View
221
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
1/57
Max D. Wheeler (3439)Samuel Alba (0031)Richard A. Van Wagoner (4690)Nathanael J. Mitchell (14727)SNOW, CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU10 Exchange Place, 11thFl., P.O. Box 45000Salt Lake City, Utah 84145Telephone: (801) 521-9000Fax: (801) 363-0400Email: mdw@scmlaw.com
sa@scmlaw.comrav@scmlaw.comnjm@scmlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Mark L. Shurtleff
IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
STATE OF UTAH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK L. SHURTLEFF,
Defendant.
EXHIBIT B TO THE MOTION TODISMISS FOR BRADY/GIGLIO ANDSPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATIONS
Case No. 141907720
Judge Elizabeth A. Hruby-Mills
Throughout Mr. Shurtleffs Motion to Dismiss for Brady/Giglio and Speedy Trial
Violations (Brady Motion) Mr. Shurtleff references an unfiled Motion to Suppress
Unlawfully Obtained Warrants and Request for Franks Hearing (Motion to Suppress).
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
2/57
2
In his Motion to Suppress, Mr. Shurtleff will contend that Agent Nesbitt and members of
the Task Force submitted a series of affidavits containing material omissions, misleading
statements, and outright mistruths to the magistrate in order to secure a series of warrants to
invade the private residence and personal life of Mr. Shurtleff. Agent Nesbitts pattern of
unlawful conduct and abuse of the judicial process not only offended principles of truth and
fairness, but also resulted in a violation of Mr. Shurtleffs constitutional rights under the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, as articulated in Franks v. Delaware.1
This exhibit contains excerpts from the background section of the unfiled Motion to
Suppress, as well as illustrations of areas in which a search warrant affidavit filed by members of
the Task Force suffered from constitutional deficiencies. As discussed in theBrady Motion, Mr.
Shurtleff seeks certain exculpatory and impeachment material in order to prepare for the
evidentiary hearing and further support his claim that the State violated the Fourth Amendment
through a series of unlawful warrant applications.
1 In Franks v. Delaware, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the ex parte nature of the warrantapplication process could lead to prosecutorial abuse. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 169-170 (1978). Toprotect against this risk, the Court held than individuals are entitled to use an evidentiary hearing to challenge thevalidity of a search warrant, if there is a preliminary showing that (i) an affiant in an affidavit supporting a searchwarrant made a false statement intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and (ii) theaffidavit is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause after the misstatement is set aside. State v. Nielsen,727 P.2d 188, 191 (Utah 1986). If a court concludes the government procured a warrant through intentional orreckless false statements or material omissions, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the searchexcluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the warrant. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
3/57
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF)
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
A.
Mr. Shurtleff has a long history of public service.
1. After graduating from Brigham Young University and the University of Utah
College of Law, Mr. Shurtleff served four years in the United States Navy Judge Advocate
Generals Corps. Mr. Shurtleff left the Judge Advocate Generals Corps in 1990.
2. Over the next twenty years, Mr. Shurtleff served as an Assistant Utah Attorney
General, a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County, and Salt Lake County Commissioner.
3. In 2000, Mr. Shurtleff was elected Attorney General for the State of Utah.
4. In 2009, Mr. Shurtleff briefly considered running for the United States Senate.
Mr. Shurtleff, however, ended his Senate campaign later that year in order to devote additional
time to his daughter, who was suffering from personal issues that required family support.
5. At the conclusion of his third term and after twelve years of service, Mr. Shurtleff
stepped down as Utahs Attorney General in early January 2013.
B. John Swallows election triggered a legislative and criminal investigation intoMr. Swallows conduct and campaign financing.
6. Former Attorney General John E. Swallow took office in January 2013.
7. Shortly thereafter, the Lieutenant Governors Office and a Special Investigative
Committee created by the Utah House of Representatives retained counsel to investigate public
allegations that Mr. Swallow had engaged in potential illegal, improper, or unethical conduct.2
2See Utah House of Representatives, Report of the Special Investigative Committee 19-21 (March 11, 2014).
