STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT 5 ARCHER, Rock County, WI Plaintiff, Case No. v. JOHN CHISHOLM, Case Code: 30106, 30107 Milwaukee County Safety Building, 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 3' AVID ROBLES Milwaukee County Safety Building, 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 2 AUTHENTICATED BRUCE LANDGRAF g" i Milwaukee County Safety Building, 6 7015 821 West State St., Room 405 a. I I Milwaukee, WI 53233 7, 71mm; if?w Illerk ott??rcuil Court, ROBERT STELTER - Milwaukee County Safety Building, to 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 DAVID BUDDE Milwaukee County Safety Building, 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 Defendants. SUMMONS THE STATE OF WISCONSIN - TO EACH PERSON NAMED ABOVE AS A DEFENDANT: 1 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 36 DocumenEx?hibit A You are hereby noti?ed that the Plaintiff named above has ?led a lawsuit or other legal action against you. The Complaint, which is attached, states the nature and basis of the legal action. Within forty?five (45) days of receiving this Summons, you must respond with a written answer, as that term is used in Chapter 802 of the Wisconsin Statutes, to the Complaint. The court may reject or disregard an answer that does not follow the requirements Of the statutes. The answer must be sent or delivered to the court, whose address is 901 North 9th Street, Room 104, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233, and to Plaintiff?s attorneys, Krista rBaisch and James B. Barton, whose address is 316 North Milwaukee Street, Suite 200, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202. You may have an attorney help or represent you. If you do not provide a proper answer Within 45 days, the court may grant judgment against you for the awardof money or other legal action requested in the complaint, and you may lose your right to object to anything that is or may be incorrect in the complaint. A judgment may be enforced as provided by law. A judgment awarding money may become a lien against any real estate you own now or in the future, and may also be enforced by garnishment or seizure of property. BLOCK ON FOLLOWING 2 . Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 36 Document 1-1 Dated this day of July, 2015. UEGER LLC A Barton, SBN 1068900 316 North Milwaukee Street, Suite 20 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 326-4941 Fax: (414) 273-8476 Co-Counsel: BAKER HOSTETLER LLP David B. Rivkin Jr. (pro hac vice forthcoming) 7 77 77 7 77777 77 7 7 7 7 Washington Square, Suite 1100 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC. 20036 Phone: (202) 861-1731 Fax: (202) 861-1783 6' 3 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 36 Document 1-1 STATE OF WISCONSIN ARCHER, Rock County, WI Plaintiff, V. JOHN CHISHOLM, Milwaukee County Safety Building, 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 DAVID ROBLES Milwaukee County Safety Building, 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 BRUCE LANDGRAF Milwaukee County Safety Building, 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 CIRCUIT COURT gt 1: m: Case No. Case Code: 30106, 30107 ROBERT STELTER Milwaukee County Safety Building, 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 DAVID BUDDE Milwaukee County Safety Building, 821 West State St., Room 405 Milwaukee, WI 53233 Defendants. FILED AN if? a? ALWE ETECATED JUL tit fl. 2015 litmus 7 chamomile-moist? as; L4 MILWAUKEE COUNTY @3339 IQ .I COMPLAINT NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Archer, by and through her attorneys, Baker Hostetler LLP and Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC, and for her Complaint againSt ?1 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 4 of 36 Document 1-1 Defendants John Chisholm, David, Robles, Bruce Landgraf, Robert Stelter, and David Budde, alleges and shows the Court as follows: 1. Since at least May 2010, the Milwaukee County District Attomey?s Office, under the direction of Defendant Chisholm, has conducted a continuous campaign of harassment and intimidation against individuals and organizations in retaliation for their association with Scott Walker and their support for his policies, especially public-sector collective-bargaining reforms, including 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 (?Act Defendants orchestrated home raids, issued invasive subpoenas, badgered victims in secret interrogations, and took numerous other actions calculated to silence the voices that favored Walker?s agenda and to punish'his allies for their support of and association with him. 2. The purpose of these actions was retaliation. Defendant Chisholm informed subordinates in his office that it was his duty to ?stop? Governor Walker from reforming public- sector unions in Wisconsin, and individuals at all levels of the office understood that the ongoing investigation into Walker?s aides was undertaken for the purpose of ending Walker?s political career and reversing his policies. That purpose was con?rmed in the actions of Chisholm and his subordinates between 2010 and 2014. All Defendants were aware of that purpose and shared it. 3. Plaintiff Archer was a longtime close aide to Scott Walker and instrumental in drafting Act 10 and securing its enactment. Because of her association with Walker and her supp01t of his policies, Defendants targeted Archer for investigation, seized her professional and personal email communications, staged a raid on her Madison home, directly or indirectly leaked this event to reporters, and interrogated her at least seven times in Madison and Milwaukee. The scope of Defendants? warrant and searches was limitless, and Defendants detained Archer in her home for hours of questioning without giving her a Miranda warning. 2 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 5 of 36 Document 1-1 Defendants had no probable cause to believe she had committed a crime and never charged her or anyone else in any of the pretextual inquiries they claimed to be investigating as to Archer. . 4. Defendants? actions, as they anticipated, devastated Archer. She suffered severe mental and emotional distress as a direct result of Defendants? actions. This was the proximate result of Defendants? retaliatory purpose and would not have occurred otherwise. THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Archer is an individual residing in Rock County, Wisconsin. 6. Defendant John Chisholm is the District Attorney of Milwaukee County and, on information and belief, resides in Milwaukee County. He is named as a defendant in his personal . capacity. 7. Defendant David Robles is an Assistant District Attorney of Milwaukee County and, on information and belief, resides in Milwaukee County. He is named as a defendant in his personal capacity. 8. Defendant Bruce Landgraf is an Assistant District Attorney iniMilwaukee County and, on information and belief, resides in Milwaukee County. He is named as a defendant in his personal capacity. 9. Defendant Robert Stelter is an investigator in the Milwaukee County District Attorney?s of?ce and, on information and belief, resides in Milwaukee County. He is named as a defendant in his personal capacity. 10. Defendant David Budde is an investigator in the Milwaukee County District Attorney?s of?ce and, on information and belief, resides in Milwaukee County. He is named a defendant in his personal capacity. 3 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 6 of 36 Document 1-1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Wis. Stat. 801 because Defendants are domiciled in this state and because all Defendants conduct substantial, non-isolated activities within this state. 12. