

124. By about September 30, 2011, Plaintiff reported the Rezzonico and Flynn

criminal allegations to the FBI.

124. a. Plaintiff submitted this information to the FBI Public Corruption Squad in

the form of a signed and dated timeline of events citing the specific

allegations and the fact that an election official in Maricopa County

identified the alleged wrongdoing as a violation of Arizona Revised


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

20

Statutes.

124. b. The employee who reported this information was Margaret J. Hinchey,

Plaintiff herein.

124. c. The nature of the information related to Horne’s alleged illegal

coordination with the expenditures from Winn’s PAC.

124. d. The range of dates on which the violations of the Independent

Expenditure Statute occurred was during 2010, both before and after the

2010 Republican Primary election, while Horne was running for Attorney

General.

125. Plaintiff never investigated the truth or falsity of the allegations and

disclosures naming Horne and/or Winn.

126. Plaintiff merely disclosed these allegations to an appropriate independent

outside law enforcement agency.

127. In another matter, Plaintiff disagreed with Horne when, on about October 7,

2011, he asked Rubalcava and Plaintiff if they would accept information he

obtained, possibly through a surreptitious recording of a phone call, and not

report that the information had been obtained illegally.

128. Both agents immediately and clearly told Horne they could not and would

not accept such information and fail to report it if appropriate.

129. Plaintiff explained to Horne at this time that she has an oath to the people of

Arizona, not to the Attorney General personally, which she could not violate


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

21

and that included a duty to report unlawful conduct.

Concealment of the Leak Investigation Disclosures

130. On about December 7, 2011, in a briefing with Horne, Horne agreed that

Plaintiff maybe should interview Winn, but asked Plaintiff to give him a

couple of days to think about it.

131. Thirty minutes following that meeting, Bistrow came to Plaintiff’s office to

say that she was not to interview Winn because “Winn will only lie to you

and we know Horne won’t fire her” or words to that effect.

132. On about December 12, 2011, Bistrow met with Keppel to discuss whether or

not the AGO could destroy Plaintiff’s internal investigation file and/or wipe

her computer of all related documents.

133. Keppel told Bistrow that would be illegal as a violation of public record laws.

134. Bistrow asked Keppel if Plaintiff would be okay with that.

135. Keppel told Bistrow that Plaintiff would not be a part of breaking the law.

136. Bistrow asked Keppel if the AGO could title Plaintiff’s memos or reports as

“drafts” as a way to protect them from public records requests or to place the

investigation file in a personnel file to avoid releasing any information about

Plaintiff’s investigation to the public.

137. Keppel told Bistrow he did not believe that these steps would prevent the

information being released as public records if requested, per statute.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

22

138. Later on December 13, 2011, Bistrow told Plaintiff he wanted the

confidential internal investigation considered “inactive.”

139. Bistrow also instructed Plaintiff not to write up the memos from the

interviews she conducted on December 12, 2011.

140. Plaintiff understood this would violate statute so with the approval of

Rubalcava and Keppel, she wrote the appropriate reports memorializing the

interviews.

141. In her usual meticulous fashion, Plaintiff documented the evidence disclosed

to and obtained by her in conformance with AGO protocols and her training

and responsibility as an investigating officer.

142. Plaintiff acted at all times in good faith, conforming to appropriate law

enforcement protocols and duties.

143. On about December 13, 2011, Plaintiff reported to the office early to scan her

case file in order to protect it from destruction as is required of her by statute.

144. Plaintiff subsequently provided a copy of the disk to the FBI based on

concerns about destruction of her files.

144. a. The disk was a copy of Plaintiff’s written witness interview reports and

supporting documents relating to the administrative internal investigation

and subsequently the witness disclosures relating to the independent

expenditure issue.

144. b. The disk was provided to FBI Special Agent Brian Grehoski, (“Grehoski”),


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

23

a member of the FBI Public Corruption Squad.

144. c. The disk was given to FBI Special Agent Grehoski on about December 13,

2011.

144. d. The nature of the alleged illegality was Horne’s alleged involvement in

directing funds raised by Winn for her PAC.

144. e. The range of dates on which the violations of the Independent Expenditure

Statute occurred was during 2010, both before and after the 2010

Republican Primary election, while Horne was running for Attorney

General.

145. On about January 11, 2012, Bistrow requested that Plaintiff meet with him.

146. At that meeting Bistrow explained that Plaintiff’s internal investigation was

then to be considered “suspended” and that she was to take no further action.

147. Plaintiff immediately thereafter turned over her investigative notebook to

Rubalcava as was proper and established protocol.

148. Bistrow later advised Rubalcava that the internal investigation was not to be

considered suspended or closed, as previously discussed, but was to be kept

in an “open” status, now assigned to Rubacalva.

The First Scheme to Discredit Plaintiff - The Smear Campaign

149. On information and belief, on about January 23, 2012, Horne attended a

dinner also attended by a person believed to be Mark Goldman,

(“Goldman”).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

24

150. Goldman was a fundraiser for the Horne Attorney General Campaign.

151. On information and belief Goldman told Horne he was under investigation

by the FBI.

152. Sometime shortly after January 23, 2012, Horne came to believe this was a

result of Plaintiff disclosing the above-described allegations to the FBI.

153. On information and belief, through a series of meetings, and communications

by various means, Horne and Bistrow concocted a scheme to destroy

Plaintiff’s good name as an investigating officer by portraying her as a

“rogue” investigator with a political agenda who set out to do political harm

to Horne.

154. On information and belief, through additional meetings and communications

by various means, Horne and Bistrow enlisted the aid of co-conspirators

Johnson, Rezzonico and Winn to gather and/or spread lies and/or rumors

about Plaintiff’s integrity, competence, demeanor, personal life and

motivation.

155. Horne and Bistrow had, by this time, developed a personal animosity toward

Plaintiff, believing her to be the cause of Horne’s legal troubles.

156. Horne and Bistrow each personally took one or more actions in aid of this

scheme.

157. This hostility toward Plaintiff would escalate as the FBI conducted its


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

25

investigation into the illegal campaign finance issue.

158. The weeks of January 23, 2012 to February 3, 2012, rumors began spreading

about Horne making inquiries about Plaintiff and her abilities,

trustworthiness, and loyalty to Horne.

159. On about February 3, 2012, Horne and Bistrow told Keppel that Plaintiff

“can’t be trusted.” They refused to disclose why at that time.

160. During a subsequent meeting with Bistrow, Bistrow asked Keppel if he

thought Plaintiff would notice if her case file notebook was missing from her

office.

161. Keppel expressed concern if the investigation records contained within the

notebook were out of Plaintiff’s control and otherwise unsecured.

162. Keppel told Bistrow that Plaintiff would notice because “she is not stupid.”

163. On about February 13, 2012, then AAG Gerald Richard, (“Richard”),

advised Plaintiff that Winn had relayed statements to various AGO

employees and to Horne that contained information that had come directly

from Plaintiff’s investigative interview memos Plaintiff had given to the

appropriate person in her chain of command.

164. Witnesses interviewed by Plaintiff had been given assurances of

confidentiality as was proper internal investigation protocol.

165. Winn’s making statements taken from these interviews implied either that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

26

Winn had access to Plaintiff’s internal investigative files or that Horne or

Bistrow were disclosing information from witness interviews to a potential

target.

166. Either of these events would violate internal AGO investigation protocols.

167. As is proper in internal investigations, Plaintiff had told witnesses that

Plaintiff’s interviews of them would remain confidential.

