Case Document 144 Filed 01/15/13 Page 1 of 4 Philip D. Dracht, #1 1561 FABIAN a CLENDENIN, RC. 215 South State Street, Ste. i200 Salt Lake City, UT 841 1 Tel: (80E) 323-2251 Fax: (801) 596-2814 pdraeht@fabianlaw.com Attorney for Defendants Bank, N.A., d/b/a Bank of America Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP and ReconTrust Company, NA. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION TIMOTHY R. BELL, an individual; and JENNIFER BELL, an. individual, Plainn?s, v. BANK, N.A. d/b/a BANK OF CA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a Texas limited partnership; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., a national association; and DOES 1-5, Defendants. STATE OF UTAH, Plainn?in Intervention, V. RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.. a national association, Defendant. Case No. NOTICE OF DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS OF TIMOTHY 8: JENNIFER BELL AS WELL AS PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION, THE STATE OF UTAH Plaintiffs Timothy Bell and .lennjfer Bell, by and through counsel, and Plaintiff in Intervention, the State of Utah, by and through its attorneys, pursuant to Rule of Case Document 144 Filed 01/15/13 Page 2 of 4 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, stipulate to the voluntary dismissal of all claims against Defendants in this action, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. Dated: December ?22012 Respectfully Submitted, BANK, N.A. (Uh/a BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA. By Counsel 3/ Philip D, Dram: Philip D. Dracht, #11561 FABIAN CLENDENTN, P.C. Amy Miller (admitted pro hac vice) LLP 2001 Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-1040 Tel: (202) 857-1732 Fax: (202) 828-2963 amilier@mcguirewoods.com Brian E. (admitted pro hac vice) LLP 901 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Tel: (804) 775-7745 Fax: (804) 698-2018 bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com Attorneys for Defendants Bank, NA, d/l?J/a Bank of America Corporation, .BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, ReconTrust, N.A. TIMOTHY R. BELL AND JENNIFER BELL Case Document 144 Filed 01/15/13 Page 3 of 4 By Counsel 18 Abraham Bates (Signed by Abraham Bates Filing Attorney Steven C?aneY with permission of Wasatch Advocates4525 Wasatch Boulevard Ste 300 Counsel) Salt Lake City, Utah 34:24 D. Dracht Attorneys for Piaintt?fv **(Signed copy of document bearing signature of Mark Shurtleff is being maintained in the office of Mark Shuttle?' Utah Attorney General Attorneys for the State of Utah . I 160 East 300 South, Fifth Floor the Filing PO. Box 140857 Attorney} Salt Lake City, Utah 841 14-0857 S/Philip D. Dracht Telephone: (801) 366-0353 A ttomeysfor Intervenor Case Document 144 Filed 01/15/13 Page 4 of 4 RTIFI 0. SE. January 15,r 2013 The undersigned hereby certi?es that on eeaemeeragam, the foregoing was ?led with the Clerk of the Court uploaded to ECF and electronically served on all parties represented by counsel. Abraham Bates Steven Crawley Wasatch Advocates, LLC 4525 Wasatch Boulevard Ste. 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84124 A tromeys for Plar'nn?a Thomas Roberts Wade arraway Assistant Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff Utah Attorney General Attorneys for the State of Utah 160 East 300 South, Fifth Floor PO. Box 140857 Salt Lake City, Utah 841 14-0857 Telephone: (801) 366-0353 Attorneys for intervenor . Philip D. Dracht, #11561 Case 2:11-cv-00271-BSJ Document 133 Filed 10/10/12 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION TIMOTHY R. BELL, an individual; and JENNIFER BELL, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A. d/b/a BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a Texas limited partnership; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., a national association; and DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:11-cv-00271-BSJ JOINT SUBMISSION BY INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF UTAH AND DEFENDANTS REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS AFTER JULY 20, 2012 District Judge: Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins Magistrate Judge: Not assigned Defendants. Pursuant to the Court’s instruction during the September 27, 2012 hearing, counsel for the Intervenor-Plaintiff State of Utah and counsel for Defendants Countrywide Bank, N.A., d/b/a Bank of America Corporation (“Countrywide”), BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BACHLS”), and ReconTrust Company, N.A. (“ReconTrust”) (collectively “Defendants” or “Bank of America”), jointly submit as follows: Subsequent to July 20, 2012, the following individuals participated in direct negotiations on behalf of the State of Utah and Defendants regarding the above-captioned matter: Mark Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General John E. Swallow, Chief Deputy Utah Attorney General Brian Farr, Division Chief for State Agency Counsel Jerry W. Kilgore, McGuireWoods LLP Partner (and former Virginia Attorney General) Case 2:11-cv-00271-BSJ Document 133 Filed 10/10/12 Page 2 of 3 Brian E. Pumphrey, McGuireWoods LLP Partner Robert J. McGahan, Associate General Counsel, Bank of America Corporation Between July 20, 2012 and September 26, 2012, there were numerous email, phone, and in-person communications among the above-listed representatives. Of particular note are the following: On July 23 & 24, 2012, there were in-person discussions between Mr. Kilgore and Chief Deputy Swallow. On August 7, 2012, there was an in-person meeting among Attorney General Shurtleff, Chief Deputy Swallow, Mr. Kilgore, Mr. Pumphrey, and Mr. McGahan. Chief Deputy Swallow and Mr. Kilgore had follow-up telephone conference calls on August 27, 2012, September 5, 2012, and September 26, 2012. Mr. Farr and Mr. Pumphrey also had a telephone conference on August 29, 2012, and follow up email communications on September 5, 2012. 2 Case 2:11-cv-00271-BSJ Document 133 Filed 10/10/12 Page 3 of 3 DATED: October 9, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Philip D. Dracht /s/ Wade Farraway* FABIAN & CLENDENIN, P.C. 215 South State Street, Ste. 1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Tel: (801) 323-2251 Fax: (801) 596-2814 pdracht@fabianlaw.com Mark Shurtleff Utah Attorney General Jerrold Jensen Assistant Utah Attorney General Wade Farraway Assistant Utah Attorney General Attorneys for the State of Utah 160 East 300 South, Fifth Floor P.O. Box 140857 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0857 Tel: (801) 366-0353 jerroldjensen@utah.gov wfarraway@utah.gov Amy Miller (VSB No. 70698) Phillip C. Chang (VSB No. 75741) MCGUIREWOODS LLP 2001 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-1040 Tel: (202) 857-51732 Fax: (202) 828-2963 amiller@mcguirewoods.com pchang@mcguirewoods.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice Brian E. Pumphrey (VSB No. 47312) MCGUIREWOODS LLP One James Center 901 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030 Tel: (804) 775-7745 Fax: (804) 698-2018 bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice *Counsel has indicated his consent for filing counsel to sign on his behalf. 3 Case Document 130 Filed 10/01/12 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION Bell, et al., Civil No. Plaintiffs, v. Judge Bruce 8. Jenkins Bank NA, et al., Defendants. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 Status Report and Scheduling Conference REPORTED BY: Michelle Mallonee, RPR 1608 Case Document 130 Filed 10/01/12 Page 2 of 16 APPEARANCES For the Plaintiffs Timothy and Jennifer Bell: ABRAHAM C. BATES, ESQ. WASATCH ADVOCATES, LLC 4525 Wasatch Boulevard, Suite 300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84124 Telephone: (801) 662?0077 For the Plaintiff State of Utah: WADE A. FARRAWAY, ESQ. Utah Attorney General's Office 5272 College Drive, Suite 200 Murray, Utah 84123 Telephone: (801)281w1258 For the Bank Defendants: AMY MILLER, ESQ. MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP 2001 Street N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006~1040 Telephone: (202) 857?1700 Email: amiller@mcguirewoods.com 1609 Case Document 130 Filed 10/01/12 Page 3 of 16 Thursday, September 27, 2012; Salt Lake City, Utah 1:20 p.m. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And why don't we turn now to Bell and others versus and others. It?s ll?C?27l, oalendared for a status report and scheduling conference. Those who are making appearances, if you'll be kind enough to make a record for us. Tell us who you are and whom you represent. MR. BATES: Abraham Bates on behalf of plaintiffs Timothy and Jennifer Bell. MR. FARRAWAY: Wade Farraway on behalf of the State of Utah. MS. MILLER: Amy Miller on behalf of the bank defendants. THE COURT: Well, tell me where we are. The last meeting I had, someone suggested they were in the settlement mode. MS. MILLER: Your Honor, we have conferred amongst ourselves and come up with a proposed THE COURT: I've seen the proposed order. But tell me what you really have to do, what you have to do by way of prep work. MS. MILLER: Tell the Court what we have to do in terms of prep work? In terms of discovery, or in terms of something else? 1610 Case Document 130 Fi ed 10/01/12 Page 10 of 16 MR. BATES: In both written discovery and deposition? THE COURT: How soon can you get your work done? MR. BATES: Two months. THE COURT: You've been here a couple of years. MR. BATES: I understand. We are waiting for defendants to file their answer. THE COURT: It took awhile. They were negotiating, they said. Were you negotiating with them? MR. BATES: No, not negotiating with my Clients. THE COURT: I'm sorry? MR. BATES: Not THE COURT: Was the State of Utah negotiating with them? MR. FARRAWAY: Your Honor, there was some negotiation with ReconTrust, and they basically agreed to stop doing business in the state of Utah. Other than that negotiation, no. THE COURT: That was a long time ago. MR. FARRAWAY: Yes. Well. yes. THE COURT: In the last three weeks, have you been negotiating with anybody? MR. FARRAWAY: No, not the State of Utah and any of the defendants in this case. MS. MILLER: I don't know 10 That's not correct. 1617 Case Document 130 Filed 10101l12 Page 11 of 16 about the last two weeks, but certainly well up until the time that we served our THE COURT: Well, since July, there have been applications to extend the time to file an answer. And the justification used for extending the time to file an answer was that they were negotiating with the parties in the case. MS. MILLER: Yes. And there were face?to?face meetings. THE COURT: I'm sorry? MS. MILLER: There were face?to?face meetings with lawyers of our firm and THE COURT: Why don't you tell me what they are? MR. FARRAWAY: Your Honor, I think she's referring there was a meeting with some of the lawyers for ReconTrust with the attorney general, but not with the two attorneys assigned to the case, which is myself and Jerrold Jensen. But there were meetings that I do not know the nature of those meetings that occurred with the attorney general and, I believe, his chief deputy, John Swallow. THE COURT: In the last what? MR. FARRAWAY: I don't know. But no discussions have been held with the attorneys of record, which I am the newest one in the case. However, in talking with 11 1618 Case Document 130 Filed Page 12 of 16 Jerrold Jensen, there were no conversations with him as to any -- THE COURT: But the pleadings filed that the State stipulated to asserted that the time extension should be granted because negotiations were going on. MS. MILLER: And, your Honor, that is correct. Members of the in?house legal department of Bank of America and partners of McGuire Woods met with members of THE COURT: Did any attorneys of record in this case meet? MS. MILLER: Well, Attorney General MR. FARRAWAY: Well, Mr. Shurtleff MS. MILLER: Attorney General Shurtleff is attorney of record in this case. MR. FARRAWAY: Yes. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to find out, and I'm interested in having people tell me accurately if the justification set forth in the application for an extension for filing and answer actually occurred. MS. MILLER: Your Honor, you have our representation that they occurred. There were phone calls, there were emails, there were letters, and there was a face?to?face meeting in hopes of reaching a resolution with the State of Utah. We were not able to 12 1619 Case Document 130 Filed 10101112 Page 13 of 16 reach a resolution. THE COURT: Well, people who come in this courtroom need to tell the Court the absolute straight story. And those who file pleadings in this courtroom need to tell the Court an absolute straight story. The Court relies upon officers of the court. Well, the State doesn?t have much of anything at this point to do. And Mr. Abraham indicates he can finish his work in 60 days. Is that adequate? MS. MILLER: We don't believe that 60 days is enough time to serve written discovery, receive it, and take depositions. We would need longer than that. And I would point out that the proposed schedule that we filed yesterday was agreed by the other parties. THE COURT: It contemplated a year to do something that ought to take a few days, frankly. And I won't sign off on the stipulation. We'll fix some dates where you can get your work done, and then we'll set the matter for pretrial. MS. MILLER: Well, we would recommend at least four months. THE COURT: I'm sorry? MS. MILLER: We would recommend at least four months to have discovery take place. THE COURT: Well, thereView it, 1620 Subiect: From: Kilgore. Jerry W. [jkilgore@mcguirewoodscom] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:57 AM To: St. John, Kevin M. Mortgage Settlement Kevin: i hope you are having a great summer. At the NAAG meeting the Bank of America folks and i were having a conversation with the AG and he mentioned that you sit may want to have a discussion on the uses of the settlement funds, etc. We are happy to discuss any issues with you so just iet me know and we can get a meeting scheduled. Jerry W, Kiigore Senior Advisor McGuireWoods Consulting Partner McGuireWoods LLP One James Center 901 East Cary Street Richmond, VA 23219-4030 804.775.1933 (Direct Line) 804.775.1061 (Direct FAX) - - .1 3 a 3: SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE MARCH 11, 2014 3. Mr. Swallow’s Personal Involvement in the Litigation In June 2012, while the Office’s motion to intervene in the Bell case was pending before the court, Mr. Bell reached out to Mr. Swallow’s campaign manager, Jessica Fawson, and said that he wanted to help the campaign. Ex. 92.74 Ms. Fawson put Mr. Bell in touch with a Swallow campaign aide, and Mr. Bell and the aide were in touch regularly as they began to plan a fundraiser for Mr. Swallow to be held at the Bells’ home on August 17, 2012. The foreclosure case proceeded over the summer. In July 2012, the State’s motion to intervene in the Bell lawsuit was granted by Judge Jenkins. AAG Jensen proceeded to file a separate complaint against Bank of America on behalf of the State. Ex. 93. The State’s motion to intervene and its separate intervenor complaint showed that the Bells’ interests and the State’s asserted interests were generally aligned, but not identical. While the Bells were fighting what they believed to be a wrongful foreclosure on their own home, the State’s asserted interest was in upholding the statute requiring trustees under deeds of trust to be qualified Utah entities. After the State filed its complaint, and in the weeks before the fundraiser at the Bell residence on August 17, 2012, the Committee’s investigation showed that Mr. Swallow was involved in managing the lawsuit filed by the State, including on day-to-day matters:  On August 7, 2012, Mr. Swallow and then-Attorney General Mark Shurtleff met with Bank of America’s attorneys in the case and with Jerry Kilgore, a lobbyist for the bank. Ex. 94 at 2.75 74 Mr. Bell had previously invested in the Mt. Holly ski resort project promoted by Marc Sessions Jenson. As discussed in Section III.A.5 below, Mr. Bell had previously communicated with Mr. Shurtleff and had dealings with the Office in connection with its fraud case against Mr. Jenson. One individual that the Committee interviewed suggested that Mr. Bell proposed hosting a fundraiser in part to thank Mr. Swallow because the Office had put Marc Sessions Jenson in jail. When interviewed by the Committee, the Bells themselves did not identify the Office’s prosecution of Mr. Jenson as a reason for their support of Mr. Swallow. 