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to Wis. Stat. (0) because it is the County in which this claim arose, Defendants reside in this County, and Defendants conduct substantial, non?isolated activities within this County. I. LONGTIME POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH WALKER AND HER ROLE IN CRAFTING AND ADVOCATING FOR ACT 10 13. Archer is a longtime public servant in Wisconsin state and local government. She began her career as a budget analyst in the Wisconsin budget of?ce and worked her way through A A 77W 7 Deputy Secretary of Administration, effectively third in command in Wisconsin government. 14. Most of her positions have been with Republican administrations. These include civil-service and appointed positions. 15. In 2006, Archer interviewed with then?Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker to become budget director for the Department of Administrative Services in Milwaukee County. She was hired for the position and reported to the Director of Administrative Services. 16. In her capacity as budget director, Archer became a valuable policy advisor to then?County Executive Walker and Walker came to rely on her to carry out his agenda for the County. Archer became a supporter of Walker?s policy. agenda, unlike many career County employees and of?cers. In 2008, Archer was promoted to the Director of Administrative Services in Milwaukee County. 4 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 7of 36 Document 1-1 17. Archer was well suited for her role as the Director of Administrative Services because of her Master?s degree in Public Policy and Administration, her diligence in carrying out the Walker agenda, and her experience in similar positions in both state and local governments. 18. In her new role, Archer was effectively third in command in the County, behind County Executive Scott Walker and his Chief of Staff, Tom Nardelli. The Department of Administration oversaw most agencies of the County government. Accordingly, Archer played a key role in developing and implementing Walker?s policy agenda. 19. Archer also played a key role in advocating for Walker?s policy agenda within County government, including within the other County departments and before the County Board of Supervisors. Walker relied on her almost exclusively to carry forward his message and agenda. 20. In her role as Director of Administrative Services, Archer oversaw labor negotiations with the union representing Milwaukee County employees. Given the various dif?culties she experienced in dealing with the union, she came to believe that public-sector unions in WisConsin had become too powerful and that their power should be curtailed so as to better serve the public interest. 21. During her tenure in the Milwaukee County Executive?s Of?ce, Archer became acquainted with Defendant John Chisholm. Chisholm was aware of Archer?s association with Walker and her support for Walker?s policies. On information and belief, the other Defendants also became aware of these things. 22. When Scott Walker was elected governor in November 2010, he resigned as County Executive. Archer joined Walker?s transition team in creating a new state administration 5 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 8 of 36 Document 1-1 in Madison. In that role, Archer interviewed potential appointees for various government positions, and she played a lead role in crafting policy for the Walker administration. 23. Archer was appointed Deputy Secretary of Administration in the Walker administration. She answered to the Secretary of Administration and was second in command in the state Department of Administration. As in Milwaukee County, the Department of Administration oversees most departments of state government and is generally Viewed as the most significant agency in Wisconsin government. Archer was therefore one of the top government of?cers in Wisconsin state government. 24. Walker appointed Archer to this role because of her prior experience in supporting and implementing his ?scal, policy, and political agendas, because they had a strong relationship from their time together in Milwaukee County, and because Walker knew that Archer would be an effective administrator. 25. Archer?s annual salary in this role was 26. When Walker proposed substantial public-sector collective-bargaining reforms, Archer played a lead role in crafting and implementing them. This role, however, was not inherent to her position as Deputy Secretary of Administration. Rather, recognizing the importance of the reforms and believing strongly that they represented substantial progress for Wisconsin, Archer took the initiative to participate in the policy-making, advising, drafting, and implementation processes. 27. Archer took a lead role in overseeing the drafting of the legislation to ensure that the legislation re?ected the Governor?s intent and would succeed. Her review and analysis included every detail of the legislation, including making sure the appropriate classes?of public- sector employees were covered in the legislation and ensuring the legislation did not con?ict 6 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 9 of 36 Document 1-1 - with existing statutory language or the Governor?s intent. She was in regular contact with Walker during this process. Because of Archer and Walker?s shared experience in managing relations with public?sector unions, Archer was also able to provide advice to the Governor and his policy staff and draw their attention to issues they might not have otherwise recognized. 28. Both before and after Act 10 was passed, Archer became a point person for responding to Act lO?related inquiries from legislators, government of?cers and employees statewide. This role arose because Archer was intimately familiar with the details of the bill. Archer handled inquiries and complaints frOm Walker?s cabinet and other state of?cials, as well as from the public university and various school districts and county-level of?ces and of?cials. Through this role Archer became associated with Act 10 in the minds of public of?cials and employees statewide, including in Milwaukee. 29. It was common knowledge in Milwaukee, Madison, and across the state?through news publications and through word of mouth?that Archer played a crucial role in drafting Act 10, supporting its passage, and implementing its provisions once enaCted. On information and belief, all defendants became aware of these facts. All defendants also were aware of her political and policy-related association with Walker both in Milwaukee County and in Madison once Walker became governor. II. OPPOSITION TO WALKER AND ACT 10 AND THEIR RETALIATORY PURPOSE 30. Between January 2011 and June 2012, Wisconsin underwent the most tumultuous period of political events in recent history. 31. .OnNovember 2, 2010, candidates of the Republican Party won control of the executive and legislative branches of Wisconsin?s government. Scott Walker was elected 7 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 10 of 36 Document 1-1 governor. He was inducted into of?ce on January 3, 2011. Prior to that time, beginning in April 2002, Mr. Walker served as County Executive for Milwaukee County. 32. Projecting severe budget shortfalls, the Walker gubernatorial administration proposed a ?Budget Repair Bill? (also known as Act 10) in February 2011, which included various public-sector union reforms. Believing these reforms to be an existential threat to some Wisconsin unions, thousands of protestors ?ooded Madison, and protests were staged across the state. State senators opposing the Bill ?ed the state in an effort to thwart its passage by denying a quorum. The events gained nationwide press coverage. 