168. On about February 22, 2012, Duplissis told Keppel that Horne had called him

personally at home during the previous long weekend, between February 17

and 20, 2012.

169. Duplissis reported to Keppel that Horne told him that Plaintiff may have been

having some form of personal, intimate relationship with former Attorney

General Candidate Rotellini.

170. Horne told Duplissis that Plaintiff cannot be trusted.

171. Horne told Duplissis that Plaintiff had become “hostile” towards Horne.

172. Horne told Duplissis that Plaintiff is a “political hack.”

173. Horne had asked Duplissis if Plaintiff was a registered Democrat.

174. Horne asked Duplissis about his knowledge of any involvement Plaintiff had

in Rotellini’s campaign.

175. Horne told Duplissis that he would likely be hearing from criminal defense

attorney Larry Debus, (“Debus”), about these issues.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

176. Duplissis later reported to Keppel that he did meet with Debus and became

uncomfortable with the direction of questioning as it implied that Plaintiff

was a “rogue investigator”.

177. During about the last week of February, 2012, AAG Johnson contacted SAS

Charles Loftus, (“Loftus”), soliciting a “blanket” memo from Loftus, “To

whom it may concern” stating that “Meg [Plaintiff] is difficult to work with.”

178. Johnson stated to Loftus that Horne is learning that Plaintiff had more of a

relationship with former candidate Rotellini than she had let on.

179. On about March 20, 2012, Keppel and Rubalcava met with Johnson to ask

him why he had issues or concerns about Plaintiff.

180. Rubalcava advised Johnson of the serious nature of looking into the

credibility of a sworn police officer or documenting unfounded negative

information and about the Brady v. Maryland letters stating that there is no

undisclosed exculpatory evidence in a criminal prosecution.

181. This would include negative information about an agent’s honesty and

integrity.

182. Part of Rubacalva’s job as Chief Special Agent was, and is, to sign off on a

letter to be disclosed to defense counsel saying that either there is or is not

negative information relating to the officer for every AGO agent testifying in

court.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

28

183. On about March 22, 2012, Horne and Bistrow told Keppel that Plaintiff

cannot be trusted because she went to the FBI reporting alleged baseless

criminal activity by Horne related to campaign finance.

184. Keppel asked what they intended to do about Plaintiff.

185. Horne and/or Bistrow said nothing because she is a “whistleblower” or

words to that effect.

186. On March 23, 2012, counsel for Plaintiff put Horne and Bistrow on notice

that Plaintiff was aware of the smear campaign against her.

187. Plaintiff through counsel asked to be informed if she was under investigation

by the AGO.

188. Plaintiff through counsel demanded that Horne and Bistrow cease and desist.

(A true copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein.)

189. On about March 27, 2012, Horne answered the demand letter personally

saying there were no smear campaign and no “investigation.” (A true copy

of Horne’s letter is attached as Exhibit 3.)

190. Horne wrote that he had no personal knowledge of any smear campaign

against Plaintiff, other than the claimed “independent” actions by AAG

Johnson.

191. On about March 27, 2012, Keppel met with Bistrow and told Bistrow it

would not have been appropriate for Plaintiff to report evidence of a crime


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

29

possibly committed by Horne to Horne or his chief deputy.

192. Keppel told Bistrow that the FBI does not investigate things on a whim.

193. Keppel resigned his position as Criminal Division Chief on about March 28,

2012.

194. Horne thereafter appointed Pacheco as Criminal Division Chief.

195. On about April 2, 2012, Plaintiff learned that she was being disparaged by

Rezzonico.

196. Rezzonico was in a position to spread slanderous remarks about Plaintiff

throughout the AGO, State government and the media.

197. Plaintiff had previously enjoyed a very good working relationship with

Rezzonico.

198. Plaintiff was aware, but was not a part of, the FBI’s ongoing investigation.

199. Plaintiff was not involved in the issuance of FBI subpoenas, witness

interviews or other activities conducted by the Bureau.

200. Various media outlets had begun to report about the FBI investigation with

Horne and Winn as targets by the end of March, 2012.

201. Plaintiff has never personally talked to any reporter or any media

representative about any issue relating to Horne.

202. Plaintiff has never provided information in the form of documents or other

data to a media representative.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

30

203. On information and belief, Horne and Bistrow believed Plaintiff was a source

of information to the media.

204. On about April 2, 2012, Horne publicly denied the allegations of illegal

campaign financing through the use of illicit independent expenditures.

205. Horne told the media that the accusations were ‘conjured up’ by AAG Don

Dybus, (“Dybus”), a former campaign supporter whom he described as a

disgruntled employee.

206. Horne knew at that time that although this Dybus had claimed to be the

whistleblower it was Plaintiff who was the true source of the original

information to the FBI.

207. On about April 25, 2012 Plaintiff heard from various sources that she was

being labeled a “liar.”

208. Sometime between January 23, 2012 and April 25, 2012, Cutler has claimed

he personally attempted to contact members or former members of the Tempe

Police Department, to “dig up dirt” on Plaintiff.

209. On about April 25, 2012, Cutler stated to an AGO employee that Plaintiff

was under investigation, that she was a liar and that he had gone to the

Tempe Police Department to “poke around about Plaintiff.”

210. It had become evident to Plaintiff on May 2, 2012 that she was not receiving

assignments she normally would.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

31

211. The environment at the AGO became more tense and hostile as media reports

about Horne and Winn’s campaign violations continued.

212. On information and belief, AGO employees were being forced to take sides

against Plaintiff.

213. It had become dangerous to be friend, defend or support Plaintiff.

214. Plaintiff was no longer selected to serve as acting chief in Rubacalva’s

absence whereas previously she had been selected to serve in that capacity

almost exclusively.

215. Plaintiff was no longer tasked to highly sensitive public corruption cases.

216. Plaintiff’s name was not listed on an operations plan for a security detail for

Horne, in spite of the fact she was expected to serve in that capacity.

217. This was all due to the continuing slander and rumor-mongering going on, on

information and belief, at the behest of Horne and Bistrow.

The “Internal Investigation” of Plaintiff Scheme

218. On information and belief, in about March, 2012, Horne, Bistrow and

Pacheco, among others, through a series of meetings and other

communications concocted a new scheme to further defame Plaintiff and

discredit her as a possible witness in the event criminal or enforcement

proceedings were commenced against Horne and Winn.

219. The new scheme was, on information and belief, either to incite former PPD


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

32

criminal defendants who had been investigated by Plaintiff to serve a

statutory Notice of Claim on the State claiming that Plaintiff had lied or

“fabricated” testimony in a grand jury proceeding that had resulted in a now-

publically known remand order or to seize upon the PPD Notice of Claim as

a vehicle to discredit and ultimately deprive Plaintiff of her position.

220. The new scheme was to launch a formal “internal” investigation based on the

above-referenced former PPD officer Notice of Claim into whether Plaintiff

did testify truthfully and to publish the fact of the investigation into her

honesty as a testifying officer through the AGO and eventually to the media.

221. On about April 5, 2012, Pacheco and Bistrow met with Rubalcava in his

office. They mentioned that a Notice of Claim, (“NOC”) had been filed

against the State and Plaintiff by three PPD officers previously indicted as a

result of the work of Plaintiff and many others.

222. Rubalcava was advised at this time not to tell Plaintiff, which he did not do.

223. On about April 11, 2012, four former PPD officers who had previously been

indicted by the AGO in a case investigated by Plaintiff and other AGO and

PPD investigators, filed a Notice of Claim alleging that Plaintiff had

fabricated facts to the grand jury that had indicted them.