75 Prior to representing Bank of America, Mr. Kilgore had served as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Committee asked Mr. Kilgore to submit to a voluntary interview about Mr. Swallow’s involvement in the foreclosure matter, but Mr. Kilgore’s law firm said the Committee would have to subpoena him, citing legal privilege concerns. Following Mr. Swallow’s resignation, the Committee determined 107  On August 10, 2012, Mr. Kilgore asked Mr. Shurtleff’s assistant to forward a message to Mr. Swallow seeking additional time for Bank of America to respond to the State’s complaint in the Bell case. He wrote, “In the meeting”— presumably the August 7 meeting—“we discussed the looming filing due on the Bell case (early next week).” Ex. 95. Mr. Swallow received this email and forwarded it to AAG Brian Farr, the division chief supervising the line attorneys in the Bell case, and to Mr. Shurtleff.  On August 15, 2012, Bank of America requested an extension of time from the court to file its answer to the State’s complaint. The Office consented to the extension; according to line attorneys that the Committee interviewed, the order to consent to the extension came from Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Swallow. These facts show that when the campaign fundraiser at the Bells’ home occurred two days later, on August 17, 2012, Mr. Swallow was in the midst of dealing with Bank of America in response to the complaint filed by the Office in the Bell foreclosure case. It was not, however, until the fundraiser itself that Mr. Swallow appears to have realized that the foreclosure litigation involved the very Bell family that was hosting the fundraiser. It is Mr. Swallow’s actions following that revelation that have been the focus of the Committee’s work and concerns. 4. The Bells’ Lavish Fundraiser for Mr. Swallow On August 17, 2012, Mr. Swallow attended the fundraiser at the Bells’ home in Holladay—ironically, the same home that was the subject of the foreclosure action. Ex. 96. Though more than 250 people had been invited, it turned out to be a small gathering with only about 30 attendees, according to the event’s planner and records reviewed by the Committee. It was, according to witnesses, a lavish event with catered food, a string quartet, flowers, and decorations floating in the Bells’ pool. According to information obtained by the Committee, it was at the fundraiser itself that Mr. Swallow first realized that the Bells were the same Bells in whose lawsuit the Office had recently intervened. The Bells told the Committee that at some point in the evening the two of that pursuing the issuance of a subpoena for Mr. Kilgore by a Virginia court was not a prudent use of public resources. 108 above, although the Bells had reached a settlement with Bank of America, the complaint that the State of Utah filed against the bank remained active. The Assistant Attorneys General on the case wanted to continue pursuing the State’s complaint because they believed the Bell-initiated case was the State’s best vehicle for prevailing on the larger question of whether ReconTrust or other out-of-state companies could foreclose on Utah homeowners. The Bells’ own lawyer urged the State to stay in the case even after his clients accepted a settlement. The consensus among the line attorneys in the Office and the Bells’ attorney was that a ruling in the State’s favor would benefit thousands of Utah homeowners by strengthening their claims against the bank. Division Chief Farr told the Committee that he spoke with Mr. Swallow about the status of the State’s foreclosure case shortly after the Bells reached their settlement. Mr. Farr conveyed his intention to continue pursuing the case. Mr. Swallow did not indicate during that conversation that he had recused himself from the matter. To the contrary, Mr. Swallow responded negatively to his Division Chief’s plan, explaining to Mr. Farr that he (Swallow) might have given Bank of America the impression that, if the bank settled with the Bells, the case with the State would “go away.” This, Mr. Swallow told his Division Chief, put him (Swallow) in an “awkward position” if the case continued. Mr. Swallow was reportedly “troubled” that if the Office went forward, it would “impugn his integrity” given his apparent commitment that the claims asserted by the State would be dismissed if the Bells were allowed to settle their claims. Consistent with this, Bank of America lobbyist Jerry Kilgore was, according to Mr. Farr, surprised that the Office was still planning to pursue the State’s claims even after the Bells settled. 115 On November 19, 2012, Mr. Farr emailed Mr. Swallow to tell him that he (Farr) planned to file a so-called motion for summary judgment in the State’s case against Bank of America. Ex. 109. A motion for summary judgment is a request that the court make a final ruling in a case without the need for trial. The State’s planned motion was an effort to convert the judge’s preliminary ruling limiting the rights of banks to foreclose in certain instances into a final order that could be used against the bank in other cases to benefit thousands of Utah mortgage holders. Mr. Farr told the Committee that Mr. Swallow asked him to “hold off” on filing such a motion because, Mr. Swallow said, “we’re trying to work this out.” Mr. Farr was frustrated and told Mr. Swallow he planned to move forward notwithstanding Mr. Swallow’s stated preference. 8. Mr. Shurtleff’s Dismissal of the State’s Claims on Behalf of Utah Homeowners At this point in the case, in December 2012, Mr. Swallow announced to AAG Thom Roberts, who had assumed the lead day-to-day role in the case that he, Mr. Swallow, was purportedly “out of the Bell case.” However, Mr. Swallow did not follow established Office procedures for a formal recusal. The Attorney General’s Office Manual sets forth the Office’s procedure governing “conflict screens,” which are internal procedures for making sure that an attorney with a conflict of interest does not participate in the relevant case. The manual provides that “Conflict screens shall be established as necessary to protect against real or potential conflicts of interest.” It provides that “[t]he relevant Division Chief in consultation with the Attorney General or Chief Deputy shall determine whether a conflict screen is necessary,” and that “[t]he Office Ethics and Conflicts Committee may also be consulted.” According to the Manual, “[a] conflict screen is constructed by: (1) giving notice within the Office; and (2) sequestering physical and electronic files related to the screened matter.” The Manual further provides that the “relevant Division 116 Chief shall give notice of the conflict screen by email to all affected attorneys and staff. . . .” The email must “attach[] a memorandum substantially in the form provided by the Office”—i.e., a standardized conflict screen memo. The Committee interviewed a number of the Assistant Attorneys General involved in the Bell case, and none of them was aware of any screen that walled Mr. Swallow off from the Bell case being implemented in December 2012, or, for that matter, at any other time. The Committee therefore concludes that the purported recusal was not consistent with Office policy and ineffective, at best. After Mr. Swallow asserted to AAG Roberts that he was “out” of the case, line attorneys continued to advocate within the Office for continuing to press the State’s claims in the lawsuit. On December 12, 2012, AAG Roberts sent a letter to Bank of America’s lawyers in which he informed the bank that the Bells’ settlement did not impact the State’s claims in the matter. Ex. 110. AAG Roberts told the Committee that he met with Mr. Shurtleff to “pitch” filing the motion for summary judgment in the Bell case in early to mid-December 2012, and he told Mr. Shurtleff that he believed the State would prevail. AAG Roberts followed up with a memo to Mr. Shurtleff on December 14, 2012, further arguing that the State should file the motion for summary judgment. Ex. 111. But the next week, on December 19, 2012, according to a later court transcript, Mr. Shurtleff personally called Bank of America lobbyist Mr. Kilgore and said that the State was going to drop the case. Ex. 112 at 16:13-20. Rather amazingly, Mr. Shurtleff did not inform his own lawyers in the Office, the same lawyers who had been leading the case in an effort to serve the public interest, about this decision. On December 27, 2012, in his final days in office, Mr. Shurtleff overrode the will of his line attorneys, reversed the Office’s stated commitment to continuing the litigation, and 117 unilaterally dropped the case. In the document that he filed with the court dismissing the claims asserted by his office, Mr. Shurtleff actually crossed out the names of the Assistant Attorneys General working on the case—both of whom wanted to pursue the matter—in the signature line of the court filing and signed his name in their place. Ex. 113 at 3. The Committee’s investigation revealed that Mr. Shurtleff took this action without the knowledge of those line attorneys. When AAG Jensen, the original line attorney on the Bell case, learned about the dismissal, he emailed Mr. Shurtleff to ask him why he had dismissed the action over the objections of the attorneys who knew the case best. Mr. Shurtleff replied by email, “Sorry, I meant to email you and Thom [Roberts] before you got the hard copy but got busy.” Mr. Shurtleff explained that he dismissed the case because it “was becoming a very complicated issue for John given Bell hosted a fundraiser for him in the subject home, and Bell is also a person of interest in a fraud matter we are investigating. I felt that given those facts and the settlement with Bell, as well as the fact that Jenkins lengthy ruling on the Motion to Dismiss is before the Tenth Circuit, that it was best for Utah and the Office of the AG to not go forward. Really sorry to disappoint.” Ex. 114.78 On January 3, 2013, the Salt Lake Tribune published an article about the State’s “180” turn in the case. The article reported that Mr. Shurtleff had “blindsided” his Assistant Attorneys General by overruling them and pulling the State out of the Bell lawsuit. Ex. 115. Mr. Shurtleff told the reporter that he knew the Assistant Attorneys General disagreed with his decision. Contrary to his non-public email to AAG Jensen in which he attributed his decision to an effort 78 The description of Mr. Bell as a “person of interest in a fraud matter we are investigating” is a reference to Mr. Bell’s role in the Mt. Holly case. He was never charged in that matter. 118 to protect Mr. Swallow from his entanglement with the Bells, Mr. Shurtleff publicly stated that he terminated the case in an effort to conserve state resources. Within days of the article, Judge Jenkins called a hearing to discuss Mr. Shurtleff’s decision to pull out of the case. According to the transcript from the January 15, 2013 hearing and several witnesses, Judge Jenkins was unhappy about Mr. Shurtleff’s decision and he demanded an explanation of the State’s reversal. Several of the AAGs interviewed by the Committee stated that Judge Jenkins provided the Office an opportunity to reconsider Mr. Shurtleff’s decision since, by then, he had left the Office. A team of attorneys in the Office met on or about January 18, 2013 to discuss what action, if any, the Office should take in response to Judge Jenkins’s invitation. According to one of the attorneys who was present at the meeting, Mr. Swallow was present at the start of the session but left almost immediately because of the topic to be discussed. The consensus view among the attorneys at the meeting was that it would not be appropriate for the Office to revisit and reverse a decision made by a prior Attorney General that they believed had been based on the merits, so they decided not to attempt to reopen the case. Those involved in the meeting were apparently unaware of the email that Mr. Shurtleff had sent to AAG Jensen stating that he (Shurtleff) had dismissed the case in order to protect Mr. Swallow politically. 9. The Swallow Campaign’s Effort to Whitewash the Bell Contributions In January 2013, shortly after Mr. Shurtleff dropped the case and Mr. Swallow took office as Attorney General, a Swallow campaign staffer called Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell told the Committee that the staffer said the campaign was conducting an “audit,” and the staffer asked Mr. Bell to “revisit” the cost of the fundraiser that had been reported as a $15,000 in-kind contribution. After the call, the staffer sent the following text message to Bell: “801-538-1041, $1,000, Thank you!” Ex. 116. 