State v. Mr. M (DMC number 16288) – Felony Sexual Assault – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXX).

 

Mr. M retained our firm and the Pre-Charge Team became involved after he was accused of Sexually Assaulting an acquaintance of his. This acquaintance had claimed that Mr. M came over to her home, invited, and that while there, forced sexual intercourse with her. Mr. M had denied the accusations, claiming that the two had had consensual sexual conduct, on multiple occasions, and that he believed this acquaintance was trying to extort money out of him.

 

The Pre-Charge Team immediately met and sent a signed Invocation of Constitutional Rights to the Detective. We ordered a copy of the Police reports, through a Public Records Request, and immediately got our client scheduled for a Polygraph examination, where we drafted the questions to be asked. The Polygraph examination surrounded the allegation of forced or nonconsensual sexual contact. Mr. M’s result came back that “no deception was indicated”. We also reached out to the Detective assigned and advised of the curious nature of the allegations being made by Mr. M’s acquaintance. We followed that call up with a detailed Trebus​ Bashir Letter to the Detective, in an effort to have her close the investigation against Mr. M.

 

This letter detailed how Mr. M and his accuser were acquaintances, due to her purchasing consulting services from Mr. M and thereafter, not being satisfied with the product. It detailed how the evening that Mr. M was at her house was part of the consulting process where Mr. M had gone there to hear her ideas regarding a new business she wanted to start. When Mr. arrived at the home, his accuser was dressed in workout pants and a sheer see-through shirt. Her home was dimly lit with soft music playing when he arrived. She took Mr. M into the living room where a bed had been made out on the floor. They began by watching a marketing video she had prepared but she soon became physical with Mr. M, and started kissing him. This kissing turned into more and eventually, consensual intercourse. After the intercourse, the two sat down to discuss his accuser’s idea for a new business after taking a shower together. It was at this time that Mr. M told his accuser that there were apparent issues with her strategy, which would likely negate any financial success in the venture. This caused her to become upset and Mr. M indicated he would help her as much as he could with her business concept.

 

At this point, Mr. M left for the evening. The following day, Mr. M saw his accuser at a seminar for people who he was consulting. The letter also detailed the enthusiastic involvement from his accuser at the seminar – the day after she was allegedly raped – by her taking photographs with Mr. M., and how after the seminar concluded his accuser contacted Mr. M demanding a refund of the money that she had paid. She followed this demand up with a letter by an Attorney again demanding payment. After hiring an Attorney to demand the return of the money and receiving no response of payment, and nearly 5 months since the sexual encounter with Mr. M, she reported the alleged “rape” to Police.

 

After sending this letter to the Police Department with relevant exhibits, and after further investigation by the Scottsdale Police Department, the case was “closed as inactive and no criminal charges would be pursued”.

State v. Mr. L (DMC number 16289) – Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor, Class 2 Felony & Sexual Abuse – Not Charged – Avondale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXX6) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Charges”.

 

Mr. L retained our firm after his oldest adopted daughter, who he had raised since birth, made a false allegation against him. This allegation came after Mr. L and his wife were in the process of filing for Divorce. Given the Divorce proceedings, the accuser and her sister, who had been living with the mother, were uprooted from their mothers home and were now living with Mr. L. The girls were not thrilled with this decision as Mr. L had more strict rules than their mother did. Upon moving into Mr. L’s home, he sat them down and explained what would and would not be tolerated under his roof. That same night the girls went to bed; the youngest in a bedroom and the oldest on the couch, as they were still making arrangements to pull another bed into the children’s bedroom.

 

In the middle of the night, Mr. L woke up and found his eldest daughter, 15 years old, in bed with him. When he noticed this, he left the room allowing her to sleep there, while he slept on the couch. The next day, the 2 girls went to their mother’s hair salon and soon after, a friend came over and removed all of the accuser’s clothes and property from Mr. L’s home. That same day, Mr. L received a call from his wife where she advised him that his eldest daughter had accused him of touching her breasts and vaginal area, while in bed with her last night. Mr. L denied these allegations and immediately retained our firm.