7 i i 33. Walker and his legislative allies succeeded in passing Act 10 on March 10, 2011, and the protests continued. Other efforts to reverse Act 10 were commenced, including numerous lawsuits. Death threats were made against Act 10 supporters, including Walker. 34. Recall efforts were undertaken against state-legislators, including supporters and opponents of Act 10, resulting in special elections for a record nine legislators in 2.011 and 2012. A recall effort was also launched against Governor Walker in November 2011, resulting in a special election on June 5, 2012. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was selected as Walker?s Democratic opponent in the recall election. Walker was victorious in that election. 35. Defendant Chisholm is?and was during that time period?the District Attorney for Milwaukee County, a partisan elected office. Defendant Chisholm campaigned for that office as a member of the Democratic Party. 36. Defendants Landgraf and Robles are assistant district attorneys and play leadership roles in Chisholm?s administration. On information and belief, they were promoted to those roles at least in part because they share Chisholm?s political convictions. 8 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 11 of 36 Document 1-1 37. Defendants Budde and Stelter are lead investigators in Chisholm?s of?ce and play similar leadership roles. On information and belief, they were promoted to those roles at least in part because they share Chisholm?s political convictions. 38. Defendant Chisholm has received signi?cant support for his campaigns from labor unions, including unions affected by Act 10. 39. Defendant Chisholm is a political ally of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett?a two? time Democratic gubematorial candidate and two?time Walker opponent. Chisholm expressly advocated for Barrett?s reelection as mayor in 2008, but did nOt report his advocacy-as a contribution to Barrett. On information and belief, Chisholm has lent Mr. Barrett other political support at various times in their respective political careers. 40. On information and belief, Chisholm supported Barrett over Walker for the 2010 gubernatorial election. Chisholm and Walker were political antagonists, and there were several points of contention between them. if 41. Like many public-sector employment divisions, assistant district attorneys in Wisconsin are represented by a union, which was affected by Act 10. Under Act 10, assistant district attorneys, including Defendants Landgraf and Robles, were required to contribute more to their health care and pension plans than was required previously, resulting in a direct ?nancial impact to them. 42. During the political upheaval surrounding Act 10, including in 2011 and 2012, the Milwaukee County District Attorney?s Office became a hotbed of pro-union, anti?Act 10, and anti?Walker activity. Among other things, ?Blue-Fist? signs were posted in various public areas of the Milwaukee County. District Attorney?s Of?ce. and in the parking lot, representing solidarity with the unions? political efforts against Walker. 9 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 12 of 36 Document 1-1 43. These signs were plainly visible in areas that Chisholm visite?d daily, and, on information and belief, Chisholm expressly or impliedly encouraged these expressions of opposition to Mr. Walker and made no effort to have the signs removed. 44. Numerous employees of Chisholm?s of?ce supported the demonstrations against Walker?s reforms, advocated for these demonstrations, and participated in these demonstrations during of?ce hours. On information and belief, Chisholm was aware or should have been aware of this activity yet took no corrective action. 45. On information and belief, Defendants Chisholm, Landgraf, and Robles lent express or implied support to these campaign activities on County property. 46. Frequent discussions were held during of?ce hours, on County time, by assistant district attorneys and others complaining about the purported negative impact of Walker?s reforms on assistant district attorney pay and on public unions generally. On information and belief, Defendants Chisholm, Landgraf, and Robles shared these views, never took corrective action, and expressly or impliedly encouraged this activity during work-hours. 47. At least 43 and possibly as many as 70 employees within Chisholm?s of?ce signed the petition advocating for the recall of Governor Walker. This included at least one Deputy District Attorney, 19 Assistant District Attorneys, and other members of the District Attorney?s Public Integrity Unit. 48. Just one of many examples of the support provided by individuals in Chisholm?s of?ce was a ?Recall Walker? yard sign identi?ed in the front lawn of the residence of Defendant Budde. Budde and the other Defendants, on information and belief, supported the recall effort and advocated against Walker?s policies, especially concerning collective bargaining. 10 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 13 of 36 Document 1-1 49. As of April 2012, employees in Chisholm?s of?ce had donated to Democratic over Republican candidates by roughly a four to one ratio. 50. Defendant Chisholm?s wife, Colleen, is a public School teacher and a union shop steward for the union representing the employees at her school. That union was also affected by Act 10. Chisholm and his wife attended anti-Act 10 rallies. 51. In March 2011, around the time Act 10 passed, Defendant Chisholm informed a junior prosecutor in his of?ce, Michael Lutz, of Chisholm?s personal, emotional, and political interest in the ongoing budget reform debate. 52. Mr. Lutz informed Chisholm that he had interest in working on the campaign of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, who is generally believed to be associated with conservative politics and legal positions. Mr. Lutz also informed Chisholm that Mr. Prosser was interested in meeting with Chisholm to discuss criminal justice reform issues and eXplore the possibility of support by Chisholm for Prosser?s campaign. 53. Defendant Chisholm informed Mr. Lutz that neither Mr. Lutz nor anyone else in Chisholm?s of?ce would be permitted to participate in usticc Prosser?s campaign. 54. Defendant Chisholm informed Mr. Lutz that he could not support any right- leaning candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In particular, Chisholm expressed the concern that Act 10 would likely be subject to litigation and come before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Defendant Chisholm expressed that he ?could not stand? to have Justice Prosser on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, given that Justice Prosser would likely vote to uphold Act 10. 55. Mr. Lutz understood Chisholm?s statements to be a threat of termination if Mr. Lutz supported Justice Prosser?s campaign. 11 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 14 of 36 Document 1-1 5 6. In the same meeting, Chisholm informed Mr. Lutz that Act 10 was devastating to unions and their members and that Chisholm believed it was his ?duty? to ?stop Governor Walker from treating people that way.? 57. Defendant Chisholm informed Mr. Lutz that Chisholm?s wife was often moved to tears after talking to her fellow teachers concerning the potential effects of Act 10. Chisholm informed Mr. Lutz that his wife cried at home after discussions of Act 10. 58. Defendant Chisholm also informed Mr. Lutz that he had a personal dislike for Governor Walker that stemmed from their interactions, when Walker served as Milwaukee?s County Executive. 59. Based on these statements and corroborating statements by Chisholm?s subordinates, Mr. Lutz concluded that Defendant Chisholm was allowing partisan animus to in?uence his of?cial decisions as the Milwaukee County District Attorney. 