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
4/57
4
8. After conducting its investigation, the Lieutenant Governors Office determined
there was probable cause to believe that Mr. Swallow violated Utahs election law in five
respects during the 2012 Attorney General campaign.3
9. The Special Committee concluded (1) Mr. Swallow had, in effect, created a pay -
to-play system, in which Mr. Swallow provided access to his office in exchange for campaign
support or contributions;4 and (2) Mr. Swallow had improperly inserted himself into a private
lawsuit against Bank of America in order to protect the interests of a campaign contributor.5
10. After months of investigation and public controversy, Mr. Swallow resigned from
the office of Attorney General on December 3, 2013.
C. Confusing Mr. Shurtleffs service as Attorney General with Mr. Swallowsimproper campaign finance activities, a joint task force sought and obtainedwarrants directed at Mr. Shurtleff.
11. The Utah State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) began working together as part of a joint state-federal task force (Task
Force). Members of the Task Force included Agent Scott Nesbitt from the Utah Department of
Public Safety and FBI Special Agents Jon Isakson and Michelle Pickens.
12. Between December 11, 2013 and June 2, 2014, members of the Task Force
submitted a series of warrant applications to the Honorable Vernice S. Trease in the Third
District Court, State of Utah. Acting in the capacity of a magistrate and relying on the Task
Forces representations, Judge Trease issued several warrants directly affecting Mr. Shurtleff.
3Id.at 29.
4Id.at 6, 38.
5Id.at 103.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
5/57
5
a. On or about December 11, 2013, Agent Nesbitt sought and obtained Warrant
214. Using Warrant 214, investigators executed a search of Timothy
Lawsons home for electronic devices, tax documents, and correspondence,
including communications with Mr. Shurtleff. Deputy Salt Lake County
District Attorney Jeff Hall reviewed and approved Agent Nesbitts affidavit
and the proposed warrant.
b. On or about December 11, 2013, Agent Nesbitt sought and obtained Warrant
216, which permitted seizure of a broad range of documents from Google, Inc.
and Google Payments Corporation, including communications sent and
received from Mr. Shurtleffs personal email account for a four-year period.
Deputy Salt Lake County District Attorney Nicholas DAlesandro reviewed
and approved Agent Nesbitts affidavit and the proposed warrant application.
c. On or about June 4, 2014, Agent Nesbitt sought and obtained Warrant 158,
which permitted a search of Mr. Shurtleffs private residence. Deputy Salt
Lake County District Attorney Fred Burmester reviewed and approved Agent
Nesbitts application and the proposed warrant.
d. Agent Nesbitt also applied for and obtained a series of warrants directed at
obtaining documents and evidence from third parties.
e. Agent Nesbitts warrants required production of a broad range of documents
without a cognizable limit on subject matter. In recognition of the warrants
breadth, Agent Nesbitt submitted several supplemental affidavits averring that
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
6/57
6
a taint team would be established to review and identify relevant
documents.
13.
Agent Nesbitt subscribed and swor[e] to each affidavit in support of a search
warrant. See Utah R. Crim. P. 40(c)(1).
14. Members of the Salt Lake District Attorneys Office reviewed and approved each
of the warrants and affidavits for submission to the court.
15. As discussed below, Agent Nesbitt and members of the Task Force used false and
misleading information throughout the affidavits submitted to the Magistrate.
II. THE TASK FORCE MISLED THE COURT ABOUT MR. SHURTLEFFS ROLEIN MARC S. JENSONS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN 2005-2008.
16. In pursuit of Mr. Shurtleff, the Task Force relied heavily on mischaracterizations
of Mr. Shurtleffs management of the Attorney Generals Office. The Task Forces second-
guessing of Mr. Shurtleffs management centered on his exercise of oversight in a co ntroversial,
complex, and well-publicized criminal casethe prosecution of Marc S. Jenson.
17.
On August 10, 2005, the Attorney Generals Office charged Mr. Jenson with
several fraud-related crimes for acts committed in 2000.
18. Mr. Jenson retained Greg Skordas, a prominent defense attorney who had run
against Mr. Shurtleff in the 2004 election.
19. According to FBI records, throughout the criminal case, several prominent
members of the community attempted to use political influence and personal pressure in the
hopes of securing a dismissal of the charges against Mr. Jenson.