224. These former criminal defendants had obtained a remand of the indictment,

(the record of which is now public), and the AGO, AAG Todd Lawson,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

33

(“Lawson”), and his chain of command elected not to re-indict four of the

five defendants.

225. Lawson, based on the same case file and on Plaintiff’s testimony, did re-

indict one of the defendants.

226. That prosecution was re-assigned to AAG Doug Clark, (“Clark”), from in the

Tucson AGO.

227. Clark reported to Rubacalva that the PPD case file showed one of the best

complex financial crimes investigations he had ever seen.

228. Clark further stated that the NOC filed by the PPD officers made no sense to

him as it was obvious the Plaintiff went to great lengths to avoid the very acts

being alleged in the NOC.

229. The case resulted in a plea bargain by the re-indicted defendant.

230. Prior to the implementation of the “internal investigation” scheme, the

protocols within the AGO were, upon receiving a Notice of Claim, to send

that to the Liability Management Section of the AGO and to wait to see if the

claimant actually filed suit.

231. It was unprecedented in the last two decades or more for the AGO to conduct

an internal investigation into the credibility of a Special Agent based on the

allegations of disgruntled criminal defendants contained in a Notice of Claim.

232. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco knew, or should have known, that to commence


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

34

any investigation into an officer’s credibility would create a record that

would forever after have to be disclosed if the officer were ever again to

serve as a testifying investigating officer.

233. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff is

entirely immune from civil liability of any kind for testifying before a grand

jury as a matter of law.

234. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco knew, or should have known, that the

presentation of evidence before a grand jury is not in the control of the

testifying officer, but in the control of the prosecutor presenting the case.

235. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco knew, or should have known that Lawson had

asked certain questions of Plaintiff in the PPD grand jury which had elicited

honest answers.

236. Bistrow and Pacheco told Rubacalva that an internal investigation should be

opened into Plaintiff’s testimony as alleged in the Notice of Claim.

237. Rubalcava said he thought they should follow the normal course.

238. Rubalcava assured Horne and Bistrow that Plaintiff was his most honest,

dependable and ethical investigator and that they would be making a mistake

to open an “investigation” into her veracity based on an NOC from former

criminal defendants.

239. Rubalcava told them the Special Investigations Section would not do the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

35

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

interest.

240. On information and belief, Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco moved forward to

retain an outside attorney to conduct an “internal” investigation of Plaintiff’s

veracity and investigation in the PPD case.

241. Plaintiff became aware of the new “investigation” by obtaining a copy of a

memo issued by Bistrow on May 3, 2012 and widely distributed within the

AGO. (A true copy of the Bistrow Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 4 and

is incorporated herein, hereafter the “Bistrow Memo.”)

242. The Bistrow Memo was disguised as a “screening memo” to keep certain

matters outside the knowledge of Horne.

243. Bistrow sent this memorandum to at least fourteen persons in the office.

244. A copy of the Bistrow Memo was sent to Horne.

245. The Bistrow Memo repeated allegations by the former PPD criminal

defendants that Plaintiff had “fabricated facts to a grand jury” and other slurs.

246. This statement is false as are other allegations by the PPD former defendants.

(A true copy of the PPD Notice of Claim is attached as Exhibit 5 and

incorporated herein.)

247. There are protocols within the AGO for screening the Attorney General or an

AAG from a matter where a conflict might exist.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

36

248. Bistrow did not need to publish the Notice of Claim’s false and defamatory

words in the Bistrow Memo to accomplish any legitimate AGO objective.

249. As the Bistrow Memo states, the AGO hired an outside attorney, Dale A.

Danneman, (“Danneman”), of Lewis & Roca to conduct a special

investigation into the allegations against Plaintiff.

250. Horne has in the past worked for Lewis & Roca as a private attorney.

251. The Bistrow Memo was part of the scheme to discredit Plaintiff and to

protect Hone by pretending that Horne was not involved.

252. Plaintiff, thorough counsel, objected to this unprecedented process. (A true

copy of the letter from Plaintiff’s counsel dated May 17, 2012 is attached as

Exhibit 6 and incorporated herein.)

253. Bistrow’s May 25, 2012, response to Plaintiff’s counsel was typed by

Horne’s personal administrative assistant. (A copy of Bistrow’s letter is

attached as Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein.)

254. On about May 4, 2012, Pacheco told various individuals in the AGO that the

private investigation was his idea and “his precedent.”

255. On about May 4, 2012, Plaintiff attempted to speak to the prosecutor on the

case that had resulted in the NOC against Plaintiff, AAG Lawson.

256. Lawson told Plaintiff his file was gone and that he had been ordered by

Pacheco not to speak to anyone, including Plaintiff, about the case.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

37

257. Lawson later amended this statement to others by saying he had been directed

by Danneman, not Pacheco, with Bistrow present.

258. Lawson stated it is odd that the PPD criminal defendants’ Notice of Claim

named Plaintiff, but not him as prosecutor or the usual chain of command.

259. Lawson told Plaintiff on this date that he had been questioned “at length” the

prior day by Bistrow.

260. The Bistrow Memo sent the message that Horne and Bistrow believed the

PPD officers’ Notice of Claim allegations to have the ring of truth.

261. The Memo also accused Plaintiff of having a “personal conflict” with Horne,

which was not true.

262. Bistrow was acting with the knowledge and authority of Horne in launching

the outside investigation and circulating the Bistrow Memo.

263. Horne stood to benefit from discrediting Plaintiff’s reputation for honesty in

criminal proceedings in that Plaintiff could one day be called to testify

against Horne in the event of an enforcement action following the FBI

investigation.

264. Plaintiff was shocked and dismayed by the Bistrow Memo.

265. On May 4, 2012, Pacheco falsely told Plaintiff that Rubalcava had agreed the

outside investigation should be done.

266. Between February 2012 and May 2012, Horne told Keppel that Horne had


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

38

personally spoken to at least three AGO special agents about Plaintiff.

267. On information and belief, Horne and/or Bistrow claim to have obtained

statements from AGO employees Charlie Loftus, Mark Roberts, and Chuck

Boyd that wherein they heard Plaintiff say she “cannot work with a

Republican.”

268. Such statements, if they were made, are false.

269. Plaintiff is a personal friend of former Maricopa County Attorney Rick

Romley, a Republican, and had agreed to work for him if he won the election

for Maricopa County Attorney in 2010, but he did not.

270. Plaintiff was also offered a position with the Maricopa County Attorney’s

Office in February 2011, serving Republican County Attorney Bill

Montgomery.

271. Unfortunately for due to a newer formula for calculating salaries in the

County, the pay was severely lower than expected so Plaintiff could not

accept at that time.

272. On May 4, 2012, Plaintiff began medical leave.

273. In either late May or early June, 2012, Pacheco approached Lisa Rodriguez,

(“Ms. Rodriguez”), the criminal division administrative assistant, and

inquired about her thoughts of Plaintiff.

274. Ms. Rodriguez spoke highly of Plaintiff.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

39

275. On about June 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Notice of Claim with the AGO. (A

true copy of Plaintiff’s NOC is attached as Exhibit 8 and incorporated

herein.)

276. On about June 11, 2012, while defending himself with the media, Horne

distributed the PPD former defendants’ Notice of Claim alleging Plaintiff had

lied to a grand jury to all AGO employees.

277. This was the first time Plaintiff saw the NOC filed by the PPD officers, as

she had never been personally served nor provided a copy.