60. On information and belief, Chisholm impliedly or expressly informed other subordinates?including all Defendants?that he opposed Act 10 and Walker?s other policies. They understood that the means to promotion in his of?ce was by using their power as prosecutors and investigators in a manner that would be politically advantageous for Chisholm and politically disadvantageous for Walker and Act 10. RETALIATORY ACTIONS 61. In order to ?stop? Walker, Defendants worked in tandem to launch and conduct an aggressive investigation into him, his associates, and his supporters. 62. The ostensible basis Defendants used to launch this campaign of harassment was a tip provided by Walker?s own Chief of Staff, Nardelli, who told Defendant Budde in April 2009 that a few thousand dollars had gone missing from a local charity. Nardelli informed Budde 12 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 15 of 36 Document 1-1 that Nardelli believed that an individual named Kevin Kavanaugh had stolen these funds. From April 2009 to May 2010, however, Chisholm?s of?ce did little if anything to investigate the matter and took no action against Kavanaugh. 63. But in May 2010, when Walker emerged as the leading candidate for the governorship, Chisholm?s of?ce sprang to action. Defendant Landgraf, working with the other Defendants, asked a judge to open a John Doe investigation into the missing funds. 64. In fact, the missing money was a pretext, and the purpose was to obtain warrants to raid Walker?s of?ce, which Defend-ants did within a week. There were multiple other misrepresentations and half?truths in the John Doe petition. The purpose was political. 65-. Defendants immediately targeted the private email accounts of Walker aides and began seeking to expand the investigation until the investigation had become an open?ended ?shing expedition. None of the additional avenues of investigation bore any relation to the missing charitable funds. 66. Instead, their targets were Walker?s associates and employees as well as a donor to his campaign. The only common denominator among the various pretextual lines of investigation was Walker. The actual purpose of the investigation was to retaliate against Walker and his associates for their political and policy positions. 67. Defendants sought and obtained all emails in the custody of individuals of whom they had no probable cause to suspect any criminal activity and did not even represent to be targets. The John Doe judge repeatedly granted requests of this nature and did not place any meaningful limits on the emails Defendants could obtain from non?targets. 13 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 16 of 36 Document 1-1 68. After rummaging through these material at will, Defendants would then claim they had a basis for targeting other persons, and the process would repeat itself. All targets Defendants selected for their investigation were connected to Walker in some way. 69. In written correspOndence to Defendant Chisholm, Mr. Nardelli expressed his View that the John Doe investigation was unnecessary because all the relevant facts to obtain a conviction regarding the embezzled funds had been discovered. Mr. Nardelli expressed his concern that Defendant Chisholm was undertaking the investigation out of an improper political motive to harm Scott Walker?s bid for governor. 70. This was but one of many examples of recognition by persons involved and observers that the investigation was conducted for political purposes. A Wisconsin circuit court judge, in a case brought by an individual jailed by Landgraf, observed on the record in open court that the purpose of Landgraf?s actions was political. Attorneys for various individuals that were targeted or questioned by Defendants expressed amazement at Defendants? outrageous actions. 71. Defendants staged raids at an unknown number of homes and businesses, they jailed witnesses who did not provide incriminating testimony against Walker or those close to him, and they engaged in surveillance of electronic communications to targets and non-targets alike. Defendants questioned witnesses in secret sessions, usually not in the presence of a judge, and verbally abused those witnesses?such as by screaming at them?in an effort to intimidate them and persuade them to give incriminating testimony against Walker. 72. Many of the events were timed around significant political events, such as a raid .of the County Executive?s of?ce the day before the 2010 gubernatorial election. 14 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 17 of 36 Document 1-1 73. Defendants directly and indirectly leaked information about their investigation to reporters to smear the reputations of Walker aides and associates and to in?uence the debate about collective?bargaining reforms and, later, the recall efforts and special elections. The leaked information became fodder for anti-Walker attack advertisements. 74. - One method of conveying secret information obtained in the investigation to the press was through overbroad criminal complaints, which included information concerning Walker even though that information had no bearing on the alleged criminal activity and did not remotely demonstrate the guilt of the accused. Multiple Defendants, including Budde and Stelter, were involved in drafting these complaints, and they did so for political purposes. Defendant Landgraf took similar actions in sentencing hearings where he disclosed political information to the press corps that had little or nothing to do with the defendant being sentenced. 75. This information also became fodder for anti?Walker attack advertisements during the recall petition drive and special election from 2011 through 2012. That was the natural and probable consequence of diSclosing unnecessary political information to the public, and Defendants intended that result, further evidencing their retaliatory purpose. 76. Meanwhile, targets and witnesses were told that they could not defend their reputations or otherwise speak about the investigation on pain of contempt because of a secrecy order imposed by the John Doe judge. Those involved therefore had to watch in silence as their reputations and, in some cases, livelihoods were destroyed, as a result of the actions of Defendants. They were also afraid to report Defendants? ?agrant abuses occurring in secret interrogation sessions. 77. Inlthe two?year period between May 2010 and .May 2012, the investigation was formally expanded at least 18 times, 15 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 18 of 36 Document 1-1 78. In August 2012, Defendant Robles petitioned for a second John Doe proceeding, also to target Walker, his campaign, and his supporters. Subsequently, four additional separate proceedings were commenced, and Defendants continued their retaliatory efforts against Walker through these investigations and through independent means, until a judge ?nally scrutinized their stated basis for investigation and found that their actions in these proceedings were unsupported by probable cause. Since then, Defendants have explored every avenue possible to continue to carry out their political vendetta against Walker and his supporters. IV. DEFENDANTS INVADE HOME 79. Sometime in late spring 2011, Defendants set their sights on Archer. Act 10 ?had recently passed, and protests and civil unrest engulfed the state. Defendants were participants in and supporters of those efforts and had by this time, at the very latest, turned the John Doe investigation to political uses. 80. Defendants were aware of Archer?s role in drafting and advocating for the reforms-they opposed. They were also aware of her longstanding association with, and close ties to, Walker as his political appointee and supporter. Archer was targeted in retaliation for her political and policy views, her actions and speech to promote those views, and her expressive associations with and in support of Walker. 