20. Individuals who attempted to influence the criminal prosecution of Mr. Jenson
include the following: Brent Hatch, the son of U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch; Mark James, a
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
7/57
7
prominent Salt Lake City attorney; several leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints; New York investors in Mr. Jensons investment projects; Steve Hassler, a former
fundraiser; several members of Mr. Jensons family; and Mr. Jenson himself.
21. At one point, Mr. Jensons Director of Security for the Mount Holly development
project, Paul Nelson, who also invested in Mr. Jensons business, contacted victims in the
pending criminal case for the purpose of interfering with the investigation and prosecution.
22. Mr. Nelson also sent several emails to Mr. Shurtleff, insisting on Mr. Jensons
innocence and requesting dismissal of charges.
23. In response, Mr. Shurtleff referred Mr. Nelson to one of the prosecutors assigned
to the case and insisted negotiations go through Mr. Jensons counsel.
24. Despite pressure from many prominent members of the community, Mr. Shurtleff
repeatedly refused to dismiss the charges against Mr. Jenson.
A. Mr. Shurtleff instigated and provided assistance to the FBIs investigation ofattempts to improperly influence Mr. Jensons criminal prosecution.
25.
Efforts to improperly influence the prosecution of Mr. Jenson reached new lows
in 2007, approximately two years after Mr. Shurtleffs office filed the charges.
26. In September 2007, Mr. Shurtleff was hospitalized for injuries that he received in
a serious motorcycle accident. Unannounced and uninvited, Mr. Nelson visited Mr. Shurtleffs
hospital room. Finding Mr. Shurtleff heavily sedated, Mr. Nelson informed Mr. Shurtleff that
Mr. Jenson and his friends could raise hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars if Mr.
Shurtleff would dismiss the charges against Mr. Jenson.
27. At one point in time, Mr. Nelson threatened Mr. Shurtleffs political future if he
failed to dismiss Mr. Jensons case. Specifically, Mr. Nelson indicated that Mr. Jensons
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
8/57
8
investors in New York would raise money against Mr. Shurtleff in the 2008 election, and that
Mr. Skordas and Scott Reed, a prosecutor assigned to the case, were conspiring to mount a
campaign against Mr. Shurtleff if the charges were not dismissed.
28. Shortly after Mr. Nelsons visit, Mr. Shurtleff reported Mr. Nelsons attempt to
bribe and coerce Mr. Shurtleff to the FBI through his Chief of Investigation, Ken Wallentine.
29. After Mr. Shurtleff reported Mr. Nelsons attempt to improperly influence him in
the hospital, the United States Attorneys Office for the District of Utah and the FBI opened a
formal criminal investigation of Mr. Nelson and Mr. Jenson that included potential federal
charges of Soliciting a Bribe, Interstate Communications, and Wire Fraud.
30. Assistant United States Attorney Barbara Bearnson instructed that further
communications between Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Nelson be recorded. The FBI also informed Mr.
Shurtleff that he was a victim and that federal authorities should conduct the investigation.
31. Mr. Shurtleff participated as the FBIs confidential informant in a sting operation
that resulted in two recorded meetings and the collection of more than 140 text messages.
32. As part of the sting operation, Mr. Shurtleff provided the FBI with text messages
between Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Nelson, Mr. Jenson, and Mr. Skordas. Mr. Shurtleff also sent
several text messages to Mr. Nelson, Mr. Jenson, and Mr. Skordas with the knowledge and, at
times, direction of the FBI.
33. As part of the sting operation, Mr. Shurtleff worked with Special Agent Michelle
Pickens to obtain recorded statements by Mr. Nelson.
a. At her request, Mr. Shurtleff contacted Mr. Nelson.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
9/57
9
b. At SA Pickenss direction, Mr. Shurtleff informed Mr. Nelson that his
memory was fuzzy about the hospital visit, but that he believed Mr.
Nelson had offered to raise campaign funds.
c. Mr. Shurtleff invited Mr. Nelson to his parents home, where he was
recuperating, and asked him to repeat the offer.6
34. With Mr. Shurtleffs participation and assistance, the FBI installed a camera in a
clock located in the living room. When Mr. Nelson visited Mr. Shurtleff, SA Pickens and other
FBI personnel waited for the recording in another room in the home. The FBI later
congratulated and thanked Mr. Shurtleff for his role in the sting operation.