278. Horne did this deliberately with the intent that the media, the public and at

least some AGO employees would believe these allegations against Plaintiff.

279. On about June 18, 2012, Horne personally came and took AAG Chuck

Boyd, (“Boyd”), into his office and attempted to extract from Boyd

comments Plaintiff may or may not have made years before.

280. On about August 22, 2012, Bistrow issued a memo to the press stating that it

had been determined by the AGO that when Winn came on board to the

AGO, that she had an ethical duty to finish her mortgage broker transactions.

281. Bistrow’s press memorandum is contrary to what Bistrow told Keppel,

Rubalcava and Plaintiff in about August 2011 when the concerns over

Winn’s private real estate practice were first brought to Bistrow.

282. On about August 24, 2012, Horne, through his assistant, Patti Carl, (“Carl”),


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

40

summoned Rubalcava to “a deposition.”

283. When he arrived and during normal working hours, Rubacalva was subjected

to an approximately three hour “defense interview” by Bistrow and Horne’s

private civil counsel regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of Claim.

284. On information and belief, the AGO is using other Special Agents to conduct

and/or assist in this “internal investigation.”

285. Plaintiff received inquiries from a subordinate agent asking for her help in

going through the PPD investigation files.

286. When Plaintiff asked “Who is this for?” the agent said she did not think she

was allowed to tell Plaintiff.

287. At that time and currently, Plaintiff is represented by private counsel

appointed by the state to defend the lawsuit the former PPD officers brought.

288. By October 2012, the internal investigation had evolved.

289. Danneman was asking Plaintiff questions about documents she had never had

possession of, such as grand jury transcripts.

290. On October 1, 2012, Maricopa County Attorney issued its enforcement order

seeking reimbursement or civil penalties against Horne and Winn due to

illegal campaign contributions.

291. The County Attorney’s Order was based on the FBI’s investigative reports,

now public record.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

41

292. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff returned to work at the AGO, having exhausted

her leave options.

293. Pacheco denied Plaintiff’s request through her supervisor that she resume her

duties with the FBI Public Corruption Squad, stating “in light of how things

have turned out, I do not think Tom would think that was a good use of her

time,” although Plaintiff would have of course only worked on cases

unrelated to Horne or the AGO.

294. At that time it was revealed to Plaintiff that a number of people had wanted

to donate leave to her but were afraid to given the hostility toward her by

Horne and Bistrow.

295. Such donations of leave were historically confidential but in the Horne

administration such things were no longer private.

296. On October 2, 2012, Plaintiff was compelled to meet with Pacheco in

Rubacalva’s office, at which time Pacheco delivered a version of a so-called

Garrity admonition to Plaintiff, informing her that she was under

investigation

297. Plaintiff asked precisely what it was she was being investigated about, since

there were a number of claims being asserted by the former PPD defendants.

298. Pacheco did not clarify which of the PPD allegations were being investigated

nor did he advise her of which policies she was accused of violating.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

42

299. Danneman has not provided Plaintiff with an answer to these questions.

300. While Plaintiff was out on medical leave others at AGO were assigned to

collect, gather and move all of Plaintiff’s PPD corruption investigation

notebooks, case file, and grand jury exhibits into a separate locked office.

301. On about October 3, 2012, Plaintiff was advised that she would be left alone

in the room with the PPD investigative and grand jury files.

302. Plaintiff immediately requested in writing that she not be required to be alone

in the room, for fear she would be accused of falsifying or manipulating or

destroying evidence.

303. Pacheco denied Plaintiff’s request.

304. Other employees of the AGO have had access to these documents and have

been able to move, rearrange and remove documents related to the PPD claim

and suit and Danneman “internal investigation.”

305. Plaintiff has observed and learned that some items are missing and some

were never placed in same office, leaving an incomplete file for her to

review.

306. On information and belief, Horne and/or Bistrow, through Pacheco, are

attempting to set up a scenario where Plaintiff must investigate herself and

will be held responsible for any missing documents.

307. By about October 5, 2012, AAG Cutler had begun repeatedly walking past


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

43

Plaintiff’s office loudly stating his personal loyalty to Horne.

308. On about October 10, 2012, Plaintiff wrote a memo to Pacheco to determine

under what authority she could disclose grand jury proceedings to

investigator Danneman.

309. Pacheco said Danneman had been appointed as a Special Assistant Attorney

General.

310. At that time, Plaintiff was struggling to answer detailed questions put to her

by Danneman, the answers to which required extensive review of the old

investigative files.

311. On about October 22, 2012, Bistrow paused to glare at Plaintiff for several

minutes while she spoke on a telephone in a conference room.

312. On October 29, 2012, Plaintiff again raised concerns about being alone in the

room with the PPD investigative and grand jury materials.

313. Plaintiff pointed out that she had been accused of “fabricating” evidence in

the PPD grand jury and was not comfortable with the lack of document

control.

314. On information and belief, the Danneman investigation is not truly

“independent” but is being guided by Pacheco who is receiving inside

information about developments in the investigation.

315. Through public records, Plaintiff has learned that Danneman’s firm, Lewis &


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

44

Roca, also represents a contributor to Winn’s PAC, for whom the Maricopa

County Attorney has sought repayment from Horne and Winn.

316. Danneman cannot ethically represent both Horne’s interest in discrediting

Plaintiff as a potential witness against Horne on the illegal campaign

financing case and the contravening the interest of a contributor to the illegal

PAC.

317. On information and belief, Pacheco receives information from Danneman

and reports it to his chain of command, Horne and/or Bistrow.

318. On about November 5, 2012, Rubacalva placed Plaintiff on a stand-by detail

in connection with a different election fraud case because Plaintiff “knows

the most about election fraud.”

319. Pacheco questioned Plaintiff’s being involved in such activity.

320. As of November 13, 2012, Plaintiff came to believe that AGO HR Director

Jackson has proxy access to her e-mail.

321. On information and belief, Plaintiff’s communications are being monitored at

the direction of Horne, Bistrow and/or Pacheco.

322. On November 13, 2012, Pacheco effectively stripped Plaintiff of her

supervisory position, directing a new agent in SIS to report to the assistant

chief, and not to Plaintiff.

323. Despite another written request on November 14, 2012, outside investigating


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

45

attorney Danneman has declined to advise Plaintiff of exactly what

allegations against her are being investigated other than to say they are the

issues raised in the PPD Notice of Claim.

324. On November 26, 2012, Pacheco directed that Plaintiff work on nothing

other than the investigation against herself.

325. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Danneman informing him

that there were documents now missing from the room housing the PPD

investigation and grand jury materials.

326. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff became aware that private civil attorneys

for Horne and Bistrow were asking AGO personnel who Plaintiff had

supported in the last election.

327. On December 3, 2012, Danneman advised Plaintiff she must come to his

office to submit to an interview.

328. At that time, Danneman’s e-mail raised concerns about missing documents

which Plaintiff took to be suggesting she might be responsible.

329. Plaintiff e-mailed Danneman to reiterate her prior concerns about the open

storage situation.

330. Plaintiff has not at any time removed any document from the location in

which Pacheco had them put.

331. Plaintiff has moved some papers around within the same room so as to re-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

46

familiarize herself with time lines and the like.

332. At that time, Plaintiff e-mailed Pacheco asking that, pursuant to state statue

A.R.S. §38-1101 relating to investigations of sworn peace officers where

conflicts of interest exist, the investigation against Plaintiff be sent to a truly

independent law enforcement agency.