119 111?151'13 StateofUtah Mail- Bell Bell Jerrold Jensen Thu. Dec 27, 2012 at 6:24 PM To: Mark Shurtieff Mark, lwould be interested in knowing your reasoning for stipulating to the dismissal in Bell. Jerry mshurtieff@utah.gov Thu. Dec 27, 2012 at 9:29 PM To: Jerrold Jensen Sorry Jeny. I meant to email you and Thom before you got the hard copy but got busy. This was becoming a very complicated issue for John given Bell hosted a fundraiser for him in the subject home. and Bell is also a person of interest in a fraud matter we are investigating. I felt that given those facts and the settlement with Bell, as well as the fact that Jenkins ruling on the Motion to Dismiss is before the 10th Circuit, that it was best for Utah and the Of?ce of AG to not go forward. Really sony to disappoint. Mark Mark L. Shurtleff Utah Attorney General Sent from my iPhone {Quoted text hidden] Jerrold Jensen Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM To: Brian Farr Forwarded message From: Date: Thu. Dec 27, 2012 at 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Bell To: Jerrold Jensen Cc: Thom Roberts iPhone A6008822 .g cog e.comfmai UuiO?ui 28d bcfe8c 1 pt&q =jenld nsaq s= true&search=q uery&th=13bdf1cb40696514 FEW Eli-$87398? BMW SIM GILL, Bar No. 63 89 .1: laws: District Attorney for Salt Lake County TROY RAWLINGS, Bar No. 6969 we 7 5 2914 District Attorney for Davis County "m 111 East Broadway, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (385) 468-7600 Deputy Clerk IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE DEPARTMENT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, STATE OF UTAH THE STATE OF UTAH Screened by: SIM GILL TROY RAWLIN GS Plaintiff, Assigned to: CHOU CHOU COLLINS vs. B. FRED BURMESTER JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW INFORMATION DOB: 11/10/1962, 1263 East Bell View Circle DAO 14012685 Sandy, Utah 84094 OTN ECR Status: Initial Appearance: Defendant. Bail: $250,000 Warrant/Release: Non-Jail DAO 14012686 MARK LEONARD SHURTLEF Co-Defendant Case No. /4/9077i8 The undersigned Agent S. Nesbitt, Utah Department of Public Safety, Agency Case No. 12DPSOS70, and Special Agent J. Isakson, Federal Bureau of Investigation, F.B.I. Case No. 194A-SU-68452, upon a written declaration states on information and belief that the defendant, JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW, committed the crime(s) of: COUNT 1 PATTERN OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, 76-10-1603 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about October 1, 2008 through October 25, 2013, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, having received any proceeds derived, whether directly or indirectly, from a pattern of unlawful activity in which the defendant had STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO 14012685 Page 2 participated as a principal, did use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of that income, or the proceeds of the income, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use of those proceeds, in the acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise; through a pattern of unlawful activity, acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise; having been employed by or associated with any enterprise, conduct or participate, whether directly or indirectly, in the conduct of that enterprise's affairs through a pattern of unlawful activity; or conspire to violate any of the above provisions. COUNT 2 ACCEPTING A GIFT, 67-16-5 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about June 01, 2010 through October 31, 2010, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, and as a public of?cer or public employee, under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Utah Code 63G-6-1001 or 76-8-105, did knowingly and intentionally receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, directly or indirectly for himself or another a gift of substantial value or a substantial economic bene?t tantamount to a gift: that would tend improperly to in?uence a reasonable person in the person's position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of the person's public duties; that the person knew or that a reasonable person in that position should know under the circumstances was primarily for the purpose of rewarding the person for of?cial action taken; or if he recently had been, is now, or in the near future may be involved in any governmental action directly affecting the donor or lender; and (2) the total value of the compensation, con?ict of interest, or assistance exceeded $1,000. COUNT 3 RECEIVING OR SOLICITING A BRIBE, 76-8-105 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about June 01, 2011 through July 31, 2011, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did ask for, solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a bene?t with the understanding or agreement that the purpose or intent was to in?uence an action, decision, opinion, recommendation, judgment, vote, nomination, or exercise of discretion, of a public servant, party of?cial, or voter and the value of the bene?t asked for, solicited, accepted, or conferred exceeded $1,000. COUNT 4 RECEIVING OR SOLICITING A BRIBE, 76-8?105 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about March 16, 2011 through January 6, 2014, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did ask for, solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a bene?t with the understanding or agreement that the purpose or intent was to in?uence an action, decision, opinion, recommendation, judgment, vote, nomination, or exercise of discretion, of a public servant, party of?cial, or voter and the value of the bene?t asked for, solicited, accepted, or conferred exceeded $1,000. STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO 14012685 Page 3 COUNT 5 RECEIVING OR SOLICITING A BRIBE, 76-8-105 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about September 01, 2010 through December 5, 2012, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did ask for, solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a bene?t with the understanding or agreement that the purpose or intent was to in?uence an action, decision, opinion, recommendation, judgment, vote, nomination, or exercise of discretion, of a public servant, party of?cial, or voter and the value of the bene?t asked for, solicited, accepted, or conferred exceeded $1,000. COUNT 6 FALSE OR INCONSISTENT MATERIAL STATEMENTS, 76-8?502 UCA, Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about October 15, 2013 through October 25, 2013, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did (1) make a false material statement under oath or af?rmation or swore or af?rmed the truth of a material statement previously made while believing the statement to be untrue; or (2) make inconsistent material statements under oath or af?rmation, both within the period of limitations, one of which was false and not believed by him to be true. COUNT 7 TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, 76-8-510.5 UCA, Third Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about May 02, 2012, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did knowingly or intentionally, in conjunction with an of?cial proceeding, believing that an of?cial proceeding or investigation was pending or was about to be instituted, or with the intent to prevent an of?cial proceeding or investigation, or to prevent the production of anything or item which reasonably would be anticipated to be evidence in the of?cial proceeding or investigation, alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any thing or item with the purpose of impairing the veracity or availability of the thing or item in the proceeding or investigation; or make, present, or use any thing or item which he knew to be false with the purpose of deceiving a public servant or any other party who was or may have been engaged in the proceeding or investigation. COUNT 8 TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, 76-8-510.5 UCA, a Third Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about June 2012, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did knowingly or intentionally, in conjunction with an of?cial proceeding, believing that an of?cial proceeding or investigation was pending or was about to be instituted, or with the intent to prevent an of?cial proceeding or investigation, or to prevent the production of anything or item which reasonably would be anticipated to be evidence in the of?cial proceeding or investigation, alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any thing or item with the purpose of impairing the veracity or availability of the thing or item in the proceeding or investigation; or STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 4 (b) make, present, or use any thing or item which he knew to be false with the purpose of deceiving a public servant or any other party who was or may have been engaged in the proceeding or investigation. COUNT 9 TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, 76-8-5 10.5 UCA, Third Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about July 19, 2012, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did knowingly or intentionally, in conjunction with an official proceeding, believing that an official proceeding or investigation was pending or was about to be instituted, or with the intent to prevent an official proceeding or investigation, or to prevent the production of any thing or item which reasonably would be anticipated to be evidence in the official proceeding or investigation, (a) alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any thing or item with the purpose of impairing the veracity or availability of the thing or item in the proceeding or investigation; or (b) make, present, or use any thing or item which he knew to be false with the purpose of deceiving a public servant or any other party who was or may have been engaged in the proceeding or investigation. COUNT 10 MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY, 76-8-402(1) UCA, Third Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about July 20, 2012 through July 30, 2012, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant did , as a public officer or other person charged with receipt, safekeeping, transfer, disbursement, or use of public money: (a) appropriate the money or any portion of it to hislher own use or benefit or to the use or benefit of another without authority of law; (b) loan or transfer the money or any portion of it without authority of law; (c) fail to keep the money in his possession until disbursed or paid out by authority of law; (d) unlawfully deposit the money or any portion in any bank or with any other person; (e) knowingly keep any false account or make any false entry or erasure in any account of or relating to the money; ( f ) fraudulently alter, falsify, conceal, destroy, or obliterate any such account; (g) willfully refuse or omit to pay over, on demand, any public money in his hands, upon the presentation of a draft, order, or warrant drawn upon such money by competent authority; (h) willfully omit to transfer the money when the transfer was required by law; or (i) willfully omit or refuses to pay over, to any officer or person authorized by law to receive it, any money received by him under any duty imposed by law so to pay over the same. STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 5 COUNT 11 OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, 76-8-306(1) UCA, a Third Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about March 12, 2013, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constituted a criminal offense, (l)(a) provide any person with a weapon; (b) prevent by force, intimidation, or deception, any person from performing any act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person; (c) alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any item or other thing; (d) make, present, or use any item or thing known by the actor to be false; (e) harbor or conceal a person; (0 provide a person with transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; (g) warn any person of impending discovery or apprehension; (h) warn any person of an order authorizing the interception of wire communications or of a pending application for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications; (i) conceal information that was not privileged and that concerned the offense, after a judge or magistrate had ordered the actor to provide the information; or (j) provide false information regarding a suspect, a witness, the conduct constituting an offense, or any other material aspect of the investigation; and (2)(a) the conduct that constituted a criminal offense would be a second or third degree felony and the defendant violated Subsection (l)(b), (c), (d), (e), or (f); (b) the conduct that constitutet a criminal offense would be any offense other than a capital or first degree felony and the actor violated Subsection (l)(a); (c) the obstruction of justice was presented or committed before a court of law; or (d) it was a violation of Subsection (l)(h); COUNT 12 FALSIFICATION OR ALTERATION OF GOVERNMENT RECORD, 76-8-5 11 UCA, a Class B Misdemeanor, as follows: That on or about March 09, 2012 through March 15, 2012, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, under circumstances not amounting to an offense subject to greater penalty under Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 5, Fraud, did (1) knowingly make a false entry in or false alteration of anything belonging to, received, or kept by the government for information or record, or required by law to be kept for information of the government; or (2) present or use anything knowing it to be false and with a purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of anything belonging to, received, or kept by the government for information or record, or required by law to be kept for information of the government; or (3) intentionally destroy, conceal, or otherwise impair the verity or availability of anything belonging to, received, or kept by the government for information or record, or required by law to be kept for information of the government, and knowing that the destruction, concealment, or impairment was unlawful. STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 6 COUNT 13 FAILURE TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, 76-8-109(2) UCA, a Class B Misdemeanor, as follows: That on or about March 9,201 2 through March 15,2012, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, before or during the execution of any order, settlement, declaration, contract, or any other official act of office in which a state constitutional officer has actual knowledge that the officer has a conflict of interest which is not stated on the financial disclosure form required under 76-8-109(4), did fail to publicly declare that the officer may have a conflict of interest and what that conflict of interest is. THIS INFORMATION IS BASED ON EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE FOLLOWING 'WITNESSES: Agent S. Nesbitt, and Agent J. Isakson DECLARATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE: Your declarants base probable cause upon the following: 1. On January 7,2013, Defendant JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW was sworn in as the Utah Attorney General. He resigned that position on December 2,2013. 