35. Approximately one week later, Mr. Jenson and Mr. Nelson appeared uninvited in
Mr. Shurtleffs hospital room. Mr. Shurtleff again contacted SA Pickens. The FBI provided Mr.
Shurtleff with a digital recording device and asked him to record Mr. Nelson.
36. Using the device, Mr. Shurtleff obtained a second recording of Mr. Nelsons
attempts to improperly influence Mr. Jensons prosecution. To assistin the federal investigation,
Mr. Shurtleff gave the recording to the FBI.
37. In summary, Mr. Shurtleff cooperated fully with the FBIs efforts to investigate
possible bribery of an elected official by Mr. Jenson and Mr. Nelson. Far from being complicit
in Mr. Jensons scheme or surreptitiously expressing a willingness to accept money or avoid
threats made against him in exchange for dismissal of criminal charges--bribery, Mr. Shurtleff
actively informed authorities of efforts to improperly influence a pending criminal case and then
played a critical role as a confidential informant in a subsequent investigation.
6To avoid entrapment, SA Pickens coached Mr. Shurtleff to simply repeat on camera that he could not rememberexactly what Mr. Nelson had said to him while in the hospital.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
10/57
10
38. Months later, Mr. Shurtleff reported the outcome of the States prosecution of Mr.
Jenson to SA Pickens.
39.
Throughout the sting operation and subsequent investigation of Mr. Jenson and
Mr. Nelson, Mr. Shurtleff refused to dismiss Mr. Jensons criminal case.
B. Mr. Shurtleff did not improperly influence plea negotiations in Mr. Jensonscriminal case. Instead, Mr. Shurtleff insisted that prosecutors reach a fairresolution that adequately protected victims of Mr. Jensons crimes.
40. As indicated above, the prosecution of Mr. Jenson was a high profile case. At
various points in time, Mr. Shurtleff, Chief Deputy Attorney General Kirk Torgensen, then
Assistant Attorney General Charlene Barlow,7 and Assistant Attorney General Scott Reed,
among others, participated in the evaluation of the case, its prosecution, and plea negotiations.
41.
Correspondence between attorneys of the Attorney Generals Office demonstrates
that Mr. Shurtleff participated in Mr. Jensons prosecution at early stages of the criminal case, in
part because the case involved serious allegations and millions of dollars in restitution.
42.
Mr. Reed represented that Mr. Shurtleff was a hands-on Attorney General who
would involve himself in cases, even though some line prosecutors believed that he should not be
involved. Mr. Reed was able to identify specific cases in which Mr. Shurtleff stuck his nose.
43. On April 30, 2007, Mr. Shurtleff sent an email to other prosecutors in which he
informed them he had bad feelings about Mr. Nelson, and he was interested in learning the
details of his intimidation of one of our witnesses.
7In October 2010, Ms. Barlow became the Honorable Charlene Barlow of the Third District Court for the State ofUtah. Because her participation in the relevant events predated her appointment to the bench, Ms. Barlow is referredto in a private capacity throughout this exhibit.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
11/57
11
44. On August 16, 2007, after receiving significant pressure from Mr. Nelson and Mr.
Jenson, Mr. Shurtleff emailed Ms. Barlow, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Torgensen to inform them that a
personal friend was offered money to sway the criminal case. Mr. Shurtleff wrote: Shouldnt it
be a crime to offer people money to try to get a prosecutor to dismiss a case?
45. On August 25, 2007, Mr. Shurtleff circulated a draft email directed at Mr. Nelson
to the prosecuting team. In the draft email, Mr. Shurtleff wrote: As you know, I and several
prosecutors and investigators in our office, [sic] have reviewed all of the information and
allegations provided our office regarding Mr. Jensens [sic] alleged victims and we have
concluded that our prosecuorial [sic] standard has been met and continues in this case: a strong
likelihood of meeting our burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
46. As early as September 28, 2007, Ms. Barlow sent an internal email in which she
stated: Mr. Jenson can plead guilty to counts 2 and 6 as amended to third degree felonies; the
State would then dismiss the remaining counts. Mr. Jenson would be required to make complete
restitution of $4.1 million.