333. Pacheco refused to conflict out the investigation of Plaintiff.

334. On December 3, 2012, Pacheco expressed that Plaintiff’s assertions that the

investigation against her was unorthodox and unfair were “insubordination.”

335. On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff arrived at Danneman’s office with a non-

lawyer representative to find a court reporter waiting to record her

statements.

336. Plaintiff gave truthful and honest answers to Danneman to the best of her

then-current ability to remember and articulate the complicated investigation

into the former PPD defendants’ financial malfeasance.

337. On December 14, 2012, Pacheco called Plaintiff’s personal counsel in the

PPD lawsuit and falsely represented that Plaintiff had complained of being

pressured by deadlines on that case.

338. On that date Pacheco denied directing Lawson not to speak to Plaintiff

previously and advised that Lawson could now speak to Plaintiff.

339. But Pacheco had given Plaintiff a “Garrity” admonishment so Plaintiff could


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

47

not thereafter speak with Lawson.

340. On about December 19, 2012, Plaintiff received communication from the

AGO HR department asking for medical information about whether her

medications had caused cognitive impairments that made her unfit for work,

stating that they had learned this based on Plaintiff’s answers to questions

posed in Danneman’s so-called “confidential” internal investigation.

341. On information and belief, Plaintiffs’ medication due to stress was reported

by Danneman to Pacheco, up to Horne and Bistrow, and back down to the

HR Director.

342. On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff requested that Danneman advise her of

whether she would be needed for further questioning.

343. Danneman has not replied to this communication.

344. Plaintiff expects and believes that once this complaint is filed, Horne may

release a Danneman investigative report finding fault with Plaintiff in

accordance with Horne’s, Bistrow’s and Pacheco’s pre-existing expectations

and desires.

Pain and Suffering – the Medical and Mental Effects of Stress

345. Beginning in about April, 2011, Plaintiff began to have serious concerns

about the agenda and intent of Horne and his inability to understand criminal

law.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

48

346. Plaintiff remained worried that her former Democratic affiliation and

contacts with Rotellini would cost her job.

347. Plaintiff began to experience an increase in stomach distress and pain due to

stress in July, 2011, for which she sought medical treatment.

348. As Plaintiff became more aware that the internal investigation pointed at

Winn and that she had to take action regarding what she had learned, in about

September, 2011, she began to experience increased headaches, shoulder and

neck pain for which she sought medical treatment.

349. By February, 2012, Plaintiff had begun to grind her teeth, was experiencing

difficulty sleeping and stomach pain and had developed chest pains.

350. Plaintiff sought and received medical treatment for these symptoms.

351. Faced with the rumors and tension in relationships within the AGO, in about

February, 2012, Plaintiff explored other employment options.

352. By February , 2012, Plaintiff had qualified for and was offered a position

with the Maricopa County Attorney’s office, but in learning of the low pay

level could not afford to take the position.

353. Plaintiff felt trapped at the AGO in an atmosphere that ranged from tense to

outright hostile.

354. By March, 2012, Plaintiff was experiencing symptoms of depression and

severe anxiety.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

49

355. Plaintiff sought and received psychological as well as medical treatment,

which continues to the present.

356. By April, 2012, Plaintiff was obliged to take multiple medications to threat

the physical symptoms of stress.

357. Following Bistrow’s May 4, 2012 memorandum giving credence to the idea

that Plaintiff lied to a grand jury her stress symptoms escalated.

358. By May 8, 2012 Plaintiff’s primary care physician recommended that

Plaintiff be on medical leave until November 2012.

359. On May 22, 2012, a medical test revealed that Plaintiff had developed a

hiatal hernia, stomach ulcer, acid reflux, and bleeding in her esophagus from

the acid reflux.

360. Plaintiff’s physicians indicated this is likely to the increase in acid reflux due

to stress.

361. Plaintiff had undergone a similar testing in 2009, with no bleeding noted.

362. On about July 11, 2012, Plaintiff underwent a cardiac stress test and

echocardiogram which indicated a moderate level of mitral valve prolapse or

leakage.

363. On about August 10, 2012, Plaintiff learned from her cardiologist that there

did seem to be a correlation between increased activity and chest pain and

tightness and diagnosed Plaintiff with angina.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

50

364. Plaintiff was thereafter obliged to take more medication for chest pain and

tightness, including nytroglicerin.

365. Plaintiff was advised that if two doses of the nitro did not work, she was to

call 911 and go to the hospital immediately.

366. Since that time Plaintiff has had to take this medicine three times due to chest

pain and tightness.

367. At various times, various doctors changed Plaintiff’s medication for stomach

distress, inability to sleep and signs of depression.

368. Plaintiff did begin to improve with medical treatment away from the AGO

environment, but her family leave and donated sick leave ran out.

369. Plaintiff returned to the hostile AGO environment on October 2, 2012.

370. On October 19, 2012, Horne and Winn filed their Response to the County

Attorney’s Order requiring that they pay back the BLA contributors from

whom they had obtained illegal campaign contributions coordinated by

Horne. (A true copy of Horne’s and Winn’s Response to Order requiring

Compliance is attached as Exhibit 9 and incorporated herein.)

371. On about November 5, 2012, after about a month back at work at the AGO,

Plaintiff’s neck and shoulder tension had returned.

372. Due in part to the publicity surrounding the Maricopa County Attorney’s

order directing Hone and Winn to repay the so-called independent


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

51

expenditures or face $1.5 million in civil penalties, the atmosphere at the

AGO was even more tense at this time.

373. It was evident that Plaintiff was blamed as the cause of Horne’s legal

troubles.

374. Plaintiff developed new symptoms including pain, numbness and tingling

down her left arm and increased pressure on Plaintiff’s spinal cord in the

cervical area.

375. In about November 2012, Plaintiff had to purchase an over-the-counter night

guard to protect her teeth from grinding and her jaw from the pressure.

376. On about November 30, 2012, Plaintiff learned that she has bone spurs

putting pressure on her spine and bulging or herniated disks in the spine, at

the C-5, C-6, and C-7 location, a condition made more serious and painful by

stress.

355. Plaintiff had to give up her service weapon on May 7, 2012 due to her

necessary use of antidepressants and other medications and her physician’s

direction that she work in a light duty status.

356. Plaintiff has experienced occasional cognitive disruptions due to the many

medications taken including memory lapses and loss of focus.

357. Plaintiff currently experiences jaw pain, sore teeth, headaches, extreme

fatigue, exhaustion, a reduced ability to focus or concentrate other than on


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

52

paperwork, a slowing down of her ability to process paper, mood changes

that include irritability, depression, sadness, anger, apathy and lack of

motivation.

358. Plaintiff works in an environment where people stare at her and she is treated

as a leper, or pariah.

359. The “internal” investigation into her grand jury testimony hangs over

Plaintiff’s head.

360. Plaintiff has requested the status of the investigation multiple times, with no

response.

361. There is no obvious end to the stress under which Plaintiff works at the

AGO.

Economic Losses

362. Plaintiff has remained at the AGO to hold on to her income and other

benefits, including health insurance and pension benefits, for as long as

possible.

363. Plaintiff has suffered the loss of salary, overtime and other benefits while on

medical leave due to the physical, mental and emotional harm caused in fact

by Horne and Bistrow, acting on their own and a as agents of the State.

364. At this time, Plaintiff is able to perform desk duty at the AGO as assigned but

cannot medically be involved in any activities requiring that she be armed,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

53

that involves her in protecting the safety of others or involves other stressful

situations.