2. From some time in 2008 through late 2013, Defendant SWALLOW was associated with a group of individuals to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, a pattern of unlawful activity. The individuals, entities, acts, underlying cases, or proceeds have jurisdictional ties to Salt Lake County, Utah. The activities include multiple instances of evidence tampering, obstructing justice, bribery, and accepting gifts by a public officer or public employee. RICHARD RAWLE, CHECK CITY, AND GOLD COINS 3. In 2002 and 2004, Defendant SWALLOW unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. Congress. Jason Powers worked for him as campaign consultant during both campaigns. During his 2002 Congressional campaign, Defendant SWALLOW met Richard Rawle. Rawle owned and operated Check City, a business offering a variety of services, notably, payday lending services. TOSH, Inc. was the parent company of Check City and was also owried by Rawle. Rawle and at least some of his associates donated to Defendant SWALLOW'S 2004 unsuccessful campaign. 4. In 2006, Defendant SWALLOW became the general counsel for Check City. Defendant SWALLOW registered as a lobbyist for TOSH, Inc. Then Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff s calendar entry for September 28, 2006, reflects a lunch appointment with Richard Rawle and Defendant SWALL0 W. STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 7 5. In late 2007 or early 2008, Shurtleff hired Jason Powers to work as a consultant for his re-election campaign. Defendant SWALLOW joined Shurtleff s campaign as chief fundraiser. 6. Shurtleff was re-elected as the Utah Attorney General in 2008. 7. In December 2009, Shurtleff appointed Defendant SWALLOW as his Chief Civil Deputy in the Attorney General's Office. Defendant SWALLOW terminated his employment with Richard Rawle and Check City. SWALLOW claimed that he received twelve one-ounce gold coins from Rawle when SWALLOW terminated his employment with Check City. 8. Defendant SWALLOW claims that he sold the gold coins back to Rawle, from June 201 1 through February 2012, in a succession of ten transactions. According to Defendant SWALLOW, he and Rawle agreed that the price was approximately $1,300 per coin. They further agreed, according to Defendant SWALLOW, that the sales proceeds be loaded on a prepaid debit card. Defendant SWALLOW received approximately $17,000, the deposits of which were made not in multiples of $1,300, but in amounts ranging between $1,500 and $2,000. JEREMY JOHNSON, HOUSEBOAT, AND AIRPLANE 9. Through his involvement in Shurtleffs 2008 re-election campaign, Defendant SWALLOW met St. George, Utah businessman Jeremy Johnson. Johnson owned, among other businesses, I Works, Inc. and Elite Debit, Inc. I Works, Inc. provided services andlor sold products through negative option continuity programs, while elite Debit, Inc. engaged in the business of processing payments online. A negative option continuity program is one in which a consumer purchases a product and is automatically enrolled in a membership program that results in recurring charges to the consumer's credit card that continue until the consumer actively cancels the membership. 10. Johnson contributed approximately $50,000 to Shurtleff s 2008 re-election campaign. Prior to Johnson's contribution, The Utah Consumer Protection Bureau had cited I Works, Inc. for numerous counts of consumer protection violations. 11. In or around September 2009, Johnson invested millions of dollars into the troubled SunFirst Bank, an FDIC-insured financial institution based in St. George, Utah. Beginning in December 2009, shortly after Defendant SWALLOW was appointed Chief Civil Deputy in the Utah Attorney General's Office, SunFirst Bank started to process Elite Debit's online poker transactions in violation of federal and Utah law. 12. On February 13, 2010, Defendant SWALLOW, while the Chief Civil Deputy in the Utah Attorney General's Office, e-mailed Johnson, from his personal e-mail account, for the purpose of joining services provided by Rawle's Check City payday loan processing with Johnson's I Works' online marketing capabilities. Defendant SWALLOW explained, in his e-mail exchange STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 8 with Johnson, that I Works, Inc. would get a "discount" with the online money processing because of SWALLOW'S relationship with Rawle. 13. On March 4, 2010, an attorney representing the online poker industry sent Johnson and his business partner, Chad Elie, an e-mail with a draft opinion regarding the issue of whether Texas Hold'Em was a game of chance or a game of skill. The attorney asked Jeremy Johnson and Chad Elie to "deliver this to the Utah AG and request he meet next week.. .with me and the Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance who he already knows.. ." Johnson forwarded the e-mail to Swallow's personal e-mail account, john.swallowl@,me.com, and asked whether "we" could do this. Swallow responded, "I don't know yet. I'm abt half way through the doc. Mark get's (sic) back tomorrow from DC and well (sic) discuss. I'm still new enough that I've got to see what we can and can't do. I like the analysis so far." 14. On March 8, 2010, Defendant SWALLOW e-mailed Johnson from his personal e-mail, informing Johnson that SWALLOW and Shurtleff had discussed the draft opinion. Defendant SWALLOW opined that Utah law was more restrictive than federal law on that issue, but that he had some ideas that should help. 15. On March 11, 2010, a representative of the online poker industry e-mailed Shurtleff s assistant and Shurtleff, requesting a meeting about, among other things, "the laws in Utah and how they govern poker." 16. On April 1, 201 0, Shurtleff and Defendant SWALLOW met with online poker industry representatives. According to the subsequent e-mail exchange, Shurtleff and Defendant SWALLOW were not in a position to deem online poker gaming legal in Utah, but they were willing to submit an amicus brief if the industry were to engage in legal proceedings seeking a determination that online poker was legal in Utah. 17. On July 2, 201 0, an online poker industry attorney e-mailed Johnson, informing him that the industry intended to file suit in Utah to obtain a favorable ruling for the online poker industry. The attorney asked Johnson to obtain the Utah Attorney General's "view" of the industry prior to the filing of the legal proceedings. The attorney also wanted the Utah Attorney General's Office to "weigh in with an Amicus brief' in support of the industry's legal proceeding. 18. On July 4, 2010, Johnson forwarded the e-mail from an online poker industry's attorney to Defendant SWALL0 W's personal email account, john.swallow 1 rne.com. Johnson stated, STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 9 in the e-mail, that the industry's position was that while Utah law was unclear regarding the legality of playing online poker, the processing of online poker payments was legal. On July 5, 2010, Defendant SWALLOW responded to Johnson's e-mail, stating "Jeremy, I am not aware of any such law in Utah to prohibit what you are doing." SWALLOW then wrote that he would have an attorney in the office review the issue. 19. In 2010, Johnson was under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in connection with the operation of I Works, Inc. In or about August 2010, Johnson contacted Defendant SWALLOW, then Chief Civil Deputy in the Utah Attorney General's Office, asking for assistance regarding the FTC investigation. On August 25, Defendant SWALLOW sent Shurtleff an e-mail from his personal e-mail account (johnswallow~,~mail.com), relaying Johnson's request to meet with United States Senator Orrin Hatch about the investigation. 20. On September 29, 2010, Defendant SWALLOW sent an e-mail to Johnson, informing him that he had spoken with Rawle, who had a connection, through a contact person, with United States Senator Harry Reid. Defendant SWALLOW stated that the price to obtain access to Rawle's contact person likely "won't be cheap." 21. On October 7, 201 0, Johnson sent Rawle an e-mail with the subject line "Senator Reid." Johnson began the e-mail with "I talked to John Swallow and he said you might have some connections to Reid that would be helpful to us." Johnson's e-mail also described the FTC's pursuit of shutting down companies that use negative options such as those used by I Works, Inc. 22. Johnson wired $50,000 (on November 2, 2010) and $200,000 (on December 2,2010) to RMR Consulting, LLC, a company which was owned and operated by Rawle. In or about November 2010, Rawle paid Defendant SWALLOW $8,500 from the funds wired by Johnson into the RMR Consulting bank account. The deposit of that payment occurred in Sandy, Salt Lake County. In April 20 11, Defendant SWALL0W received an additional $15,000 via a check to P Solutions LLC also from the Rawle's RMR Consulting bank account. P Solutions LLC was a company created and owned by Defendant SWALLOW. 23. On December 21, 201 0, the Federal Trade Commission filed its civil Complaint against Johnson in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (2:lO-cv-02203-MMD-GWF), in connection with Johnson's business practices at I Works, Inc. and Elite Debit. On June 15,2011, Johnson was indicted, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for Mail Fraud. The Indictment alleged that I Works, Inc. marketed many products using negative option continuity STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 10 programs and "forced up-sells" techniques while utilizing the U.S. Mail for, among other things, the shipment of various products to consumers (2: 11-cr-0050 1-DN-PMW). 24. Contemporaneous with the FTC's investigation of Johnson's business practices in 2010, and Johnson's efforts to have online poker processing legalized in the State of Utah, Defendant SWALLOW utilized Johnson's personal aircraft for travel to and from Salt Lake City and St. George, Utah. In or about September or October 2010, Defendant SWALLOW and his family, at Johnson's expense, spent two nights on Johnson's large (approximately 80 feet long) luxury houseboat on Lake Powell. The value of the benefit Defendant SWALLOW received, in connection with using the houseboat, exceeded $1,000. 25. In or around August 2010, Rawle asked Defendant SWALLOW to provide consulting services for the Chaparral Limestone and Cement Corporation, regarding a project located in Nevada. Defendant SWALLOW claims to have received compensation for his consulting work for that corporation, but the two payments ($8,500 and $15,000) SWALLOW received were from the RMR Consulting bank account and not from Chaparral. TRAVIS MARKER AND THE SOLICITATION OF $120,000 26. In 201 1, Johnson approached attorney Travis R. Marker, who specialized in mediation and dispute resolution, for the purpose of resolving Johnson's legal matter with the FTC. In the summer of 201 1, Marker met with Defendant SWALLOW on multiple occasions regarding Johnson's criminal case. During a subsequent meeting at the Utah State Capitol building in Salt Lake County, Defendant SWALLOW told Marker that if Johnson could provide SWALLOW approximately $120,000, there might be more options available to Johnson for resolving that criminal case. THE KRISPY KREME MEETING AND DISAPPEARING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE 27. On April 30,2012, Defendant SWALLOW met with Johnson at a Krispy Kreme shop in Orem, Utah. During the recorded meeting, Johnson and Defendant SWALLOW discussed, among other things, SWALLOW'S exposure to various potential criminal charges and potential evidence the government might gamer against Defendant SWALLOW in connection with Defendant SWALLOW'S orchestration of assistance to Johnson regarding the FTC investigation and the $250,000 payment to Rawle for potential access to U.S. Senator Harry Reid. Johnson informed Defendant SWALLOW that Rawle should return the money to Johnson and that Rawle should delete e-mails Rawle did not wish the government to obtain. 28. On or about May 1,2012, Defendant SWALLOW instructed one of his campaign staffers to obtain a "burner" or prepaid cell phone. Defendant SWALLOW instructed his campaign STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 11 staffer to pay cash for the cell phone so that it could not be traced to Defendant SWALLOW'S campaign. 29. On or about May 2, 20 12, Defendant SWALLOW retroactively created two invoices for services rendered to Rawle regarding the Chaparral cement project, purportedly justifying the November 2010 and April 201 1 payments of $8,500 and $15,000 respectively. 30. On May 2, 2012, Defendant SWALLOW wrote a letter to Rawle confirming a previous conversation between them in which Defendant SWALLOW stated to Rawle that he would return the $23,500 paid to him by Rawle for SWALLOW'S supposed services in connection with the Chaparral project. Defendant SWALLOW asked Rawle to find a new channel through which Rawle would repay $23,500 to Defendant SWALLOW. 3 1. On May 15,2012, Defendant SWALLOW issued a check from P Solutions LLC to RMR Consulting in the amount of $23,500. Rawle repaid the $23,500 to Defendant SWALLOW from another account. 32. On or about July 19, 2012, Defendant SWALLOW instructed a member of the Utah Attorney General's Office IT department to wipe his State-issued laptop and his desktop computers. Prior to the wipe, Defendant SWALLOW claimed that he transferred the data onto an external hard drive. The information on the external hard drive was then loaded onto his personal computer. 33. On or about July 20, 2012, Defendant SWALLOW instructed the Utah Attorney General's Office IT department to replace a broken glass screen on his home computer. That replacement was done at the expense of the State of Utah. The cost of the glass screen was $196.85. 34. In or about November 2012, during a flight from Phoenix to Salt Lake City, Defendant SWALLOW lost, according to him, the external hard drive. 35. In the fall of 2012, Defendant SWALLOW, according to him, returned his cell phone to his carrier, Verizon, and purchased a refurbished cell phone. STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 12 36. According to Defendant SWALLOW, in or around December 2012, while Rawle was dying of cancer, Defendant SWALLOW provided notes to Rawle's attorney. That attorney drafted the "Declaration of Richard Rawle." That Declaration states that it was done for the purpose of preserving Rawle's testimony for "anyone who would be interested at some point, including the court." The Declaration was executed by Rawle on December 5, 2012. On December 8,2012, Rawle died. 37. In January 20 13, according to Defendant SWALLOW, Defendant SWALLOW's personal home computer crashed. In the same month, the Utah Attorney General's Office issued Defendant SWALLOW a new iPad, iPhone, and MacBook Pro laptop computer. Defendant SWALLOW claimed that he lost a large volume of his work e-mail from the migration of the email system to Google. In fact, and contrary to what Defendant SWALLOW claimed, Defendant SWALLOW personally deleted all the e-mail and no e-mail was lost due to Google email migration. 38. In February 2013, according to Defendant SWALLOW, Defendant SWALLOW lost his campaign iPad while he was at the National Association of Attorney Generals in Washington, D.C. 39. In October 2013, Defendant SWALLOW'S assistant attempted to retrieve SWALLOW'S electronic calendar. The assistant noticed that the appointments had been deleted from Defendant SWALLOW'S 2009, 201 0, and 201 1 calendars. The assistant did not make those deletions. 