47. Although Ms. Barlow informed other prosecutors that she was unwilling to offer a
plea in abeyance, FBI records indicate that Ms. Barlow did not think that it was unethical that
[Mr.] Shurtleff wanted a plea in abeyance instead of a trial. During an FBI interview, Ms.
Barlow indicated that the witnesses in Mr. Jensons criminal case were not the best possible
witnesses since they were shady, but that was common for victims in this type of case.
48. On January 10, 2008, Mr. Reed sent Mr. Shurtleff a draft of a letter to Mr.
Jensons counsel. In the draft letter, Mr. Reed wrote: Mr. Jenson will pay restitution to Michael
Bodell and Morris Ebeling in an amount which shall be agreed upon and stated in the pleadings
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
12/57
12
submitted to the court prior to the entry and acceptance of the plea . . . . Frankly, I have strong
personal reservations regarding this proposal. It is the direction of the Attorney General that if
we can resolve this case under these terms and conditions, we will consider it an acceptable
outcome. Mr. Shurtleff approved the demand for full restitution.
49. On February 12, 2008, Mr. Reed sent an email discussing restitution to Mr.
Jensons counsel. Mr. Reed proposed limiting Mr. Jensons total restitution to $2.5 million, in
part by removing $1.6 million in restitution to Michael Bodell, who was one of the victims of
Mr. Jensons fraudulent activities.
50. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Shurtleff received an email from Timothy Lawson that
contained bullet point proposals relating to Mr. Jensons plea negotiations.
a. At the time of the proposal, Mr. Shurtleff continued to assist with and
participate in the federal bribery investigation of Mr. Jenson and Mr. Nelson.
b. Within minutes of receiving the email, Mr. Shurtleff forwarded Mr. Lawsons
proposal to Mr. Reed and Mr. Torgensen.
c. Mr. Torgensen responded: Why are we dealing with [Mr. Lawson]? We
cannot ethically deal [with] this guy outside of [Mr.] Jensons [sic] counsel.
This is inappropriate for [Mr.] Lawson to be doing this. I think our deal
speaks for itself he can take it or leave it. . . . Please advise.
d. Mr. Shurtleff responded: Thats what I told him. Apparently [Mr. Jenson]
has in-house or civil attorney working [Mr. Lawson]. I just sent it to you
guys so you would know whats going on.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
13/57
13
e. Mr. Shurtleffs response does not contain any instruction that prosecutors
adopt or incorporate the recommendations in Mr. Lawsons email.
51.
On February 29, 2008, Mr. Skordas requested that Mr. Jenson be allowed to
continue working on his Mount Holly project during the plea in abeyance period. Mr. Shurtleff
was not copied on the email.
52. On March 3, 2008, Mr. Reed responded: Well give you Mt. Holly so we know
what to keep an eye on during the PIA period. The email does not contain any indication that
Mr. Reed consulted with Mr. Shurtleff about Mr. Jensons participation in future projects.
53. On March 11, 2008, Mr. Shurtleff emailed Mr. Reed and Mr. Torgensen to
convey concerns about Michael Bodell, a victim in the case. Mr. Shurtleff wrote: [Mr.] Bodell
called again today and left a voice mail begging for a call from me explaining where we are and
what we are offering [Mr.] Jensen [sic], why we arent including restitution for him, and what his
rights are to attend and possibly object at the hearing. Can one of you please call him?
54.
In the midst of the federal investigation into Mr. Nelson and Mr. Jenson, Mr.
Shurtleff informed Mr. Torgensen and Mr. Reed about his concerns with obtaining a conviction.
55. Prosecutors within the Attorney Generals Office did not agree on the strength of
the case against Mr. Jenson. On several occasions, Mr. Reed, in the presence of Ms. Barlow,
told Mr. Shurtleff that the case against Mr. Jenson was good, not great, but prosecutable. Ms.
Barlow, in contrast, insisted at the time that it was a strong case, despite potential issues arising
out of the credibility of witnesses.