365. In about September, 2012, Plaintiff lost the opportunity to be selected as an

Assistant Chief Special Agent, although her record qualifies her for the

position for the reason, among others, that Bistrow, Pacheco and Duplissis

sat on the selection panel.

366. In about September, 2012 Pacheco again denied Plaintiff’s request to be

tasked back to the FBI which would allow her to work in an alternate

location and so lessen the stress.

367. Plaintiff’s mental health care provider has monthly recommended that

Plaintiff be permitted to work in an off-site location at which she could

complete the types of tasks being assigned to her.

368. The AGO has never approved this request.

369. Plaintiff’s most recent AGO evaluation for the period February 1, 2011 to

January 31, 2012 was completed on November 20, 2012 reflects among the

highest ratings possible. (A true copy of that evaluation is attached as

Exhibit 10 and is incorporated herein).

370. On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff was one of two Supervisory Special Agents

who received an e-mail from Rubacalva commending her for her “first rate

evaluations.”


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

54

371. In spite of the fact Plaintiff had been contacted two other outside law

enforcement agencies and advised they would have liked her to apply for

promotional positions, Plaintiff is no longer able to pass the required AZ

POST medical exam.

372. Due to the unresolved AGO “internal” investigation pending against

Plaintiff, it is unlikely that any other law enforcement agency would hire her

to do the kind of work she had been doing at the AGO prior to Horne’s and

Bistrow’s schemes to attack her reputation.

373. Beginning in the Spring of 2012, Plaintiff has taken steps to become

qualified in other areas of work but has not found suitable employment

outside the AGO as of the date of this Complaint.

374. Plaintiff believes she will be terminated by Horne if the results of the

Danneman internal investigation falsely accuse her of wrongdoing.

375. Plaintiff will thereupon lose her salary, her benefits, participation in the very

favorable Arizona Public Safety Retirement program and medical benefits,

future overtime and holiday pay and other economic benefits she would have

earned through retirement as a public servant of this state.

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

376. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 375 and incorporates them herein by

this reference.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

55

Causation

377. Horne’s and Bistrow’s conduct as alleged herein, together with that of their

co-conspirators, undertaken both as individuals and as employees and agents

of the State, in fact caused damage and injury to Plaintiff as follows:

a. Irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s reputation for veracity, integrity, honesty

and competence among members of the public and persons working

within the criminal justice system in Arizona who do not know Plaintiff

personally;

b. Irreparable damages to Plaintiff’s reputation as a person of high moral

standards and personal fidelity;

c. Irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s ability to find alternate suitable

employment as a sworn peace officer at a level commensurate with her

skills and competence before the injuries alleged herein for the remainder

of her working life;

d. Physical harm and injury to Plaintiff due to the infliction of emotional

distress;

e. Psychological harm and injury to Plaintiff due to the infliction of

emotional distress;

f. Economic harm past, present and future in an amount to be proved at trial.

378. Horne and Bistrow and their co-conspirators, individually and as agents for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

56

the State also proximately caused Plaintiff the harm and injury alleged above.

379. Horne’s, Bistrow’s and their co-conspirators’ tortious conduct was

undertaken without legal privilege or right because they failed to follow

AGO policies and procedures and Arizona law on the proper procedures to

employ in internal administrative investigations involving a sworn peace

officer employee as found, for example, in A.R.S. § 38-1101, which

procedure is accepted practice in other Arizona law enforcement agencies.

COUNT I – CONSPIRACY

380. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 379 and incorporates them herein.

381. Defendants named herein and the unnamed co-conspirators, through direct

and indirect communications, meetings, electronic and written

correspondence, in person and by other means, agreed, combined and

conspired to do the following, at least:

a. Slander Plaintiff verbally by communicating, directly and indirectly, false

and defamatory statements about Plaintiff, her veracity and integrity, her

fidelity, her demeanor and her competence;

b. Libel Plaintiff by directly or indirectly, publishing false and defamatory

written statements about Plaintiff, her veracity and integrity, her fidelity,

her demeanor and her competence;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

57

c. Ruin Plaintiff’s reputation for honesty both as a person, as a criminal

investigator and as a testifying witness by the above means;

d. Destroy Plaintiff’s career as a sworn peace officer by making her

unemployable by other law enforcement agencies due to having been

investigated and discredited;

e. Cause Plaintiff intense stress and anxiety;

f. Drive Plaintiff to quit her position;

g. Invade Plaintiff’s privacy;

h. Coordinate and orchestrate negative opinion about Plaintiff among AGO

employees, the media and the public;

i. Create the impression that Plaintiff is a liar, hard to work with, a political

“hack”, a perjurer and a vindictive “rogue” investigator; and

j. Other actions unknown to Plaintiff.

382. Defendants took one or more actions in aid of their conspiracy as alleged

herein.

383. Every Defendant and co-conspirator is the agent of every other Defendant

and co-conspirator.

384. Every statement by a Defendant is the statement of every other Defendant

and co-conspirator.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

58

385. Every action by a Defendant is the act of every other Defendant and co-

conspirator.

COUNT II– DEFAMATION – SLANDER AND LIBEL


387. Horne and Bistrow and their co-conspirators acting as individuals and as

agents for the State, by means of telephone calls, meetings, verbal

conversations, memoranda, e-mail, other electronic communications and

publication of various writings to AGO personnel and to the public, directly

and indirectly castigated and falsely attacked Plaintiff’s honesty, integrity,

loyalty to her oath of office, her fidelity and her demeanor and her

competence as alleged herein.

388. Among the pejoratives spoken and/or implied by Horne in his personal

verbal and/or written communications, directly and indirectly, were that

Plaintiff is “hard to work with”, “can’t be trusted”, is or was an “intimate of

Rotellini,” is a “political hack”, a” rogue investigator,” a “liar” and

“incompetent” and other defamatory words of which Plaintiff is not aware.

389. Among the pejoratives spoken and/or implied by Bistrow in his personal

verbal and written communications, directly and indirectly, were that

Plaintiff is “hard to work with”, she “can’t be trusted”, she is a “rogue

investigator”, she is a “fabricator of grand jury evidence,” a “perjurer” and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

59

“incompetent” and other defamatory words of which Plaintiff is not aware.

390. Among the pejoratives spoken written and/or implied by the unnamed co-

conspirators were “hard to work with,” (Johnson), “liar” (Rezzonico),

“involved with Rotellini in the Baker to Vegas run,” and “politically

passionate about Rotellini,” (Duplissis), that Plaintiff “was just trying to get

Winn into trouble,” (Winn), and other defamatory and derogatory words of

which Plaintiff is not aware.

391. Each of the above statements is false.

392. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew their statements were false when

they spoke or published them, or acted with reckless disregard of their truth.

393. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew that prior to their defamation of

Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s reputation for honesty, integrity professionalism and

competence was excellent.

394. Defendants and their co-conspirators acted with improper intent to discredit

and ruin Plaintiff’s reputation for honesty, among other objectives.

395. Defendants and their co-conspirators defamed Plaintiff knowingly,

intentionally, with malice, and with an evil mind guiding an evil hand.

396. Defendants and their co-conspirators intended to harm Plaintiff’s reputation

by these spoken and published statements.

397. Defendants and their co-conspirators’ defamation in fact caused and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

60

proximately caused Plaintiff the harm and injury alleged herein.

398. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for actual and

compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial.

399. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount

fixed by the Court.

COUNT III– DEFAMATION – FALSE LIGHT


401. Horne and Bistrow, acting as individuals and as agents of the State, and their

co-conspirators, directly and indirectly through various means of

communication and public statements, published false and defamatory

information about Plaintiff to journalists and other members of the media.