 

Upon being retained, the Pre-Charge Team, met and discussed the allegations. We immediately requested a copy of the Police report and obtained information regarding an emergency Family Law hearing which was scheduled. We immediately reached out to the Detective assigned to the case, who told us she was going to be submitting the case to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review. We emailed the Detective our clients notarized invocation of constitutional rights and then began preparing a detailed Trebus​ Bashir ​Letter to submit to the Detective and the County Attorney’s Office for review to make a determination on charging. The Trebus​ Bashir ​Letter detailed the relationship between Mr. L and his daughters, the litigious nature of the Divorce that was ongoing, his role as the more strict parent, and the accuser’s motive to make up the allegations to benefit her living situation. Additionally, the letter detailed how Mr. L’s now ex-wife had used these accusations to file an Emergency Petition in the Family Law case, seeking Sole Custody of the children.

 

After receiving our Trebus​ Bashir ​Letter, the Maricopa County Attorney assigned to review the case for charging made a decision to “turn down” the case for “no reasonable likelihood of conviction”.

State v. Mr. L (DMC number 16290) – Felony Sexual Offense (Revenge Porn) – Not Charged – Chandler Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXX3).

 

Mr. L was a 15-year-old student when his parents retained our firm regarding an investigation into Mr. L possessing and distributing a naked image of another student he knew. This investigation began after another student at Mr. L’s school notified his teacher that Mr. L had engaged in illegal behavior. Specifically, that illegal behavior was possessing and disseminating a naked picture of a young girl, from another school, to a number of his friends. After the school was notified, they contacted local law enforcement to file a report. Local law-enforcement then interviewed all of the children named in the investigation, including Mr. L, who was the main suspect initially. After Mr. L’s parents allowed him to participate in a law enforcement interview, they determined hiring counsel was necessary given the severity of the allegations being made.

 

Upon being retained, the Pre-Charge Team, met and discussed necessary steps to take. First, we immediately reached out to the parents of the other children involved, including the mother of the young girl who had sent the naked images to Mr. L. As a result of our initial calls to the other juveniles involved, many obtained Counsel of their own to protect their children, as all of the children had some criminal exposure given their sending and receiving of these images.

 

Given the cooperation of all of the juveniles involved in the investigation, we were successful at having Mr. L Not Charged for his part in the sending and receiving of the inappropriate images. Ultimately, none of the juveniles were charged and the matter was “closed” by Police.

State.v. Mr. H (DMC No. 16286) – Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor – Not Charged – Paradise Valley Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX6).

 

Mr. H and his fiancé were in a very toxic relationship. When they first started dating, his now fiancé was a local stripper and ultimately began living off of Mr. H’s wealth. During their relationship, Mr. H’s girlfriend accused him multiple times of cheating on her and had a number of mental health issues causing a strain in the relationship. As a result of her behavior and their toxic relationship, Mr. H. and his fiancé began seeing an unlicensed counselor by the name of Jane. During the counseling sessions Mr. H’s fiancé and the counselor had shared that they had both been victims and survivors of Sexual Abuse. Based on this, an unusual bond formed between the two of them. As a result, the alleged Sexual Abuse and sexual behaviors in Mr. H’s relationship with his fiancé became the focus of their therapy sessions.

 

Although Mr. H had known that this counselor’s practice was unorthodox, he was not aware at the time that Jane had been enjoined (forbidden) by the Maricopa County Superior Court from engaging in any acts or practices regulated by the Arizona State Board of Behavioral Health since 2010. At one point during one of the counseling sessions, Mr. H’s ex-wife and his biological children with his ex-wife, became a topic of concern. After one of his counseling sessions, the counselor, unbeknownst to Mr. H, contacted his ex-wife asking about the safety of the children. Soon after, Mr. H’s fiancé filed a report with DCS accusing Mr. H of being a danger to his children. After being contacted by DCS, Mr. H retained our services.