56. Based on his understanding of the case, Mr. Shurtleff had significant concerns
about the strength of the testimony of one of alleged victims, Mark Robbins.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
14/57
14
57. Mr. Robbins was one of Ms. Barlows primary witnesses. According to
interviews and recordings in the possession of the FBI, Mr. Robbins actively participated in Mr.
Jensons fraudulent scheme and defrauded investors out of millions.
58. Mr. Reed eventually took a primary lead in negotiating a plea with Mr. Jensons
counsel, including the terms and conditions of the plea in abeyance.
59. Mr. Reed presented a plea in abeyance offer to Mr. Skordas and Mr. Jenson that
did not require payment of restitution. Mr. Reed later confirmed that the exclusion of restitution
was not devised by Mr. Shurtleff, but rather the product of extensive negotiations and an effort to
take into account developments in a related civil case.
60. After receiving notice of objections from victims, who also appeared at a hearing,
the Honorable Robin W. Reese rejected the plea in abeyance proposal submitted by Mr. Reed
and Mr. Skordas. Judge Reese instructed the parties to send future plea proposals to victims.
61. Mr. Reed and Mr. Skordas negotiated a second plea in abeyance. Under the terms
of the plea offer, Mr. Jenson agreed to pay full restitution of $4,100,000. After agreeing to the
terms of plea, Mr. Jenson pled no contest on May 29, 2008.
62. Throughout plea negotiations, Mr. Shurtleff insisted, on several occasions, that
any plea should require that Mr. Jenson must pay full restitution to victims.
63. Mr. Shurtleff believed that the structure of the plea deal increased the likelihood
that Mr. Jensons victims would receive restitution, because the only way that Mr. Jenson could
avoid a felony record and possible incarceration was to compensate the victims of his crimes.
Based on his experience, Mr. Shurtleff understood that the likelihood of victims receiving
compensation if the case went to a jury was remote, at best.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
15/57
15
64. Mr. Shurtleff was aware that several of the witnesses against Mr. Jenson would be
subject to impeachment, including Mr. Robbins, which undermined the likelihood of a successful
conviction in the absence of a plea agreement.
65. Mr. Shurtleff fully disclosed the plea offer to SA Pickens of the FBI, along with
an explanation of why the Attorney Generals extended a plea in abeyance for three years that
required payment of full restitution to Mr. Jensens victims. The plea in abeyance was entered
while the bribery sting operation targeting Mr. Jenson and Mr. Nelson was still underway and
well before federal authorities made their charging decision against Mr. Jenson and Mr. Nelson
in connection with their scheme.
66. Months after the plea, the Department of Justice declined to prosecute Mr. Jenson
and Mr. Nelson for attempted bribery and related crimes on November 19, 2008.
67. According to federal authorities, the bribery scheme was not prosecutable because
Mr. Nelson had qualified his offers with language that Mr. Jenson was innocent and the funds
would be available to Mr. Shurtleff if he did the right thing. The federal authorities did not
specifically address Mr. Nelsons threats against Mr. Shurtleff.
68. Unfortunately for the victims of his crimes, Mr. Jenson failed to pay any
restitution over the next three years. In 2011, Judge Reese sentenced Mr. Jenson to up to ten
years in state prison for failing to abide by the terms of the plea deal.
69. Mr. Jenson later attempted to orchestrate a scheme from prison by directing his
former victims to tell the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole (Board) that restitution had or
would be paid. Mr. Jenson even received a release, based on his (untruthful) claim that
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
16/57
16
restitution had been paid. Following a subsequent hearing, it was concluded that Jenson had not,
despite his claims to the contrary, in fact paid any of the $4.1 million in restitution.
C.
The Task Force intentionally mischaracterized and omitted material factsrelating to Mr. Jenson prosecution in order to obtain search warrants.
70. Agent Nesbitt and the Salt Lake District Attorneys Office had access to a
complete history of Mr. Shurtleffs participation in the sting operation.
a. Agent Nesbitt interviewed SA Isakson and SA Pickens before he filed the
affidavits in support of search warrants.
b.