81. Defendants directly or indirectly leaked to the media that Archer was a target. A reporter asked Governor Walker about the investigation in June 2011. The reporter stated that ?the talk at the courthouse right now is that the John Doe investigation has been focusing on your current Deputy Secretary of Administration??referencing Archer. The only plausible source of that information was Chisholm?s office, and, on information and belief, that leak was directly or indirectly caused by some or all Defendants and with the approval of Defendant Chisholm, 16 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 19 of 36 Document 1-1 despite being subject to the same secrecy order imposed by the John Doe judge. At a minimum, Chisholm took no meaningful efforts to stop leaks from his of?ce or cure the damage they caused. Archer was not aware of this interview at the time and was not informed that Defendants had made her a target. 82. On or about September 13, 2011, Archer received a phone call from Steve Schultz of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He asked her whether she was a target of the John Doe investigation. Having no reason to believe she had done anything wrong, she responded in the negative. information and belief, Schultz had been tipped off directly or indirectly by Defendants about what was about to occur. 83. At dawn on September 14, 2011, roughly a dozen law?enforcement of?cers, acting under Chisholm?s orders, raided Archer?s home in Madison. David Budde and Robert Stelter were involved in overseeing the raid and coordinated it with another raid that occurred at the same time, also at the home of an associate of Walker. This raid was conducted with the support of Chisholm, Landgraf, and Robles, who intended it as retaliation for Archer?s association with Walker and support of his policies. The Defendants were aware of this purpose and shared in and supported it. 84. That morning, Archer was asleep in her bed and was not dressed. Archer?s partner was in the shower. Archer awoke at dawn to thunderous hammering on her front door and the coordinated yelling of the investigative team members, who ordered her to open the door immediately or they would break it down. The noise was suf?ciently loud to be heard throughout the neighborhood. Through a window by her bed, Archer saw a battering ram on the front lawn. '85. . Alarmed and believing the team would burst through immediately, Archer ran downstairs without dressing, and the investigators saw her naked through the glass on the front 17 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 20 of 36 Document 1-1 door. Some yelled at her to get dressed, and others ordered her to open the door. Confused, she grabbed ?clothing and dressed in their line of sight. 86. Archer, within seconds of the investigators? entrance into the house, noticed a reporter taking notes in a notebook on the sidewalk in front of her house. He appeared to have been present before the beginning of the raid and must have been tipped off about what was going to happen at Archer?s home (as Schultz had been). On information and belief, Chisholm?s of?ce was the direct or indirect source of the tip, and it was made with Chisholm?s express or implied approval. The other Defendants, including Budde and Stelter, were aware of the press coverage of the event. Before long, a swarm of reporters had gathered around Archer?s home, taking pictures, interviewing neighbors, and peering in at what was occurring. Neighbors also gathered and observed, as they could not help but hear the commotion. 87. When Archer opened the door, of?cers and others ?ooded in, throwing the warrant at her without giving her an opportunity to read it. Their guns were drawn, and Archer believed they would shoot her two dogs, who. were barking at the intruders. There was no reason to believe drawn guns or even armed of?cers were required to protect the of?cers from the two unarmed women who lived there. The purpose of these actions was retaliation, harassment, and intimidation. 88. Of?cers, acting under orders of Chisholm, Landgraf, Robles, Budde, and Stelter, invaded every corner of the home. Even after Archer informed them that her partner was in the shower, they entered the bathroom where Archer?s partner was clearly visible through the full- length clear glass door of the shower. They had no reason to believe evidence relevant to their pretextual purposes was in the bathroom while Archer?s-partner was showering. The purpose of these actions was retaliation, harassment, and intimidation. 18 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 21 of 36 Document 1-1 89. The of?cers monitored Archer?s partner while she dressed, despite that the warrant did not allow them to search or detain her and that they had no reasonably articulable suspicion that she might place them in danger. They attempted to seize her partner?s computer and cell phone despite having no authority in the warrant to seize her possessions. They would not allow her to leave the premises even though she expressed the need to leave for work where she was expected that morning; Archer?s partner was required to stay in the home, against her will, for the duration of the raid. The purpose of these actions was retaliation, harassment, and intimidation. 90. The of?cers, including Stelter, informed Archer that they intended to question her during the raid. At that point, Archer reached for her cigarettes, and the of?cers screamed at her and forbade her from leaving the residence, even for a brief period to smoke a cigarette. When Archer questioned their orders, an of?cer stated ?you can your way, but I can handcuff you right now and sit you right there??he pointed to the couch. At that point, it was clear to Archer that she was forbidden from leaving her residence. 91. Out of fear and intimidation, Archer agreed to answer their questions and to cooperate with their wishes. No one informed her that she had a constitutional right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The purpose was retaliation and harassment, as well as to intimidate Archer into providing evidence that could be used against Walker and his other associates. 92. Of?cers, including Stelter, debated among themselves as to where in the house to question Archer. Some of?cers suggested she be questioned in the basement, instead of the dining room table, even though there was no seating available in the basement, and the only table there was covered with boxes. Archer was confused and afraid because the of?cers appeared 19 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 22 of 36 Document 1-1 resistant to interviewing her in the dining room in sight of persons outside the house who may have passed by. 93. During the questioning, Archer was asked why she went to a pay phone in the preceding days indicating that the Defendants or their agents had been following her. Archer replied that she had not been to a pay phone, but rather she went to an air pump to ?ll her wheelbarrow tire. 94. Archer was questioned about her relationship with Scott Walker and events that occurred during her tenure in Milwaukee. Archer understood their questions to be focused on obtaining information related to Scott Walker. 95. 9 Members of the investigative team exhaustively searched the home, including - areas where there was little or no probability of ?nding items covered by the search warrant. They ri?ed through kitchen cabinets, dresser drawers, and closets. They went through the most intimate items in Archer?s possession with no reason to believe any evidence was there. 