 

Immediately after being retained, the Pre-Charge Team, met and began taking immediate action. We sent a Trebus Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office notifying them of our representation and began reaching out to local law enforcement agencies to find where a potential report would have been submitted to law enforcement. Ultimately, we found a report with Paradise Valley Police Department and reached out to the Detective assigned. At this point, a copy of Mr. H’s notarized Invocation of Constitutional Rights was sent to the Detective. After speaking with the Detective to try to ascertain what the specific allegations were, we began drafting a detailed Trebus Bashir Letter to send to the Officer for review and determination in charging. This letter listed 32 bullet points of information regarding Mr. H, his fiancé and her mental health issues, the issues surrounding the counselor who was involved in making the original report and encouraging the fiancé to do the same, and Mr. H’s denial of any inappropriate behavior. Additionally, this letter detailed the civil litigation between Mr. H and his fiancé pertaining to the $180,000 engagement ring that Mr. H was seeking the return of. This provided motive for his fiancé to make the false allegations against him.

 

Based on the information provided in the Trebus Bashir Letter, No Charges were submitted to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.

State.v. Mr. F (DMC No. 16280) – Felony Child Molestation (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Phoenix Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX9).

 

Mr. F retained our services after DCS contacted him and his wife about allegations being made by one of his live-in granddaughters, a 12-year old girl. As a Registered Sex Offender, Mr. F immediately contacted us given the severity of the allegations and his prior criminal history.

 

After retaining our Firm, the Pre-Charge Team, immediately met to discuss what steps needed to be taken. We immediately sent a Trebus Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office notifying them of our representation and submitted a public records request to get a copy of the Phoenix Police Report. We also immediately interviewed one of the other grandchildren who lived in Mr. F’s home. During this interview, this grandchild said that Mr. F never inappropriately touched her and that the other grandchild making the accusations never told her that Mr. F touched her inappropriately. She said that she believed the allegations were being made after she and the alleged victim’s biological mother came to Arizona trying to encourage the girls to move back to Florida with her. While the young girl making the accusations wanted to move back to Florida, the other granddaughter did not. Due to this, she believed that the alleged victim made the accusations in an effort to be removed from the home and forced back to Florida.

 

We also obtained a copy of the Police report and after reviewing it drafted a detailed Trebus Bashir Letter providing information to both the Detective assigned as well as the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office regarding the matter. In the letter we detailed the information obtained by one of Mr. F’s grandchildren, the alleged victim’s biological sister, and the motive for her to make the false allegations. Prior to submitting the letter for review, we also had Mr. F participate in a Polygraph examination where the questions surrounded whether he had ever touched the alleged victim in a sexual manner or whether he had ever had sexual contact with any of his grandchildren. The Polygraph results, along with the questions, were listed in the Trebus Bashir Letter and showed that there was no significant reaction shown.

 

As a result of this quick action by our Pre-Charge Team, charges were never filed against Mr. F.

State v. Ms. G (DMC No. 16281) – Felony Sexual Conduct with a Minor (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged – Gilbert Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXXX1).

 

Ms. G’s parents retained our services after learning of an allegation being made by a child that Ms. G’s mother cared for at an in-home care facility. The child making the allegation was a 5-year old boy who had accused Ms. G, his caregiver’s 15-year old Juvenile daughter, of forcing the 5-year old to kiss her vagina.

 

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge Team, met and discussed the allegations and the actions to be taken moving forward. We immediately got Ms. G in for a Polygraph examination where the questions stemmed around whether Ms. G had ever touched the 5-year old in a sexual manner or had ever had the 5-year old touch her in a sexual manner. We also immediately reached out to the Detective and advised our representation. In order to put together a Trebus Bashir Letter, we visited the home where the allegations allegedly occurred – our client’s home. We took photographs of the home to understand both the size of the home as well as the location where the care of the children took place.

 

After receiving all of this information and having detailed discussions with Ms. G and her parents, we drafted a 35 point/bullet pointed Trebus Bashir Letter explaining to the Detective that Ms. G denied the allegations, that the allegations could not have occurred in the manner being described by the 5 year old given the layout of the home and the at home daycare facility, and the fact that Ms. G was never near the children. In that letter, the passed Polygraph from our client was provided. Based on the information provided to the Detective in the Trebus Bashir Letter, the Detective “cleared” the case as “inactive.”