40. Further investigation revealed that in 20 12, Defendant SWALLOW retroactively created his day planner entries for the calendar years 2010 and 201 1, to reflect his supposed work on the Chaparral cement project. MARC JENSON AND THE PELICAN HILL RESORT 41. On August 10, 2005, the Utah Attorney General's Office in Salt Lake County filed an Information against Marc Sessions Jenson (Jenson), charging him with, among other things, Securities Fraud and Pattern of Unlawful Activity (Third District Court Case Number 05 1905391). STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 13 42. Shurtleff met Timothy Lawson while Shurtleff was running for Utah Attorney General in 2000. At some time after Jenson was charged, Lawson represented himself to Jenson as a close friend of the then Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff. 43. In February 2008, without the assigned prosecutor's knowledge, Lawson sent an email to Shurtleff, outlining the terms of a proposed plea agreement in the Jenson case. 44. During 2008, the then Utah Attorney General, Shurtleff, personally arranged a plea-inabeyance agreement in the Jenson case. The terms of the Shurtleff-arranged plea agreement were so lenient that the assigned prosecutor, Charlene Barlow (now Third District Judge Barlow), communicated her concerns to her superiors and was taken off the case. The plea offer was presented to the Court by another prosecutor, Scott Reed. Third District Court Judge Reese rejected the no contest plea-in-abeyance because it included no provisions for restitution. 45. Jenson's plea-in-abeyance agreement in Third District Court Case Number 051905391 was subsequently amended to include restitution to the victims. 46. On May 29, 2008, Jenson entered, in that case, no contest, plea-in-abeyance pleas to 3 counts of Sale of Unregistered Security, Third Degree Felonies. Jenson was to pay restitution in the total amount of $4.1 million as one of the conditions of the plea-in-abeyance agreement. The probation period was 3 years. 47. From January 30, 2009, to November 20, 2009, while under probation in the abovementioned criminal case with the Utah Attorney General's Office, Jenson paid Lawson approximately $120,000.00 for the purpose of gaining access to the then Utah Attorney General, Shurtleff, and to influence, on Jenson's behalf, potential witnesses and/or victims in connection with Jenson's criminal and civil legal issues. 48. Jenson paid Lawson the approximately $120,000.00 by 18 separate payments, which were deposited into the bank accounts of Apple Dumpling Gang, LLC, and Slipstream, LLC, companies owned by Lawson. 49. Jenson did not pay any of the restitution required by his plea-in-abeyance agreement in Third District Court Case Number 05 1905391. As a result, on November 3, 201 1, Third District Judge Reese entered Jenson's convictions, revoked his probation and sent him to the Utah State Prison. STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 14 50. In or about October 2007, Dr. Edward Jeffrey Donner of Fort Collins, Colorado, learned - through a business acquaintance, Timothy Bell - that Jenson and his brother, Stephen Jenson, were developing a private ski and golf resort, known as the Mount Holly project, in Beaver County, Utah, and were looking for interested investors. In response to an invitation from the Jenson brothers, Edward and his wife, Judee Donner, flew to Las Vegas to meet with the Jenson brothers regarding the potential Mount Holly investment. 51. On December 21, 2007, the Donners, having decided to purchase a Mount Holly membership, wired $400,000.00 to the Mount Holly MMA account number 70650749 at American National Bank, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. On December 28, 2007, the Donners wired an additional $1,100,000.00 to the same account at.American National Bank and then, on December 3 1,2007, they signed the Mount Holly Club membership agreement. 52. In or about June 2008, Edward Donner did some checking on Jenson and became suspicious about the $1.5 million investment he and his wife had made. Edward Donner informed the Jensons that he wanted out of the Mount Holly project and demanded the return of the money that he and his wife had invested. 53. In or about January 2009, the Donners retained the law firm Holland & Hart, LLP, in an attempt to recoup from Marc and Stephen Jenson, through civil action, their $1.5 million investment in the Mount Holly project. Shortly thereafter, in or about February or March 2009, Lawson began contacting Edward Donner via emails, text messages, and phone calls. 54. In May 2009, the Mount Holly property was foreclosed on and sold at auction, leaving the Donners without any of the $1.5 million they had invested in the Mount Holly project. 55. Lawson sent several aggressive text messages and emails to Edward Donner, trying to deter him from pursuing the recovery of his investment. On or about December 16, 2009, Lawson left Edward Donner a voice message, accusing Donner of causing problems and threatening Donner with revealing supposedly illegal activities in Donner's medical practice in Colorado. 56. In or around 2008, according to Jenson, Defendant SWALLOW appeared at Jenson's office in Salt Lake City, Utah. Defendant SWALLOW stated to Jenson that he, SWALLOW, was Shurtleff's hand-picked successor as Utah Attorney General, and was eminently electable. 57. On or about April 30, 2009, Jenson paid Lawson one of the 18 payments. This one was in the amount of approximately $6,190.00, and was for Lawson to arrange and pay for trips for at STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 15 least Shurtleff and Defendant SWALLOW to the Pelican Hill Resort, a high-end resort in California, where Jenson was staying at the time. Based on receipts and witness statements, Jenson paid for lodging and expenses including massages, golf, food, and clothing items at the Pelican Hill resort for at least Shurtleff and Defendant SWALLOW while Jenson was on probation for his criminal case (Third District Court Case Number 051905391) with the Utah Attorney General's Office. This trip took place on May 4 & 5,2009. 58. On or about June 5 through June 7,2009, Defendant SWALLOW and Shurtleff, traveled to the Pelican Hill Resort. Jenson again paid for lodging and expenses for Defendant SWALLOW andlor Shurtleff including, but not limited to, massages, golf, food, and men's apparel while Jenson was on probation for his criminal case with the Utah Attorney General's Office. 59. In July, 2009, Defendant SWALLOW and his wife, Suzanne, celebrated their wedding anniversary at the Pelican Hill Resort. All expenses were paid by Jenson. 60. In or around August 2009, the then Utah Attorney General, Shurtleff, withdrew from the U.S. Senate race. In December 2009, Shurtleff appointed Defendant SWALLOW as the Chief Civil Deputy of the Utah Attorney General's Office. 61. On March 9, 2012, Defendant SWALLOW filed his Declaration of Candidacy for Utah Attorney General with the Lieutenant Governor's Office in Salt Lake City, Utah. Defendant SWALLOW, at the same time, also filed a 2012 Candidate Financial Disclosure or Conflict of Interest Form. In response to the question asking "Name of each entity that has paid $5,000 or more to the filer within the one-year ending immediately before the date of the disclosure form," Defendant SWALLOW answered, "None." Defendant SWALLOW also failed, contrary to what the disclosure form required, to disclose his ownership of SSV Management LLC, P Solutions LLC, and I-Aware Products Enterprises LLC. 62. On March 15, 2012, Defendant SWALLOW changed the name of registered agent and manager of each of his companies, SSV Management LLC, P Solutions LLC, and I-Aware Products Enterprises LLC, from Defendant SWALLOW to his wife, Suzanne Swallow. On the same date, Defendant SWALLOW filed a second 2012 Candidate Financial Disclosure or Conflict of Interest Form. In response to the question calling for the "Name of each entity that has paid $5,000 or more to the filer within the one-year period ending immediately before the date of the disclosure form," Defendant SWALLOW answered "None besides State of Utah." STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 16 On the same document, in response to the question asking for a brief description of employment of the filer's spouse, Defendant SWALLOW'S responded "None." 63. Defendant SWALLOW never disclosed that his wife, Suzanne Swallow, was and had been, since March 15, 2012, the manager of SSV Management LLC, P Solutions LLC, or IAware Products Enterprises LLC. Defendant SWALLOW never disclosed that Rawle paid him $17,000 between June 20 11 and July 20 12. Defendant SWALL0 W never disclosed that, in April 2011, P Solutions LLC received $15,000 from RMR or Rawle. Defendant SWALLOW never disclosed that, during the reporting period of time, P Solutions LLC paid approximately $19,000 to his wife, Suzanne Swallow, who then deposited the money into Defendant SWALLOW'S joint checking account with his wife. THE BELLS AND THE MORTGAGE REDUCTION 64. On March 16, 20 11, Timothy and Jennifer Bell filed suit against Bank of America and Recon Trust, in Utah Federal District Court (2: 11-cv-0027 1-BSJ), challenging the foreclosure practices of Recon Trust, a subsidiary of Bank of America and a successor trustee of the Bell mortgage, in the foreclosure of the Bells' residence (5346 South Cottonwood Lane) in Salt Lake County. The defendants' Motion to Dismiss was denied on March 15, 2012. 65. In March 2012, Jerry Jensen, an Assistant Attorney General in the Utah Attorney General's Office, notified Defendant SWALLOW, then Chief Civil Deputy in that office, of the State's intent to intervene in the Bells' case. On April 12, 2012, the State filed its Motion to Intervene, seeking to prohibit Recon Trust, a Texas corporation without a place of business in the State of Utah, from conducting non-judicial foreclosures in Utah. The State's Motion to Intervene was granted on July 26,20 12. 66. On June 8, 2012, while the State's Motion to Intervene was pending before U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins, Timothy Bell sought out Jessica Fawson, a campaign staffer for Defendant SWALLOW'S 20 12 Utah Attorney General campaign, offering help with that campaign. 67. On August 7, 20 12, Defendant SWALLOW and the then Attorney 'General, Shurtleff, met with Bank of America attorneys and lobbyists to discuss the Bells' litigation. 68. On August 17, 2012, the Bells hosted a fundraiser for Defendant SWALLOW. The fundraiser was held at the Bells' residence in Salt Lake County, the same residence that was the subject of their foreclosure litigation. The actual cost of the Bells' fundraiser was $28,024.46, but STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 17 BellMed, the Bells' company, and Defendant SWALLOW'S campaign reported an in-kind donation as $1 5,000. 69. On August 22, 2012, Timothy Bell contacted Seth Crossley (another Swallow campaign staffer) and inquired about the best time to discuss, with Defendant SWALLOW, his Bank of America lawsuit with Defendant SWALLOW. On August 27,2012, Defendant SWALLOW had a telephone conference with Bank of America lobbyists. 70. On September 27, 2012, Judge Jenkins ordered disclosure of negotiations. The court record reflects that Defendant SWALLOW personally participated in discussions with the defense. 71. According to Shurtleff s calendar, on October 30 and 31, 2012, Shurtleff interviewed for a position with the law firm Troutman Sanders LLP. According to the firm's website, Bank of America is a major client of the firm. 72. On October 30, 2012, the Bells were accepted into a loan modification program with Bank of America. They had sought to be accepted into that program for several months. The Bells received significant reductions in the loan principal and in the interest rate. The modification the Bells received entailed a $1.13 million reduction in their loan balance, and a reduction of their loan interest rate from 7.5% to 2.65%. The modification did not affect the pending litigation on behalf of thousands of Utahns whose interests in foreclosure were being represented indirectly by the Utah Attorney General's Office. 73. According to a Division Chief in the Utah Attorney General's Office, Defendant SWALLOW, on November 15, 2012, told him that SWALLOW may have given Bank of America the impression that, if the Bells' case settled, the State's intervention in the litigation would cease. 74. On December 1, 2012, Defendant SWALLOW informed the assigned attorney, Jerry Jensen, that he, Jerry Jensen, would no longer be handling the case. In December 2012, Jerry Jensen advised Shurtleff that he believed the State's case was strong and that the State would prevail on a Motion for Summary Judgment. 75. On December 19, 2012, Shurtleff personally contacted the Bank of America lobbyist and told him that the State would dismiss its case. On December 27, 2012, the then Attorney General, Shurtleff, signed the State's Motion to Dismiss. STATE vs JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 18 76. Shurtleff joined the law firm of Troutman Sanders in January 2013. The value of the compensation exceeded $1,000. 77. On January 7,2013, Defendant SWALLOW became the new Utah Attorney General. On January 15,2013, Federal District Judge Jenkins demanded to know the reason why the Attorney General's Office had moved to dismiss its claim in intervention and ordered the State to reconsider its position. The Attorney General's Office informed Judge Jenkins that it would not reverse a prior Attorney General's decision. 78. On or about January 15, 201 3, a campaign staffer for Defendant SWALLOW contacted Bell and asked him to "revisit" the cost of the Bells' fundraiser (the in-kind benefit was reported as $15,000 at that time). The next day, Bell amended the amount of in-kind benefit to $1,000 despite having spent over $28,000 for the fundraiser. 79. On March 12, 2013, F.B.I. agents interviewed Defendant SWALLOW at the law firm of Clyde Snow in Salt Lake County. During the interview, Defendant SWALLOW provided numerous pieces of false information, including, but not limited to, false information regarding the Jenson cases, campaign donations, and gifts and/or bribes received by him, Defendant SWALLOW. 80. On May 21, 2013, Defendant SWALLOW instructed his campaign manager, Jason Powers, to refund the Bells their in-kind donation to avoid "even the appearance of impropriety." The Bells did not receive a refund. 81. On October 15 & October 25, 2013, the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office deposed Defendant SWALLOW. In the course of that deposition, SWALLOW made, under oath, numerous false or inconsistent statements, including, but not limited to, statements regarding the gold coins SWALLOW claimed to have sold, and gifts and/or bribes SWALLOW solicited or received. STATE vs JOHN ED WARD SWALLOW DAO # 14012685 Page 19 82. On January 6, 2014, upon the demand of the Lieutenant Governor's Office, the Bells changed the amount for the in-kind contribution for their fundraiser to $28,024.46. Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated 5 78B-5-705 (2008) I declare under criminal penalty of the State of Utah that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my belief and knowledge. Declarant 6 r i z e d for~resentmentand filing SIM GILL, District Attorney for Salt Lake County 15th day of July, 201 4 DAO #I40 12685 / DAO #I4012685 S O # OTN DAO # 14012685 IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT, SAL IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, STATE OF UTAH THE STATE OF UTAH, Before: Plaintiff, Magistrate VS. JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW DOB: 11/10/1962, 1263 East Bell View Circle Sandy, Utah 84094 OTN SO# Defendant. I WARRANT OF ARREST Case No. /~'/9077 1 THE STATE OF UTAH; To any Peace Officer in the State of Utah, Greetings: An Information, based upon a written declaration having been declared by Agent S. Nesbitt, Utah Department of Public Safety, Agency Case No. 12DPS0570, and Special Agent J. Isakson, Federal Bureau of Investigation, F.B.I. Case No. 194A-SU-68452, and it appears from the Information or Declaration filed with the Information, that there is probable cause to believe that the public offense(s) of; PATTERN OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, ACCEPTING A GIFT, RECEIVING OR SOLICITING A BRIBE (3 Counts), and FALSE OR INCONSISTENT MATERIAL STATEMENTS, Second Degree Felonies, TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE (3 Counts), MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, Third Degree Felonies, and FALSIFICATION OR ALTERATION OF GOVERNMENT RECORD, FAILURE TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, Class B Misdemeanors, have been committed, and that JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW has committed them. S O # OTN DAO # 14012685 YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED to arrest the above-named defendant forthwith and bring the defendant before this Court, or before the nearest or most accessible magistrate for setting bail. If the defendant has fled justice, you shall pursue the defendant into any other county of this state and there arrest the defendant. The Court finds reasonable grounds to believe defendant will not appear upon a summons. Bail is set in the amount of $250,000. Dated this / day of July, 2014. SIM GILL, Bar No. 6389 District Attorney for Salt Lake County bu r1 . n, I I TROY RAWLINGS, Bar No. 6969 i 5 District Attorney for Davis County mm I 111 East Broadway, Suite 400 a, 1 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dapmy Clo?rk Telephone: (385) 468-7600 IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE DEPARTMENT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, STATE OF UTAH THE STATE OF UTAH Screened by: SIM GILL TROY RAWLIN GS Plaintiff, Assigned to: CHOU CHOU COLLINS vs. B. FRED BURMESTER MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF INFORMATION DOB: 08/09/1957, 2020 East Candle Spruce Cove DAO 14012686 Sandy, Utah 84092 OTN ECR Status: Initial Appearance: Defendant. Bail: $250,000 Warrant/Release: Non-Jail DAO 14012685 JOHN EDWARD SWALLOW Case No. Co?Defendant Mloio770?m The undersigned - Agent S. Nesbitt, Utah Department of Public Safety, Agency Case No. 12DPSOS70 and Special Agent J. Isakson, Federal Bureau of Investigation, F.B.I. Case No. 194A-SU-68452, upon a written declaration states on information and belief that the defendant, MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF, committed the crime(s) of: COUNT 1 PATTERN OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, 76-10-1603 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about January 08, 2009 through May 6, 2013, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, having received any proceeds derived, whether STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 2 directly or indirectly, from a pattern of unlawful activity in which the defendant had participated as a principal, did use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of that income, or the proceeds of the income, or the proceeds derived from the investment or use of those proceeds, in the acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise; through a pattern of unlawful activity, acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise; (0) having been employed by or associated with any enterprise, conduct or participate, whether directly or indirectly, in the conduct of that enterprise's affairs through a pattern of unlawful activity; or conspire to violate any of the above provisions. COUNT 2 RECEIVING OR SOLICITING A BRIBE, 76-8-105 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about May 04, 2009 through May 5, 2009, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did ask for, solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a bene?t with the understanding or agreement that the purpose or intent was to in?uence an action, decision, opinion, recommendation, judgment, vote, nomination, or exercise of discretion, of a public servant, party of?cial, or voter and the value of the bene?t asked for, solicited, accepted, or conferred exceeded $1,000. COUNT 3 RECEIVING OR SOLICITING A BRIBE, 76?8?105 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about June 05, 2009 through June 7, 2009, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did ask for, solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a bene?t with the understanding or agreement that the purpose or intent was to in?uence an action, decision, opinion, recommendation, judgment, vote, nomination, or exercise of discretion, of a public servant, party of?cial, or voter and the value of the bene?t asked for, solicited, accepted, or conferred exceeded $1,000. COUNT 4 RECEIVING OR SOLICITING A BRIBE, 76-8-105 UCA, Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about October 31, 2008 through January 08, 2009, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did ask for, solicit, accept, or receive, directly or indirectly, a bene?t with the understanding or agreement that the purpose or intent was to in?uence an action, decision, opinion, recommendation, judgment, vote, nomination, or exercise of discretion, of a public servant, party of?cial, or voter and the value of the bene?t asked for, solicited, accepted, or conferred exceeded $1,000. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 3 COUNT 5 ACCEPTING A GIFT, 67-16-5 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That in or about February, 2011, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, and as a public of?cer or public employee, under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Utah Code 63G-6-1001 or 76-8-105, did knowingly and intentionally receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, directly or indirectly for himself or another a gift of substantial value or a substantial economic bene?t tantamount to a gift: that would tend improperly to in?uence a reasonable person in the person's position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of the person's public duties; that the person knew or that a reasonable person in that position should know under the circumstances was primarily for the purpose of rewarding the person for of?cial action taken; or if he recently had been, is now, or in the near future may be involved in any governmental action directly affecting the donor or lender; and (2) the total value of the compensation, con?ict of interest, or assistance exceeded $1,000. COUNT 6 ACCEPTING A GIFT, 67-16-5 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about January 01, 2009 through May 1, 2010, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, and as a public of?cer or public employee, under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Utah Code 63G-6-1001 or 76-8-105, did knowingly and intentionally receive, accept, take, seek, or solicit, directly or indirectly for himself or another a gift of substantial value or a substantial economic bene?t tantamount to a gift: that would tend improperly to in?uence a reasonable person in the person's position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of the person's public duties; that the person knew or that a reasonable person in that position should know under the circumstances was primarily for the purpose of rewarding the person for of?cial action taken; or if he recently had been, is now, or in the near future may be involved in any governmental action directly affecting the donor or lender; and (2) the total value of the compensation, con?ict of interest, or assistance exceeded $1,000. COUNT 7 ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT THAT WOULD IMPAIR JUDGEMENT, 67-16-4 UCA, a Second Degree Felony, as follows: That in or about September 2012 through May 2013, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant as a party to the offense, and as a public of?cer, public employee, or legislator, under circumstances not amounting to a violation of Utah Code Ann. 63G-6-1001 or 76-8-105, did accept employment or engage in any business or professional activity that he might reasonably expect would require or induce him to improperly disclose controlled information that he had gained by reason of his of?cial position; disclose or improperly use controlled, private, or protected information acquired by reason of his of?cial position or in the course of of?cial duties in order to further substantially the of?cer's STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEF DAO 14012686 Page 4 or employee's personal economic interest or to secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or others; use or attempt to use his of?cial position to: further substantially the of?cer's or employee's personal economic interest; or (ii) secure special privileges or exemptions for himself or others; accept other employment that he might expect would impair his independence of judgment in the performance of his public duties; or accept other employment that he might expect would interfere with the ethical performance of his public duties; and (2) the total value of the compensation, con?ict of interest or assistance exceeded $1,000. COUNT 8 TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, 76-8-5080) UCA, Third Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about May 08, 2009 at 10470 South State Street, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant as a party to the offense, believing that an of?cial proceeding or investigation was pending or about to be instituted, or with the intent to prevent an of?cial proceeding or investigation, did attempt to induce or otherwise cause another person to: testify or inform falsely; withhold any testimony, information, document, or item; elude legal process summoning him to provide evidence; or absent himself from any proceeding or investigation to which he has been summoned. COUNT 9 TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, 76-8-5105 UCA, a Third Degree Felony, as follows: That in or about February 2012 at 2020 East Candle Spruce Cove, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant, as a party to the offense, did knowingly or intentionally, in conjunction with an of?cial proceeding, believing that an of?cial proceeding or investigation was pending or was about to be instituted, or with the intent to prevent an of?cial proceeding or investigation, or to prevent the production of any thing or item which reasonably would be anticipated to be evidence in the of?cial proceeding or investigation, alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any thing or item with the purpose of impairing the veracity or availability of the thing or item in the proceeding or investigation; or make, present, or use any thing or item which he knew to be false with the purpose of deceiving a public servant or any other party who was or may have been engaged in the proceeding or investigation. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 5 COUNT 10 OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, 76-8-306(1) UCA, Third Degree Felony, as follows: That on or about May 06, 2013 at 5425 West Amelia Earhart Drive, in Salt Lake County, State of Utah, the defendant as a party to the offense, with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person regarding conduct that constituted a criminal offense, did provide any person with a weapon; prevent by force, intimidation, or deception, any person from performing any act that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person; alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any item or other thing; make, present, or use any item or thing known by the actor to be false; (6) harbor or conceal a person; provide a person with transportation, disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension; warn any person of impending discovery or apprehension; warn any person of an order authorizing the interception of wire communications or of a pending application for an order authorizing the interception of wire communications; conceal information that was not privileged and that concerned the offense, after a judge or magistrate had ordered the actor to provide the information; or provide false information regarding a suspect, a witness, the conduct constituting an offense, or any other material aspect of the investigation; and the conduct that constituted a criminal offense would be a second or third degree felony and the defendant violated Subsection or the conduct that constitutes a criminal offense would be any offense other than a capital or ?rst degree felony and the actor violated Subsection the obstruction of justice was presented or committed before a court of law; or it was a violation of Subsection THIS INFORMATION IS BASED ON EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE FOLLOWING WITNESSES: Agent S. Nesbitt, and Agent J. Isakson, DECLARATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE: Your declarants base probable cause upon the following: 1. Defendant MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF was elected Utah Attorney General and held that position continuously from January 2001 through January 6, 2013. While he was the Utah Attorney General, Defendant principal of?ce was located in Salt Lake County, State of Utah. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 6 2. From at least 2008 through 2013, Defendant SHURTLEFF was associated with a group of individuals to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly, a pattern of unlawful activity. The individuals, entities, acts, underlying cases, or proceeds have jurisdictional ties to Salt Lake County, Utah. The activities include multiple instances of witness tampering, obstructing justice, soliciting bribes, money laundering and accepting gifts by a public of?cer or public employee. MARC JENSON AND THE PELICAN HILL RESORT 3. On August 10, 2005, the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce in Salt Lake County ?led an Information against Marc Sessions Jenson (Jenson), charging him with, among other things, Securities Fraud and Pattern of Unlawful Activity (Third District Court Case Number 051905391). 