402. The publications contained statements that were false, such as that Plaintiff

“fabricated facts” in a grand jury proceeding.

403. Defendants and their co-conspirators knew the pejorative statements about

Plaintiff were false and/or unfounded when they spoke or published them, or

acted with reckless disregard of their truth.

404. These media publications cast Plaintiff in a false light to the public as a

“rogue” investigator who would lie to a grand jury.

405. Defendants and their co-conspirators defamed Plaintiff in this way

knowingly, intentionally, with malice, and with an evil mind guiding an evil


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

61

hand.

406. Defendants and their co-conspirators intended to harm Plaintiff’s reputation

by these spoken and published statements.

407. Defendants and their co-conspirators’ false light defamation in fact caused

and proximately caused Plaintiff the harm and injury alleged herein.




fixed by the Court.

COUNT IV – UNLAWFUL DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST A SWORN

PEACE OFFICER WITHOUT JUST CAUSE VIOLATING A.R.S. § 38-1101


411. A law enforcement officer shall not be subject to disciplinary action except

for just cause under A.R.S. § 38-1104(A).

412. Horne and Bistrow, as individuals, and their co-conspirators, acting as agents

of the State, have taken one or more actions in the nature of disciplining

Plaintiff including but not limited to:

a. Conducting a sham “independent investigation” into a routine Notice of

Claim by former criminal defendants;

b. Forcing Plaintiff to investigate herself;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

62

c. Denying Plaintiff the chance to be promoted to Assistant Chief Special

Agent;

d. Denying Plaintiff’s request to resume her position with the FBI Task

Force;

e. Denying Plaintiff favorable and lucrative details and assignments;

f. Failing to defend Plaintiff as an agent of the AGO;

g. Attempting to force Plaintiff to resign;

h. Effectively terminating Plaintiff from the position she enjoyed and all

benefits prior to about January 23, 2012.

413. Plaintiff has a private right of action in Superior Court against Horne and

Bistrow and is entitled to a hearing by the Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-

1104(E).

414. Horne and Bistrow, as individuals and as agents of the State, have effectively

terminated Plaintiff without just cause within the meaning of under A.R.S. §

38-1101(3).

415. Plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to her position as it existed prior to

January, 2011 under A.R.S. § 38-1104(F).

416. Plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages for her lost salary, overtime and

benefits caused by Defendants’ actions under A.R.S. § 38-1104(F).

417. Plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable attorneys’ fee under A.R.S. § 38-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

63

1104(G).

COUNT V– UNLAWFUL RETAILIATION AGAINST AN

ARIZONA STATE EMPLOYEE VIOLATING A.R.S. § 38-532


419. It is a prohibited personnel practice for an employee who has control over

personnel actions to take reprisal against an employee for a disclosure of

information of a matter of public concern by the employee to a public body

that the employee reasonably believes evidences a violation of any law or an

abuse of authority.

420. As alleged above, Plaintiff, an employee of the State of Arizona, disclosed

information to the FBI that she reasonably believes evidenced a violation of

law.

421. Plaintiff’s belief that Horne and his aide Winn may have engaged in illegal

campaign financial transactions was reasonable.

422. The FBI found the information of sufficient concern that the Bureau

launched an investigation into the information Plaintiff turned over to it and

later turned over the results of its investigation to the Maricopa County

Attorney’s Office.

423. The Arizona Secretary of State found probable cause to conclude that Horne

and Winn had broken campaign finance law.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

64

424. The Maricopa County Attorney on October 2, 2012, issued its order that

Horne and Winn had violated campaign finance laws by illegally handling

“independent expenditures.”

425. A.R.S. §38-531(4) defines "Personnel action" as including:

…. (b) Promotion, [or lack thereof]. (c) Disciplinary or corrective action. (d) Detail, transfer or reassignment. (e) Suspension, demotion or dismissal. …. (j) Decision concerning pay, benefits or awards. …. (l) Other significant change in duties or responsibilities that is inconsistent with the employee's salary or grade level. 426. Defendants Horne and Bistrow, as agents of the State, have engaged in one

or more “personnel actions” adverse to Plaintiff as alleged herein.

427. Horne and Bistrow intended to retaliate, and did retaliate, and continue to

retaliate and to conduct reprisals against Plaintiff for having acted properly

by turning over evidence of a possible crime to the FBI.

428. Plaintiff, as an employee against whom a prohibited personnel practice is

committed has a private right of action in Superior Court against the

employer State of Arizona pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-532(D).


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

65

429. Horne, Bistrow and the State are not privileged to conduct personnel affairs

in a way that violates the statute.

430. Therefore, pursuant to the statute, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment for:

a. back pay;

b. general and special damages;

c. full reinstatement for any reprisal;

431. d. all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by A.R.S. § 38-

532(D).

COUNT VI – ABUSE OF PROCESS


433. Rules and protocols exist within the AGO for handling an “internal”

investigation regarding allegations against any employee.

434. Special rules and protocols apply in handling such an “internal” investigation

regarding a criminal investigating agent due to the issues raised by the Brady

v. Maryland case.

435. When a sworn peace officer is being investigated due to having discovered

evidence against the executives of his or her own agency, there is a factual

conflict of interest.

436. One administrative method by which to conduct an internal investigation into

the conduct of a sworn peace officer is set forth in A.R.S. § 38-1101.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

66

437. This process is intended to protect a sworn peace officer and his or her career

from damaging, unfounded allegations and accusations.

438. This process identifies the parameters of a fair method for handling a

situation where it appears the agency has an unduly political, improper or

biased agenda.

439. Horne, Bistrow, Pacheco and/or Danneman owed a duty to Plaintiff to refer

the internal investigation into the PPD defendants’ Notice of Claim to a truly

independent outside law enforcement agency for further investigation.

440. There is no AGO or other State of Arizona rules or protocols that allow the

retention of an attorney in private practice to conduct an outside “internal”

investigation of a sworn peace officer in a situation such as Plaintiff’s.

441. In the latter case, the matter must also be investigated by an independent law

enforcement agency.

442. Horne, Bistrow, Pacheco and their co-conspirators are not legally privileged

to make up a sham process for investigating a sworn peace officer employee.

443. This sham process has obeyed none of the requirements of A.R.S. § 38-

1101(A)(2) before a sworn peace officer is subjected to an investigative

interview, which requirements include the following:

a. informing the officer of the alleged specific facts that are the basis of the

investigation;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

67

b. informing the officer of the specific nature of the investigation;

c. informing the officer of his or her status in the investigation;

d. disclosing to the officer with all known allegations of misconduct that

are the reason for the interview.

444. Horne, Bistrow and Pacheco have seized upon a process through which to

unlawfully retaliate and conduct another reprisal against Plaintiff because of

her prior protected activity, and have abused that process.

445. The Danneman investigation process is neither lawful nor fair.

446. These defendants abused their own process of investigating a Notice of

Claim by former criminal defendants.

447. Defendants and their co-conspirators enjoy no immunities or privileges in

connection with their abuse of process.

448. Horne and Bistrow and their co-conspirators acted intentionally, with malice,

and with an evil mind guiding an evil hand.

449. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators are motivated by personal animus

toward Plaintiff and a desire both to protect Horne’s defensive position, to

force Plaintiff out of her position and to ruin her career.

450. Defendants and their co-conspirators’ conduct in fact caused and proximately

caused Plaintiff personal, physical and economic harm as alleged herein.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

68



fixed by the Court.