96. They left items Archer inherited from her mother strewn about the basement ?oor after emptying a cabinet. They left messes in other cabinets. Their purpose was to humiliate Archer. I 97. Because of the reporters outside, the news spread immediately on the internet. This was the natural and probable consequence of Defendants? actions, and they intended it. 98. Defendant Stelter and others questioned Archer about events that occurred when she worked in the Milwaukee County Executive?s Office under Walker. They had no probable cause to believe Archer committed any wrongdoing related to these events. Any concern they may have had regarding Archer?s conduct could have been resolved with simple phone call or informal interview, which would have revealed that no criminal activity occurred. 20 I Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 23 of 36 Document 1-1 99. The raid lasted several hours, much longer than necessary. After questioning Archer, the of?cers seized her computer and her phone. Before they took her phone, Archer asked if she could obtain her brother?s phone number from her contacts list. They rejected this request. Archer?s brother would ?y to Madison from Texas the next day, and they were unable to contact each other to arrange a rendezvous. 100. Before the investigators left, they asked Archer if she had anything else to say, making clear they expected her to tell them ?anything at all? and reiterated: ?now is the time to say it.? Based on the content of their previous questioning, Archer understood that they were implying that she knew facts about Walker that she had not disclosed to them. 101. At that time the investigators also informed Archer that they expected her to travel the next day to the Milwaukee County District Attorney?s Of?ce for further questioning. Archer asked if she should bring an attorney, and they represented that an attorney would not be necessary. 102. After the raid, reporters maintained a vigil outside Archer?s home to knock on her door, and to call her home phone number, as Defendants either expected or should have I expected. Archer?s home, including her street address, appeared on the front pages of Wisconsin newspapers, and the raid was a lead story on the evening neWs that day. Over the next several days, the news of the home raid on one of Walker?s aides (Archer) made national news, further damaging Archer?s professional reputation. 103. The reporters were still in front of her house the next day, and Archer felt trapped inside her own home. Archer felt that they would not disperse until she made a statement, and she did not want them there when her brother arrived, so she allowed a brief interview. 21 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 24 of 36 Document 1-1 104. During the raid, either Defendant Stelter or another agent of the Milwaukee DA, acting under Stelter?s orders, informed Archer and her partner that they were not allowed to speak to anyone about what occurred because of a secrecy order issued by a Milwaukee judge. Archer therefore believed she was prohibited from defending herself in the press?or to anyone else?and she was unable to provide any information to the press in her defense, other than a general apology to her neighbors and a general statement regarding her innocence. 105. Articles have continued to be published about Archer until the present time, as Defendants either expected or should have expected. This has been humiliating for Archer and severely impaired her reputation and invaded her privacy. V. 7 THE WARRANT 106. After the raid, Archer was ?nally able to read the warrant, which the of?cers had not given her time to read during the raid. 107. There were no meaningful limits on the items, to be searched or seized. The warrant was limited only by reference to overbroad statutes which could have covered any number of crimes and provided no limits to the discretion of of?cers in their search. 108. The warrant also included a list of topics, but the list was illustrative and did not limit the items to be seized in any way. The list did not include topics that were the subject of their search and their later questioning of Archer, indicating that no one believed the search was limited by these topics and those topics were pretexts to obtain the warrant. 109. The Milwaukee of?ce took possession of, among other things, every email Archer wrote or received on her personal email account beginning at least in 2006?years before any of the actions that were alleged to involve criminal wrongdoing. Subsequently, these emails. were released to the public and now can be obtained at will by anyone. Many are available on the 22 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 25 of 36 Document 1-1 internet. Less than one percent?if that?of the emails are related even to the pretextual inquiries in the warrant. Defendants had no legitimate reason to seize Archer?s private correspondence. They were aware that her private correspondence would likely be disclosed to the public. Their purpose was to embarrass and retaliate against Archer. 110. There was no probable cause to believe Archer had done anything wrong, and all the inquiries referenced by way of illustration Were pretextual. One of the inquiries referenced was so frivolous that neither during'the home raid nor in the following seven ?interviews? of Archer (see Section VI, infra) did Defendants ask Archer a single question about the issue. 111. Defendants were aware from the face of the warrant that it was overbroad and that they had no probable cause to search her home, but they did so anyway for the purpose of retaliation and intimidation. . 112. Defendants were able to obtain all evidence related to their pretextual investigative purposes through other means, such as subpoenas and warrants to internet and email providers. None of the materials the Defendants? agents seized from Archer?s home had any relation to the pretextual inquiries. The purpose of the raid, even assuming the bogus legal theories were valid, was harassment, intimidation, and retaliation, and all Defendants were aware I of that purpose and shared it. VI. THE INTERROGATIONS 113. The day of the raid, either Defendant Stelter or a person acting under Stelter?s orders informed Archer that Chisholm expected her in Milwaukee the next day for further questioning. Defendants interrogated Archer in at least seven secret sessions. Most took place at i a nondescript office building away from Milwaukee County government that was not disclosed 23 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 26 of 36 Document 1-1 to Archer in advance (she was driven there by her attorney). Archer was typically required to take time off of work and to travel to Milwaukee for questioning. 114. Archer was ordered not to speak about these events because of the secrecy order. The Defendants informed Archer that, in. their View, the secrecy order prohibited her from discussing the investigation with her partner or her family. This prohibition placed substantial strain on Archer?s relationships and left Archer isolated, alone, and depressed. Archer believed that she could not speak even to her medical professionals regarding the investigation for fear of prosecution. A 115. Each of the Defendants waspersonally involved in the interrogations at one time or another, and Stelter and Budde typically took the lead role in questioning her. There were between four and seven individuals from the investigative team at each session, crowded around Archer in a small room. 116. All Defendants understood that the. purpose was to intimidate Archer into providing evidence that could be used against Walker and his other associates and to retaliate against her political and policy views, her actions and speech to promote those views, and her expressive association with Walker. 