4. Defendant SHURTLEFF met Timothy Lawson while SHURTLEFF was running for Utah Attorney General in 2000. At some time after enson was charged, Lawson represented himself to enson as a close friend of the then Utah Attorney General, Defendant SHURTLEF F. 5. In February 2008, without the assigned prosecutor?s knowledge, Lawson sent an email to the Utah Attorney General, Defendant SHURTLEFF, outlining the terms of a proposed plea agreement in the enson case. 6. In 2008, following the Lawson e-mail, the then Utah Attorney General, Defendant SHURTLEFF, personally arranged a plea-in-abeyance agreement in the Jenson case. The terms of the plea agreement were so lenient that the assigned prosecutor, Charlene Barlow (now Third District Judge Barlow), communicated her concerns to her immediate superiors. She was taken off the case. The plea offer was presented to the Court by another prosecutor, Scott Reed. Third District Court Judge Robin Reese rejected the no contest plea-in-abeyance because included no provisions for restitution. 7. Jenson?s plea-in?abeyance agreement in Third District Court Case Number 051905391 was subsequently amended to include restitution to victims. 8. On May 29, 2008, Jenson entered, in that case, no contest, plea?in-abeyance pleas to 3 counts of Sale of Unregistered Security, Third Degree Felonies. As one condition of the plea-in- abeyance agreement, Jenson was to pay restitution in the total amount of $4.1 million. The probation period was for 3 years. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 7 9. From January 30, 2009, to November 20, 2009, while under probation in the above- mentioned criminal case with the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce, Jenson paid Lawson approximately $120,000.00 for the purpose of gaining access to the then Utah Attorney General, Defendant SHURTLEFF, and for the purpose of in?uencing, on Jenson?s behalf, potential witnesses and/or victims in connection with enson?s criminal and civil legal issues. 10. Jenson paid Lawson the approximately $120,000.00 by at least 18 separate payments, which were deposited into the bank accounts of Apple Dumpling Gang, LLC, and Slipstream, LLC, companies owned by Lawson. 11. Jenson did not pay any of the restitution required by his plea-in-abeyance agreement in Third District Court Case Number 051905391. As a result, on November 3, 2011, Third District Court Judge Reese entered Jenson?s convictions, revoked his probation, and sent him to the Utah State Prison. 12. In or about October 2007, Dr. Edward Jeffrey Donner of Fort Collins, Colorado, learned through a business acquaintance, Timothy Bell that Jenson and his brother, Stephen Jenson, were developing a private ski and golf resort, known as the Mount Holly project, in Beaver County, Utah, and were looking for interested investors. In response to an invitation from the enson brothers, Edward and his wife, udee Donner, ?ew to Las Vegas to meet with the Jenson brothers regarding the potential Mount Holly investment. 13. On December 21, 2007, the Donners, having decided to purchase a Mount Holly membership, wired $400,000.00 to the Mount Holly MMA account number 70650749 at American National Bank, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. On December 28, 2007, the Donners wired an additional $1,100,000.00 to the same account at American National Bank and then, on December 31, 2007, they signed the Mount Holly Club membership agreement. 14. In or about June 2008, Edward Donner did some checking on Jenson and became suspicious about the $1.5 million investment he and his wife had made. Edward Donner informed the Jensons that he wanted out of the Mount Holly project and demanded that his money be returned. 15. In or about January 2009, the Donners retained the law ?rm Holland Hart, LLP, in an attempt to recoup from Marc and Stephen Jenson, through civil action, their $1.5 million investment in the Mount Holly project. Shortly thereafter, in or about February or March 2009, Lawson began contacting Edward Donner via emails, text messages, and phone calls. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 8 16. In May 2009, the Mount Holly property was foreclosed on and sold at auction, leaving the Donners without any of the $1.5 million they had invested in the Mount Holly project. 17. Lawson sent several aggressive text messages and emails to Edward Donner, trying to deter him from pursuing the recovery of his investment. On or about December 16, 2009, Lawson left Edward Donner a voice message, accusing Donner of causing problems and threatening Donner with revealing supposedly illegal activities in Donner?s medical practice in Colorado. 18. On or about April 30, 2009, Marc Jenson paid Lawson one of the 18 payments. This one was in the amount of approximately $6,190.00 and was for Lawson to arrange and pay for trips for at least Defendant SHURTLEFF and John Swallow to the Pelican Hill Resort, a high-end resort in California, where Jenson was staying at the time. Based on receipts and witness statements, Jenson paid for lodging and expenses including massages, golf, food, and clothing items at the Pelican Hill Resort for at least Defendant SHURTLEFF and Swallow while Jenson was on probation for his criminal case (Third District Court Case Number 051905391) with the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce. This trip took place on May 4 5, 2009. The value of the bene?t Defendant SHURTLEFF received, in connection with this trip, exceeded $1,000. 19. On or about June 5 through June 7, 2009, Defendant SHURTLEF and Swallow traveled to the Pelican Hill Resort. Jenson again paid for lodging and expenses for Defendant SHURTLEFF and/or Swallow including, but not limited to, massages, golf, food, and men?s apparel while Jenson was on probation for his criminal case with the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce. The value of the bene?t Defendant SHURTLEFF received, in connection with this trip, exceeded $1,000. 20. Sometime before February 2012, Defendant SHURTLEFF received a letter from Jenson while Jenson was in Prison. The letter was sent to Defendant home address in Salt Lake County. According to what Defendant SHURTLEFF said to Kirk Torgensen, the then Chief Criminal Deputy of the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce, Jenson?s letter stated, among other things, that did you a favor when you needed help and I?m asking for one in return, please come visit me.? On February 2, 2012, a prosecutor at the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce asked for the letter. Defendant SHURTLEF stated that he had discarded the letter. 21. Mark Robbins, an individual who was trying to put together ?deals,? including a multi- million dollar development known as Whitewater VII (a development including UTA and STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 9 FrontRunner Stations in Draper), was also present during at least one of the trips to Pelican Hill Resort and had meetings with Defendant SHURTLEFF, Swallow, and enson at the Pelican Hill Resort. 22. In 2009, Defendant SHURTLEFF was running for the US. Senate. Swallow joined Defendant campaign as chief fundraiser in or about 2008 or early 2009. Defendant SHURTLEFF later withdrew from the US. Senate race. In December 2009 he hired Swallow as the Chief Civil Deputy in the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce. Swallow held that position until he was elected as the Utah Attorney General in the fall of 2012. MCBRIDE AND $2 MILLION 23. Darl McBride made two loans of $100,000.00 each to Mark Robbins, who promised to repay them. Alison Robbins, Mark Robbins? wife, issued a check in the amount of $105,000.00 to McBride for supposed payment of one of those loans. The check was returned for insuf?cient funds. In March 2009, McBride ?led a civil lawsuit against Alison Robbins regarding the $105,000.00 bad check. Mark and Alison Robbins had left the State of Utah and their exact location was at that time unknown to McBride. 24. Feeling defrauded by the Robbinses, McBride created a website at the domain name skylinecowboy.com, for the purpose of offering a reward for information about the Robbinses? whereabouts so he could have his Complaint served. McBride then provided information to KSL News regarding Mark Robbins?s involvement in the Whitewater VII development related to UTA. As a result of the information provided by McBride, KSL did a story regarding McBride?s story. 25. Before skylinecowboy.com was published and soon after the KSL News story broke, Lawson called McBride. Lawson stated he was speaking on behalf of the then Attorney General, Defendant SHURTLEFF, and that SHURTLEFF wanted McBride to back off of Robbins. McBride told Lawson that he was not going to back off, and McBride published skylinecowboy.com with a link to the KSL News story in connection with Whitewater VII. 26. Lawson then again called McBride and told him to take skylinecowboy.com down. Lawson stated that, if McBride would not back off Robbins and take the website down, McBride would be sitting in jail for a long time because Defendant SHURTLEFF had ?things? on McBride. Lawson further told McBride that he, Lawson was like ?Porter Rockwell? and that he took care of things for the then Attorney General, Defendant SHURTLEF F. Lawson also stated STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEF DAO 14012686 Page 10 that he had guns and ?Polynesian friends? who liked to ?bust people up.? McBride received those telephone calls from Lawson in 2009, in Salt Lake County. 27. In 2009, after hearing those things from Lawson, McBride contacted the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce and complained that he had received threats from Lawson, and that Lawson had been so using the name of the then Attorney General, Defendant SHURTLEF F. 28. Shortly thereafter, McBride received a call from the then Attorney General, Defendant SHURTLEFF, requesting a meeting with McBride. They met at Mimi?s Cafe, in Salt Lake County, on May 8, 2009, within days of Defendant SHURTLEF F?s return from the Pelican Hill Resort. SHURTLEF acknowledged that he knew that Lawson used his name and told people that he represented SHURTLEFF. Defendant SHURTLEFF explained to McBride that Lawson had introduced him to people who became contributors to his campaign and told McBride that skylinecowboy.com was ?pretty harsh?. During their conversation, Defendant SHURTLEF acknowledged that what Robbins was doing was a ?Ponzi? scheme, but that he wanted McBride to back off anyway. 29. During the May 8, 2009, meeting at Mimi?s Caf?, in Salt Lake County, Defendant SHURTLEFF asked McBride ?What can I do?? McBride responded that he needed $2 million to back off. Defendant SHURTLEFF replied that he was going to meet with Marc Jenson and that he, SHURTLEFF, would ask enson to pay $2 million on behalf of Robbins. 30. Approximately a month after the Mimi?s Cafe? meeting, Defendant SHURTLEFF and Swallow met with Jenson at the Pelican Hill Resort. According to Jenson, Defendant SHURTLEFF told Jenson to pay $2 million to Lawson so Lawson could pay McBride to back off of Robbins. At the time Defendant SHURTLEFF asked Jenson to pay the $2 million through Lawson to McBride, Jenson still owed over $4 million in restitution to victims as part of the plea-in-abeyance. Jenson eventually went to Prison for not paying his restitution in that case. 31. Contrary to the request or instruction of Defendant SHURTLEFF, Jenson did not pay the $2 million, or any part of it, to McBride (through Lawson or otherwise). On August 23, 2011, the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce ?led an Information, charging Marc enson with eight counts of Second Degree Felonies, including Communications Fraud, Money Laundering, and Pattern of Unlawful Activity (Third District Court Case No. 111906135), having to do with the Mount Holly project. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEF DAO 14012686 Page 11 32. Starting in 2011, the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce was also investigating Lawson in connection with Lawson?s dealings with Edward Donner. Lawson initially declined the request for an interview with attorneys from the Attorney General?s Of?ce. In May 2012, the Attorney General?s Of?ce ?con?icted out? only the Lawson investigation to the Utah Department of Public Safety. It did not initiate the procedure to ?con?ict out? the enson?s 2011 case until it ?led State?s Notice of Voluntary Recusal and Motion to Withdraw on July 17, 2013. JEREMY JOHNSON, ONLINE POKER, AND THE PRIVATE JET 33. During Defendant 2008 Attorney General re-election campaign, Jeremy Johnson, a St. George, Utah businessman, contributed approximately $50,000.00 to Defendant SHURTLEF F?s campaign. Johnson owned and operated, among other entities, 1 Works, Inc. and Elite Debit, Inc. I Works, Inc. provided services or sold products through negative option continuity programs, while Elite Debit, Inc. engaged in the business of processing payments online. A negative option continuity program is one in which a consumer purchases a product and is automatically enrolled in a membership program that results in recurring charges to the consumer?s credit card that continue until the consumer cancels the membership. Prior to Johnson?s making that contribution, the Utah Consumer Protection Bureau had cited I Works, Inc. for numerous counts of consumer protection violations. 34. In or about September 2009, Johnson invested millions of dollars into the troubled SunFirst Bank, an FDIC-insured ?nancial institution in St. George, Utah. Starting in December 2009, Johnson utilized SunFirst Bank to process Elite Debit?s online poker transactions in violation of federal and Utah state law. 35. On February 13, 2010, Swallow, while the Chief Civil Deputy in the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce, emailed Johnson for the purpose of joining services provided by Richard Rawle?s Check City payday loan processing with Johnson?s I Works? online marketing capabilities. Swallow had been legal counsel for Rawle?s Check City before joining the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce. Swallow remained ?nancially and professionally connected to and a close personal friend of Rawle after Swallow joined the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce. Swallow explained, in his e-mail exchange with Jeremy Johnson that I Works, Inc. was getting a ?discount? with the online money processing because of Swallow?s relationship with Rawle. 