State v. Mr. B (DMC No. 16274) – Felony Sexual Abuse (Dangerous Crimes Against Children) – Not Charged –Coolidge Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXXXXX2) & Pinal County Attorney’s Office “Turned Down Charges”.

 

Mr. B was a 30-year old man accused of touching the breast of a 12-year old who was the daughter of an acquaintance of his. The allegations came after a weekend when Mr. B and his girlfriend were watching the acquaintance’s three children while they were in Las Vegas on vacation. The alleged victim claimed that Mr. B, while watching a movie with the children at the house, put his hand down her shirt and grabbed her breast. A week or two after the alleged incident, Mr. B received a call from the father of the little girl trying to get Mr. B to admit to touching his daughter’s breast. Mr. B denied the allegations and soon after received a business card from a Police Officer. He again denied the allegations however, immediately thereafter retained our services given the severity of the allegations.

 

After being retained, the Pre-Charge Team, began taking steps on Mr. B’s behalf. We contacted the Detective who indicated to us that he was finalizing his report to submit to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office. We sent the Detective a notarized and signed Invocation of Constitutional Rights and immediately got our client in for a Polygraph examination. After having an in-depth discussion with our client regarding the allegations, the child in question, and the circumstances surrounding he and his girlfriend watching the children, we drafted a detailed Trebus Bashir Letter which we provided to the Pinal County Attorney’s Office for review prior to making a charging decision. This letter delineated 29 points of exculpatory information documenting the time that Mr. B was with the children and specifically the time that he was with the one making the allegation. It also clearly indicated that he denied any wrongdoing.

 

In following up with the Pinal County Attorney’s Office, specifically with the Attorney reviewing the case for charging, after receiving our Trebus Bashir Letter and reviewing the evidence at hand, the charges were “turned down” by the Pinal County Attorney’s Office.

State v. Mr. D (DMC No. 16275) – Felony Aggravated Assault Dangerous (with a Knife) – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX-XXXX5) & Prosecutor’s Office “Declined to File Charges”.

 

Mr. D was a 21-year old man when he retained our services for Aggravated Assault Dangerous (with a Knife). Mr. D had a history of mental health issues. This incident occurred after he got into a domestic dispute with his brother while his father was in the house. After Mr. D and his brother engaged in a physical altercation, Mr. D. began making concerning statements and was accused of having pulled a knife from the kitchen butcher block. The statements being made by Mr. D. were surrounding the fact that he did not want to be recommitted to a mental health institute and would rather take other action against his life. During this time, he was also alleged to have obtained a firearm from his vehicle, which ultimately the father was able to disengage him from. Police arrived on scene and Mr. D had left the home. Police spoke with his father and brother and the case was “Long-Formed” for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to make a charging decision based on the alleged use of the firearm and knife.

 

Mr. D retained the services of our firm in a Pre-Charge capacity and the Pre-Charge Team, staffed the case and immediately took action. We immediately contacted the Scottsdale Police Department to find out the Detective assigned and submitted a public records request for a copy of the police report. We drafted and sent a Trebus Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office notifying them of our representation. After discovering the name of the Detective assigned, we sent a notarized and signed Invocation of Constitutional Rights to the Detective notifying her of our representation and that contact with Mr. D should cease. Given this quick action, we were able to eliminate any statements being made by Mr. D to Police.

 

After obtaining a copy of the Police report, it was discovered that the Detective, after receiving our Notice of Invocation, elected to submit the case to the City of Scottsdale for Misdemeanor Charges in lieu of sending it up for Felony charges for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon or Disorderly Conduct Dangerous. Ultimately, given the inability of police to interview Mr. D regarding what happened and/or receive any identification of Mr. D as the perpetrator from his family, the City of Scottsdale “declined to file charges” given no likelihood of conviction.