117. Defendants offered an immunity deal to Archer, which she accepted, but it soon became clear that, unless she told them what they wanted to hear?i.e., provided incriminating evidence against Walker and his other associates?they would continue to threaten her with prosecution. 118. Archer was forced to hire legal counsel to advise her about her testimony and the possibility of criminal charges. This cost Archerover $20,000, the payment of which required her to take out a home?equity loan. 24 I Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 27 of 36 Document 1-1 119. None of the interrogations were conducted before a judge or in a court. Archer was never brought before a judge at any time during the investigation. 120. During these interrogations, Stelter, Budde, and/or others would slam their ?sts on the table close to Archer and yell at her to intimidate her into providing incriminating testimony against Walker and his other associates. They tried to confuse her and trick her into admitting wrongdoing. Whenever Budde, Stelter and/or others on the team did not like the answer Archer gave to a question, they accused her of lying, despite having no basis for that assertion. At one point they tried to persuade her that she committed a criminal act by breaching terms of a contract. (In fact, Archer did not even breach the provisions of the contract, and breach of contract is not a crime.) 121. On one occasion, Defendant Landgraf provided Archer with a ?le of dozens of emails to review in preparation for an interrogation session, and Archer dutifully studied them. But at the following session and all sessions to come, Archer was not asked about them and was instead questioned on a myriad of unrelated topics. Although the-search warrant represented that the investigative team was interested in two topics, the vast majority of time in the interrogations concerned unrelated matters not listed in the search warrant. 122. Stelter, Budde, and/or others involved in questioning Archer would frequently change subjects to trick and confuse her. 123. Defendants used statements they obtained from Archer during the home raid, against her in the secret sessions. 124. These events occurred between September 2011 and May 2012, during the Walker recall petition effort and special-election campaign and during the time when Chisholm was informing subordinates that it was his duty to ?stop? Walker, when Budde was displaying a 25 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 28 of 36 Document 1-1 recall Walker sign displayed in his front yard, and when the Milwaukee of?ce had become a de facto campaign of?ce against Walker. 125. Also during this time period, a barrage of leaks from the of?ce streamed to the press, including leaks stating that evidence uncovered in the investigation was a ?bombshell? likely to result in the issuance of criminal complaints against high-level governmentof?cials, such as Archer. On information and belief, Defendants were the direct or indirect sources of those leaks, despite being subject to the secrecy order imposed by the John Doe judge. 126. The leaks served the important purpose of in?uencing politics as the John Doe investigation became widely regarded as the single most important issue in the special election to recall Walker. This further impaired Archer?s reputation, which was the natural and probable consequence of Defendants? actions, as well as their intention. 127. Once Walker won the recall election, the inquiries related to Archer ceased. No one was charged in connection with any of them. After the recall election, no further communication was made, ?'om Chisholm?s of?ce to Archer. This further demonstrates that Archer was targeted for political reasons, and not for any legitimate law-enforcement purpose. 128. Defendants, however, continued to seek new avenues of attack against Walker, leading them to target virtually the entire conservative movement in the state of Wisconsin for its support of Walker?s policies. The only judge so far to review the facts of this phase of the investigation found that they ?easily? stated a claim for First Amendment retaliation. Defendants? retaliatory purpose in that phase of their investigation supp01ts the inference that their purpose throughout has been retaliation. 129. Archer?s attorney approached Chisholm?s of?ceat or after the endiof their investigation into Archer and requested that a statement be issued from the of?ce clearng 26 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 29 of 36 Document 1-1 Archer of criminal wrongdoing, so that some of the damage to her reputation might be alleviated. Chisholm refused, despite that Archer was never charged with any crime. 130. The initial John Doe proceeding commenced in May 2010 was formally closed in 2013, and no one was charged in connection with any of the pretextual inquiries supposedly forming the basis of the investigation against Archer. VII. THE PROXIMATE RESULT OF ACTIONS 131. Archer suffered humiliation, anguish, and emotional distress during the home raid and interrogations. 132. Archer suffered the loss of her time in preparing for, travelling to and from, and attending these secret interrogation sessions. Her doctors diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression and anxiety and believe Defendants? actions are to blame. 133. Archer?s reputation was destroyed. Hundreds of articles are available online suggesting that Archer committed criminal misconduct, which is false. Archer?s name was maligned in newspapers, blogs, radio shows, and other media outlets. She became a household name associated with criminal wrongdoing. Articles ran in the paper stating that the architect of Act 10 is a criminal. 134. Archer?s house was egged. She was harassed at the grocery store. She was yelled at by passers-by in her neighborhood. Her car was defaced, her family relationships were strained, and she lost long-term friendships and contact with many long-term professional colleagues who became afraid to associate with her. The harassment has continued to, most recently, May 2015. 135.. Archer had owned her Madison home since. 1988 and was a longtime resident rof her neighborhood in Madison, where she always felt safe and welcomed, even though the 27 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 30 of 36 Document 1-1 neighborhood is known as one of the most liberal in Wisconsin. That was no longer the case, and she began locking her doors, closing her shades, and keeping her dogs in the house for fear of further retaliation by Defendants or of?cers acting under their control, or else by others who were aware of Defendants? actions and understood them to mean that Archer was a criminal. This was the natural and probable consequence of Defendants? actions. 136. After the home raid, a radio talk?show host named John ?Sly? Sylverster ran at least six half?hour episodes ridiculing Archer, making fun of her sexual orientation, denouncing her involvement with Act 10, and implying that she was a criminal. Sly invited callers to join in mocking her. Archer became the subject of similar forms of ridicule in public forums. None of this attention occurred before the home raid, and it was all the proximate result of Defendants? making her the public target of a bogus criminal investigation during a time of historic political turmoil. 