36. On March 4, 2010, an attorney representing the online poker industry sent Johnson and his business partner, Chad Elie, an e-mail with a draft opinion regarding the issue of whether Texas Hold?Em was a game of chance or a game of skill. The attorney asked Johnson and Chad STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 12. Elie to ?deliver this to the Utah AG and request he meet next week. . .with me and the Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance who he already Johnson forwarded the e-mail to Swallow?s personal e-mail account, iohn.swallow1@me.com. and asked whether ?we? could do this. Swallow responded, don?t know yet. I?m abt half way through the doc. Mark get?s (sic) back tomorrow from DC and well (sic) discuss. I?m still new enough that I?ve got to see what we can and can?t do. I like the analysis so far.? 37. On March 8, 2010, Swallow e?mailed Johnson from his personal e-mail, informing Johnson that he and Defendant SHURTLEFF had discussed the draft opinion. Swallow opined that Utah law was more restrictive than federal law on that issue, but that he had some ideas that should help. 38. On March 11, 2010, a representative of the online poker industry e-mailed Defendant assistant and Defendant SHURTLEF F, requesting a meeting about, among other things, ?the laws in Utah and how they govern poker.? 39. On April 1, 2010, Defendant SHURTLEFF and Swallow met with online poker industry representatives. According to the subsequent e-mail exchange, Defendant SHURTLEFF and Swallow were not in a position to deem online poker gaming legal in Utah, but that they were willing to submit a supporting amicus brief if the industry were to engage in legal proceedings seeking a determination that online poker was legal in Utah. 40. On July 2, 2010, an online poker industry attorney e-mailed Johnson, informing him that the industry intended to ?le suit in Utah to obtain a favorable ruling for the online poker industry. The attorney asked Johnson to obtain the Utah Attorney General?s ?View? of the industry prior to the ?ling of the legal proceedings. The attorney also wanted the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce to ?weigh in with an Amicus brief" in support of the industry?s legal proceeding. 41. On July 4, 2010, Johnson forwarded the e-mail from the online poker industry?s attorney to Swallow?s personal email account, iohn.swallowl@me.com. Johnson stated, in the e-mail, that the industry?s position was that while Utah law was unclear regarding the legality of playing online poker, the processing of online poker payments was legal. On July 5, 2010, Swallow responded to Johnson?s e-mail, stating ?Jeremy, I am not aware of any such law in Utah to prohibit what you are doing.? Swallow then wrote that he would have an attorney in the of?ce review the issue. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 13 42. In 2010, Johnson was under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in connection with the operation of I Works, Inc. In or about August 2010, Johnson contacted Swallow, then Chief Civil Deputy in the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce, asking for assistance regarding the FTC investigation. On August 25, Swallow sent Defendant SHURTLEFF an e- mail from his personal e-mail account (iohnswallow@gmail.com relaying Johnson?s request to meet with United States Senator Orrin Hatch about the investigation. 43. On September 29, 2010, Swallow sent an e-mail to Johnson, informing him that he had spoken with Richard Rawle, who had a connection, through a contact person, with United States Senator Harry Reid. Swallow stated that the price to obtain access to Rawle?s contact person likely ?won?t be cheap.? 44. On October 7, 2010, Johnson sent Rawle an e-mail with the subject line ?Senator Reid.? Johnson began the e-mail with talked to John Swallow and he said you might have some connections to Reid that would be helpful to us.? Johnson?s e-mail also described the pursuit of shutting down companies that use negative options, as I Works, Inc. did. 45. On December 21, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission ?led its civil Complaint against Johnson in US. District Court for the District of Nevada in connection with Johnson?s business practices at I Works, Inc. and Elite Debit. On June 15, 2011, Johnson was indicted for Mail Fraud in the US. District Court for the District of Utah. The Indictment alleged that I Works, Inc. marketed many products using negative option continuity programs and ?forced up-sells? techniques while utilizing the US. Mail for, among other things, the shipment of various products to consumers 46. During the same period of time, in or about February 2011, Defendant SHURTLEFF stayed, without paying, at one of the homes owned by Johnson, the ?Green House? in St. George, Utah, for several days. The value of the bene?t received by Defendant SHURTLEF F, in connection with that trip, exceeded $1,000. 47. Defendant SHURTLEFF also utilized Johnson?s personal aircraft for travel to and from Salt Lake City and St. George, Utah, as well as to travel to and from California. On at least one such trip, a companion traveled with Defendant SHURTLEFF. The value of the bene?t Defendant SHURTLEF received, in connection with the use of that aircraft, exceeded $1,000. 48. Johnson wired $50,000 (on November 2, 2010) and $200,000 (on December 2, 2010), to RMR Consulting, LLC, a company which was owned and operated by Rawle. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 14 49. Swallow, while Chief Civil Deputy in Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce, owned and operated Solutions, LLC, a Utah business entity with a registered address in Sandy, Utah. In or around November 2010, Rawle paid Swallow $8,500.00 from the funds wired by Johnson into the RMR Consulting bank account. The deposit of the $8,500 occurred in Sandy, Utah. Swallow received an additional $15,000, via check paid to Solutions LLC, in April 2011, also from the Rawle?s RMR Consulting bank account. JONATHAN EBORN AND PAY-TO-PLAY 50. Jonathan Ebom, a business associate of Johnson, was the owner and operator of Infusion Media, an internet marketing company that utilized negative option continuity credit card billing. In 2008, Infusion Media was under the scrutiny of the Utah Consumer Protection Bureau for fraudulent credit card charges. According to Ebom, Defendant SHURTLEFF stated that Johnson was a legitimate businessman when he, Defendant SHURTLEFF, knew that Johnson?s I Works, Inc. was targeted by the Utah Consumer Protection Bureau. 51. On or about October 31, 2008, Ebom attended a fundraiser for Defendant re-election to the of?ce of Utah Attorney General ($5,000 per person to attend). In attendance were other media marketing and telemarketing industry professionals. According to Ebom, Defendant SHURTLEFF stated, at the fundraiser, that he was not running a pay-to-play operation, but that, if an attendee should contact him regarding issues with the Utah Consumer Protection Bureau, he would defend the individual to the director of the agency. 52. Approximately two weeks after the fundraiser, in early 2009, Swallow, then Defendant campaign fundraiser, contacted Jonathan Ebom to schedule a meeting with Defendant SHURTLEFF. SHURTLEFF and Swallow visited Eborn?s business and discussed Defendant campaign. According to Ebom, Defendant SHURTLEFF informed Ebom that, if he received a complaint about Ebom from the Utah Consumer Protection Bureau, he would, as a courtesy, notify Ebom so Ebom could handle the matter before it escalated. Shortly thereafter, Swallow contacted Ebom and asked him to donate an additional $25,000 to Defendant campaign. Relying on Defendant assurances, Ebom gave $25,000 to PAC 4 Utah?s Future on or about January 8, 2009. For Defendant 2008 campaign cycle, Ebom donated a total $3 0.000. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEF DAO 14012686 Page 15 53. In May, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission ?led a Complaint against Infusion Media, Ebom?s company Defendant SHURTLEF eventually re?inded $18,000 of Ebom?s donation to the FTC receiver. THE BELLS AND THE MORTGAGE REDUCTION 54. On March 16, 2011, Timothy and Jennifer Bell ?led suit against Bank of America and Recon Trust, a subsidiary of Bank of America and a successor trustee of the Bell mortgage, in Utah Federal District Court, challenging the foreclosure practices of Recon Trust in the foreclosure of the Bells? residence (5346 South Cottonwood Lane) in Salt Lake County. The defendants? Motion to Dismiss was denied on March 15, 2012. 55. In March 2012, Jerry Jensen, an Assistant Attorney General in the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce, notified Swallow, then Chief Civil Deputy, of the State?s intent to intervene in the Bells? case. On April 12, 2012, the State ?led its Motion to Intervene, seeking to prohibit Recon Trust, a Texas corporation without a place of business in the State, from conducting non- judicial foreclosures in Utah. The State?s Motion to Intervene was granted on July 26, 2012. 56. On June 8, 2012, while the State?s Motion to Intervene was pending before US. District Court Judge Bruce Jenkins, Timothy Bell sought out Jessica Fawson, a campaign staffer for Swallow?s 2012 Utah Attorney General campaign offering help with that campaign. 57. On August 7, 2012, Swallow and Defendant SHURTLEFF met with Bank of America attorneys and lobbyists to discuss the Bells? litigation. 58. On August 17, 2012, the Bells hosted a fundraiser for Swallow. The fundraiser was held at the Bells? residence in Salt Lake County, the same residence that was the subject of the foreclosure litigation. The actual cost of the Bells? fundraiser was $28,024.46, but BellMed, the Bells? company, and the Swallow campaign reported an in?kind donation as $15,000. 59. On August 22, 2012, Timothy Bell contacted Seth Crossley (another Swallow campaign staffer) and inquired about the best time to discuss his Bank of America lawsuit with Swallow. On August 27, 2012, Swallow had a telephone conference with Bank of America lobbyists. 60. On September 27, 2012, Judge Jenkins ordered disclosure of negotiations. The court record re?ected that Swallow personally participated in discussions with the defense. STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 16 61. According to Defendant calendar, on October 30 and 31, 2012, Defendant SHURTLEFF interviewed for a position with the law ?rm Troutman Sanders LLP. According to the ?rm?s website, Bank of America is a major client of the ?rm. 62. On October 30, 2012, the Bells were accepted into a loan modi?cation program with Bank of America that they had sought for several months to be accepted into. The Bells received signi?cant reductions in the loan principal and in the interest rate. The modi?cation the Bells received entailed a $1.13 million reduction in their loan balance, and reduction of their loan interest rate from 7.5% to 2.65%. The modi?cation did not affect the pending litigation on behalf of thousands of Utahans whose interests in foreclosure were being represented by the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce. 63. According to Brian Farr, a Division Chief in the Utah Attorney General?s Of?ce, Swallow told him, on November 15, 2012, that Swallow may have given Bank of America the impression that, if the Bells? case settled, the State?s intervention in the litigation would cease. 64. On December 1, 2012, Swallow informed the assigned attorney, Jerry Jensen, that he, Jerry Jensen, would no longer be handling the case. In December 2012, Jerry Jensen advised Defendant SHURTLEFF that he believed the State?s case was strong and that the State would prevail on a Motion for Summary Judgment. 65. On December 19, 2012, Defendant SHURTLEFF personally contacted the Bank of America lobbyist and told him that the State would dismiss its case. On December 27, 2012, Defendant SHURTLEFF signed the State?s Motion to Dismiss. 66. Defendant SHURTLEFF joined the law ?rm of Troutman Sanders in January 2013. The total value of the compensation exceeded $1,000. 67. On January 7, 2013, Swallow became the new Utah Attorney General. On January 15, 2013, Federal District Judge Jenkins demanded to know the reason why the Attorney General?s Of?ce dismissed claim in intervention and ordered the State to reconsider its position. The Attorney General?s Of?ce informed Judge Jenkins that it would not reverse a prior Attorney General?s decision. 68. On May 6, 2013, .B.I. agents interviewed Defendant SHURTLEFF in the Salt Lake County F.B.I. of?ce. During the interview, Defendant SHURTLEFF provided numerous pieces of false information, including, but not limited to, false information regarding the Utah Attorney STATE vs MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DAO 14012686 Page 17 General?s Of?ce plea agreement negotiation practices, campaign donations, and gifts or bribes received by him, Defendant SHURTLEFF. 69. On June 1, 2013, the Salt Lake Tribune published an article stating that Defendant SHURTLEFF had resigned from the law ?rm of Troutman Sanders LLP. Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated (2008) I declare under criminal penalty of the State of Utah that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my belief and knowledge. Agent S. Nesbitt Declarant Executed . Oil/H Special A J. Isaksonw Declarant Authorized for presentment and ?ling Curl/ll SIM GILL, District Attorney for Salt Lake County 10th day of July, 2014 DAO #14012686 9% TRO GS, District Attorney for Davis County 9th of ly, 2014 DAO 4012686 SO OTN DAO 14012686 at; .. IN THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE DEPARTMENT mm! ?i IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SALT LAKE, STATE OF UTAH 3y THE STATE OF UTAH, Before: Ve rmEe Tron Se, Plaintiff, Magistrate vs. MARK LEONARD SHURTLEFF DOB: 08/09/1957, 2020 East Candle Spruce Cove WARRANT OF ARREST Sandy, Utah 84092 Case No. Defendant. <7 0 7 7010 THE STATE OF To any Peace Of?cer in the State of Utah, Greetings: An Information, based upon a written declaration having been declared by Agent S. Nesbitt, Agency Case No. 12DPSOS70, and Special Agent J. Isakson, Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI. Case No. 194A-SU-68452, and it appears from the Information or Declaration ?led with the Information, that there is probable cause to believe that the public offense(s) of; PATTERN OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY, RECEIVING OR SOLICITING A BRIBE (3 Counts), ACCEPTING A GIFT (2 Counts), and ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT THAT WOULD IMPAIR JUDGEMENT, Second Degree Felonies, and TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS, TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, Third Degree Felonies, have been committed, and that MARK LEONARD SHURTLEF has committed them. SO OTN DAO 14012686 YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED to arrest the above-named defendant forthwith and bring the defendant before this Court, or before the nearest or most accessible magistrate for setting bail. If the defendant has ?ed justice, you shall pursue the defendant into any other county of this state and there arrest the defendant. The Court ?nds reasonable grounds to believe defendant will not appear upon a summons. Bail is set in the amount of $250,000. Dated this day of July, 2014SERVED DATE: j/ BY Ma+l~ Lot-run Tet? Fla/U; A: .. .. .