COUNT VII – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

WITH PERSONAL INJURY


454. Horne’s and Bistrow’s and their co-conspirators’ actions, as individuals and

as agents of the State, as alleged herein were and are cruel, malicious,

punitive and vengeful.

455. Their conduct is so outrageous, improper and/or illegal and extreme that it

shocks the conscious of an orderly society that places trust in its criminal

justice processes and personnel.

456. Horne’s, Bistrow’s and their co-conspirators’ cruel treatment of Plaintiff

were intended to cause Plaintiff extreme emotional distress and anguish and

the physical injuries that arise from extreme stress.

457. The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ conduct in fact and proximately

caused Plaintiff to suffer extreme anguish and emotional distress, together

with physical injuries that are the manifestations of extreme stress as

described below.

458. Defendants and their co-conspirators acted intentionally, with malice, and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

69

with an evil mind guiding an evil hand.

459. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for pain and suffering

damages in an amount to be proved at trial.


fixed by the Court.

COUNT VIII – INVASION OF PRIVACY


462. Horne personally on more than one occasion has made comments to AGO

personnel, including, but not limited to, Duplissis, falsely suggesting that

Plaintiff had been engaged in certain actions in her private life, particularly as

it related to AG candidate Rottelini.

463. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators, individually and as agents of the

State, directly or indirectly perpetuated these false rumors about Plaintiff’s

private life.

464. Plaintiff and other employees of the AGO, and especially sworn peace

officers, are entitled to and expect privacy in their personnel affairs so long

as those matters do not affect their work.

465. Horne, Bistrow, and their co-conspirators, individually and as agents of the

State, invaded Plaintiff’s privacy by spreading false rumors about her

personal life.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

70

466. This invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy was an unlawful act by government in

contravention of the Arizona Constitution, Art. 2, § 8, and unlawful at

common law.

467. Horne, Bistrow, and their co-conspirators, individually and as agents of the

State had no right or privilege to comment on any aspect of Plaintiff’s private

life in the workplace other than matters concerning her medical leave.

468. Plaintiff is entitled to absolute privacy and to keep secret her choice of

candidates and her exercise of her right to vote her conscience by Arizona

Constitution, Art. 7, § 1.

469. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators had no right to investigate or learn

of Plaintiff’s or any other employee of the AGO’s vote in any election.

470. Horne’s, Bistrow’s and their co-conspirators’ rumors and innuendos,

including disparaging her choice of political party and candidate, have caused

Plaintiff additional anxiety and stress.

471. The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators conduct in fact and proximately

caused Plaintiff to suffer anguish and emotional distress, together with the

physical manifestations of stress through their invasion of her privacy.

472. Defendants and their co-conspirators acted intentionally, with malice, and

with an evil mind guiding an evil hand.

473. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for pain and suffering


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

71

damages in an amount to be proved at trial.


fixed by the Court.

COUNT IX – CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, 48 U.S.C. § 1983


476. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators have employed the might and

power of the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Arizona, of the

Office of the Attorney General and of the attorneys, investigators and staff

beholden Horne, at taxpayer expense, to attack an Arizona sworn peace

officer engaged in the proper discharge of her duties at law.

477. Horne, Bistrow and their co-defendants attacked Plaintiff on the grounds of

her association with candidate Rotellini, her prior political party affiliation,

and her association with other persons of her own choosing.

478. Horne’s, Bistrow’s and their co-defendants’ conduct was intended to, and

did, intimidate Plaintiff into changing her political party out of fear of

retaliation.

479. Horne and Bistrow have attacked other AGO employees or taken other

actions against them due to their personal and political associations and

opinions.

480. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators, have used their power under color


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

72

of state law, to deprive Plaintiff of the protected rights under the First

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to free political association, and free

speech, and to her right of suffrage, to exercise her freedom of political

choice and to vote her conscience.

481. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators, have used their power under color

of state law, to deprive Plaintiff of a property right, namely, the economic

benefits of her position, including a promotion, and attendant increase in pay

that she would have had had these Defendants not used their official offices

to intimidate, attack and discredit her because of her party and her choice of

candidate.

482. The conduct of the Defendants and their co-conspirators usurped the powers

of Plaintiff as a citizen and deprived her of Arizona State-protected civil

rights in Violation of the Arizona Constitution Art. 2, §§ 2, 5, 6, 8, 21and

Art. 7, § 1.

483. Horne and Bistrow and their co-defendants, individually and as agents of the

State, acted under color of state law without right, privilege or immunity.

484. In so doing, Defendants violated 42 U.S.C § 1983.

485. The actions of Defendants and their co-conspirators were intended to deprive

Plaintiff of federally-protected constitutional rights enjoyed by every citizen.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

73

486. The Defendants’ and their co-conspirators’ deprivation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights in fact and proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer loss of

property in an amount to be proved at trial.

487. Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants for her property loss.

488. Plaintiff is entitled to an order of the court directing Horne, Bistrow and their

co-conspirators from continuing to harass and punish employees whose party

and personal votes they do not like.

489. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees under 48 U.S.C. § 1988.

COUNT X – NEGLIGENCE – ECONOMIC LOSS

AND PERSONAL INJURY


491. Defendants Horne and Bistrow, in their individual capacities and as agents of

the state, and the State of Arizona owed duties of care prescribed by statute

and common law to Plaintiff as a sworn peace officer of the State of Arizona

and as an employee of the AGO and of the State.

492. As described herein, Defendants Horne, Bistrow and the State breached their

duties of care to Plaintiff.

493. Defendant’s breaches of their duties of care in fact and proximately caused

plaintiff both physical injury and economic loss as described elsewhere

herein.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

74

494. Plaintiff committed no act of comparative negligence and had no control over

the conduct of the Defendants.

495. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against all Defendants for her

present, past and future economic losses and the economic value of her

personal injuries.

COUNT XI - RESPONDIAT SUPERIOR


497. Horne, Bistrow and their co-conspirators are employees and officers of the

State of Arizona.

498. The State of Arizona is liable for their actions under the doctrine of

respondiat superior.

26. To the extent Plaintiff is entitled to monetary relief against Horne and

Bistrow, Plaintiff is entitled to the same relief against the State of Arizona,

with the exception of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS AS FOLLOWS:

1. For judgment against the Defendants as alleged above for the economic

losses, pain and suffering, and other damages caused by Defendants’ conduct

in an amount to be proved at trial;

2. For an award of punitive damages against Horne and Bistrow individually, in

an amount to be fixed by the Court;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

75

3. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S.

§§12-341.01; 38-1104(F); 38-352(D); 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and as otherwise

provided by law.

4. For costs of court;

5. For such further relief as the Court deems just.

DATED this 28th day of October, 2013 SUZANNE M. DALLIMORE, P.C. By /s/Suzanne M. Dallimore Suzanne M. Dallimore

Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 28th day of October, 2013, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing, and paper copies will be mailed to those indicated as non-registered participants. Andrew Federhar [email protected] Lori Higuera [email protected] Bryan F. Murphy [email protected] James M. Stipe [email protected] Melissa G. Iyer [email protected] Laura J. Meyer [email protected] /s/ Suzanne M. Dallimore


Case 2:13-cv-00260-DGC Document 55-1 Filed 10/28/13 Page 1 of 77

horne/hinchey

Documents

plaintiff bistrow

individual plaintiff

time horne

attorney general tom

individual richard bistrow

fbi investigation

meg hinchey

criminal defendants