137. Due to Defendants? actions, Archer was forced to resign from her position as second in command at Wisconsin?s most important agency. Her pay was cut by over $26,000 annually. Subsequently, out of despair and the onset of depression for losing her career-long professional goal of being appointed Deputy Secretary of Administration and due to the damage to Archer?s professional reputation that had been built over almost 30 years as a public servant, Archer took roughly three months of medical leave. Her removal from the Deputy Secretary of Administration position was swift and her demotion subStantial. Her peers and colleagues in Wisconsin government shunned her and colleagues she considered personal friends abandoned her. 138. In subsequent positions, Archer was not allowed to perform her job duties and was forced out of any role that might become public. Her work was attributed to others. She was 28 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 31 of 36 Document 1-1 cutout of important tasks and meetings. She was not allowed to speak with high-level government officials or people critical to her job functions. Some co-workers refused to work with her or talk to her, and her authority as a manager and supervisor was curtailed as compared to her prior positions. This was all a proximate result of the harm Defendants did to her reputation, and this was their intent. 139. Archer?s future earning potential was impaired. Archer unsuccessfully applied for several positions in the years following the home raid and was informed by a human?resources professional, a supervisor, and a national recruiter that, as long as the John Doeinvestigation hung over her head, she would not be competitive for the forms of government work she had done throughout her career. Because Chisholm refused to clear her name?even though he had no basis to charge her?the John Doe investigation still hangs over Archer?s head and she is unable to ?nd employment commensurate with her career experience to this day. Her career trajectory has been irreparany altered due to Defendants? actions. One need only run a Google search for ?Cindy Archer? to see the devastation Defendants in?icted on her reputation. 140. Any time Archer is given a pay raise due to a change in position (which has not brought her salary-up to what she earned as Deputy Secretary or Administration) a slew of open- records requests and allegations of wrongdoing plague Archer because of the John Doe publicity. Accordingly, Archer has been placed in non-visible work roles and informed that she will not be eligible for merit raises or bonuses because of the publicity that would result. 141. Having nowhere to turn and despairing that her career had been destroyed, Archer fell into depression, which required her to be hospitalized for over a week. She also became suicidal. 29 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 32 of 36 Document 1-1 142. Archer?s personal relationships suffered. Her friendships with individuals in the Walker administration were destroyed beyond repair. 143. Archer incurred medical and related expenses and a substantial loss in income due to these and other health problems that were the proximate result of Defendants? actions. COUNT I: 42 U.S.C. AMENDMENT RETALIATION 144. Plaintiff Archer repeats and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 145. Archer engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, drafting and advocating for Act 10, expressively associating with Scott Walker on the basis of their shared political and policy views, and advocating for those views and taking other actions to further them. Defendants? conduct under color of state law would deter the exercise of First 146. Amendment rights such as speech and association by a person of reasonable ?rmness. 147. Archer?s political speech and association was the sole, or at least a substantially motivating factor, in Defendants? decision to take their retaliatory actions. 148. As a direct result of Defendants? violation of Archer?s First and Fourteenth amendment rights, Archer has sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 149. The actions of Defendants were intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, callous, and showed a reckless disregard for Archer?s First Amendment rights. COUNT II: 42 U.S.C. SEARCH AND SEIZURE 150. Plaintiff Archer repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 30 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 33 of 36 Document 1-1 151. Defendants searched Archer?s home, computer, phone, email account, and other areas as to which Archer has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 152. Defendants? search was unreasonable because Defendants lacked probable cause for the search, because the warrant was obviously overbroad, and because Defendants? search did not comport with any limits that could be inferred in the warrant, among other reasons. 153. Defendants were purporting to act in the performance of their of?cial duties and under color of state law. 154. Archer was harmed in numerous ways described above. 155. Defendants? um?easonable search was a substantial factor in causing her harm. 156. The actions of Defendants were intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, callous, and showed reckless disregard for Archer?s Fourth Amendment rights. COUNT 42 U.S.C. OF MIRANDA WARNING DUE PROCESS 157. I Plaintiff Archer repeats and realleges the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 1 A 158. Defendants placed Archer in custody where she reasonably believed she was unable to escape their custody. 159. Defendants coerced Archer into answering questions purportedly in furtherance of their criminal investigation. 160. Defendants did not advise Archer of her right to remain silent or of her right to an attorney. 161. Defendants were purporting to act under color of state law. 162. Defendants used the statements against her in the John Doe interviews. 31 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 34 of 36 Document 1-1 163. Defendants? deprivation of Archer?s rights caused harm ?in numerous ways described above. 164. Defendants? deprivation of Archer?s rights was a substantial factor in causing her harm. 165. The actions of Defendants were intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, callous, and showed reckless disregard for Archer?s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. WHEREFORE, Archer prays for a sum of damages to be proven at trial. Because the harm to Archer is analogous to the defamatory accusation of criminal wronging, damages may be presumed in an amount to be determined by a jury. Alternatively, Archer suffered harm in numerous co gnizable forms including, without limitation, mental and emotional distress, impairment of reputation, physical illness, medical expenses, loss of earning, loss of earning potential, legal defense bills, time in Defendants? custody, and time travelling to or from or preparing for Defendants? interrogations. Because Defendants? actions were intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, callous and showed reckless disregard for Archer?s rights, Archer is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Archer respectfully demands a trial by jury of all issues triable by a jury in her Complaint. BLOCK ON FOLLOWING 32 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 35 of 36 Document 1-1 a? Dated this day of July, 2015. com 316 North Milwaukee Street, Suite 200 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: (414) 326-4941 Fax: (414) 273-8476 Co-Counsel: BAKER HOSTETLER LLP David B. Rivkin (pro hac vice forthcoming) 7 Washington Square, Suite 1100 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC. 20036 Phone: (202) 861?1731 Fax: (202) 861?1783 33 Case Filed 07/30/15 Page 36 of 36 Document 1-1