State v. Ms. N (DMC No. 16283) – Felony Embezzlement ($240,000 Misappropriated from Landscape Company), Felony Fraudulent Schemes & Felony Theft – Not Charged – Glendale Police Department Investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXXX3) & Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “Declined Charges”.

 

Ms. N had been employed by a local company for over 24 years when she was terminated and accused of using her position as the Chief Financial Officer to Embezzle money from the company. Ms. N retained us after having been interviewed by the company regarding the accusations and by local law enforcement with the Glendale Police Department.

 

Immediately after being retained, the Pre-Charge, met and took action. We immediately sent a Trebus letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office notifying them of our representation. We also ordered a copy of the Police report through a Public Records Request. After having a detailed meeting with the client regarding the accusations, we prepared and sent a scanned and notarized Invocation of Constitutional Rights to the Detective assigned to the matter. We reached out to the Detective to speak about the charges. During this call we learned from the Detective that the company was most interested in getting their money back.

 

After the call with the Detective, we reached out to the business (the alleged victim), and spoke with them as to whether a Civil Resolution could be ascertained. After being put in contact with the company’s Attorney, negotiation began immediately regarding whether a civil resolution was possible. During the discussion with the company’s counsel, it was discovered the alleged loss amount was approximately $240,000. After multiple months of negotiation with counsel for the company, we learned that the case had been submitted by the Detective to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review. Upon learning this, we immediately reached out to the assigned Attorney and advised of our continued and ongoing negotiation with the company to try to clear up this misunderstanding.

 

After a tremendous amount of time in negotiation with the company, we ultimately settled for a return of a small percentage of the money alleged to be lost. As a result of the Civil Settlement, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office “declined to file charges” against Ms. N. Ultimately, had Ms. N been charged with theft of over $100,000, pursuant to ARS 13-1802(H) Ms. N would have faced a mandatory Sentence in the Department of Corrections of anywhere between 3 and 12 1/2 years.

State v. Mr. C (DMC No. 16284) – Felony Sexual Abuse & Felony Kidnapping – Not Charged – Scottsdale Police Department investigated (DR No. 20XX–XXXX9).

 

At the time his allegations were made, Mr. C was a 27-year-old manager for a local bank. Mr. C had been accused of Sexually Abusing an employee at the bank and holding her against her will while at his house. These allegations came after Mr. C and this employee had gone to dinner together one evening after work. After dinner they went to his apartment to hang out and the employee confessed her frustration with the bank as she was being passed over for promotions. While there, the two were flirtatious with each other, and were play wrestling in the living room and the bedroom. At the end of the evening, Mr. C had walked his co-worker to her car. Unbeknownst to him, this employee then made allegations that he Sexually Abused her by grabbing her breasts and vagina, and held her in his apartment against her will. Mr. C found out about these allegations when Police arrested him at his place of business.

 

Upon being retained, our Pre-Charge Team met and immediately took action. First, we sent a Trebus Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office advising them that if the case was presented to a Grand Jury, Mr. C would like to be present and testify if the Grand Jury wished to hear from him. We also emailed the assigned Detective a signed and notarized copy of Mr. C’s Invocation of Constitutional Rights, and reached out to the Detective to discuss the allegations. We moved very quickly and got Mr. C in for a Polygraph examination immediately. Mr. C’s Polygraph showed that no deception was indicated and he denied ever holding his employee against her will, ever intentionally touching her breasts, or ever intentionally touching her vagina. We prepared a detailed Trebus/Bashir Letter and submitted it to the Detective for review in his determination of whether he would submit charges to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. This letter delineated Mr. C’s denial of the accusations, his passed Polygraph examination, and an explanation of what had occurred while at his home.

 

The investigating Detective completed his investigation and ultimately submitted the case along with our Trebus/Bashir Letter to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to make a determination of charging. After reviewing the detailed information in the Trebus/Bashir Letter and other factors surrounding the case, the County Attorney’s Office declined to file felony charges and routed the case to the City Prosecutor for review. The City Prosecutor’s Office never filed charges against Mr. C.