SA Isakson and SA Pickens possessed personal knowledge about the
investigation into Mr. Jensons and Mr. Nelsons conduct.
c. SA Isakson participated in the preparation of and signed, under oath, the
probable cause statement attached to the Original Information.
d. Agent Nesbitt and the Salt Lake District Attorneys Office had access to
the FBIs internal documents, which not only identified Mr. Shurtleff as a
victim and confidential informant in the federal investigation, but also
contained correspondence and recordings that undermined the Task
Forces narrative of Mr.Nelsons scheme and plea negotiations.
e. Based on discovery disclosures and the language of the affidavits, Agent
Nesbitt and the Salt Lake District Attorneys Office appear to have had
access to FBI records and extensive emails surrounding Mr. Jensons plea
negotiations.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
17/57
17
71. Agent Nesbitt and the Salt Lake District Attorneys Office omitted critical
information about Mr. Shurtleffs collaborative role in a federal investigation of Mr. Jenson and
Mr. Nelson. Examples of material omissions include the following:
a. As discussed above, rather than accept campaign contributions, Mr.
Shurtleff and the FBI cooperated, collaborated, and participated in an
investigation of unlawful efforts to influence Mr. Jensons criminal case.
b. Mr. Shurtleff himself provided recorded conversations and materials to the
FBI, which materials form the basis of the Task Forces affidavits.
c. Mr. Shurtleff notified the FBI of the terms of the plea in abeyance.
d. Ms. Barlow informed the FBI that the witnesses in Mr. Jensons
prosecution were not the best possible witnesses since they were shady,
but that was common for victims in this type of case.
e. Agent Nesbitt also omitted that Mr. Nelson may have attempted to contact
Ms. Barlow to discuss prosecution of the case.
f. Agent Nesbitt consistently downplayed the role Mr. Reed played in
negotiations, and his relationship to Mr. Skordas.
g. Agent Nesbitt failed to mention that victims of Mr. Jensons fraudulent
scheme also opposed Mr. Reeds initial settlement proposal.
72. Agent Nesbitt intentionally misconstrued events surrounding a key email. Agent
Nesbitt knew that Mr. Shurtleff forwarded the email to Mr. Reed and Mr. Torgensen, after which
Mr. Shurtleff informed other prosecutors that Mr. Lawsons email was inappropriate.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
18/57
18
73. Agent Barlow attempts to create misleading and negative inferences based on
rumors, speculation, and unsubstantiated news articles. For example, Agent Nesbitt fails to
mention that Ms. Barlow conceded that she had never heard anything related to these rum ors
[associated with an article] from [Mr.] Shurtleff.
74. Agent Nesbitt and the Task Force failed to inform the magistrate that Mr.
Shurtleff was unwilling to dismiss charges against Mr. Jenson, but rather insisted that any plea
agreement include millions of dollars in restitution to victims of Mr. Jensons crimes.
75. Agent Nesbitt and the Task Force misrepresented the facts and circumstances
surrounding negotiation of the plea deal by inaccurately attributing the terms and language of the
plea in abeyance to Mr. Shurtleff and failing to disclose that Mr. Shurtleff requested that full
restitution be paid to victims throughout the course of negotiations.
76. Agent Nesbitt lacked any direct evidence that Mr. Jenson or related persons or
entities contributed to Mr. Shurtleffs campaign as a purported quid pro quo for anything, let
alone the dismissal of the criminal charges against Mr. Jenson.
77. Agent Nesbitt failed to mention that Mr. Shurtleff denied possessing any
knowledge, at the time, that Mr. Jenson may have surreptitiously contributed to the cost of a trip
to Pelican Hills approximately one year after the plea arrangement.
78. Agent Nesbitt fails to highlight that his primary witness, Mr. Jenson, was serving
a lengthy prison sentence at the time of his interview with members of the Task Force, or that
Mr. Jenson harbored ill-will and was substantially biased against Mr. Shurtleff.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
19/57
19
III. THE TASK FORCE FABRICATED AN IMPROPER CONNECTION BETWEENMR. SHURTLEFF AND MENTORING OF AMERICA.8
79. Mentoring of America, LLC was a Utah-based call-center company. On or about
November 1, 2008, Mentoring of America contributed $2,500 to Mr. Shurtleffs campaign.
80. Mentoring of America was but one of hundreds of individuals or entities that
contributed to Mr. Shurtleffs 2008 campaign.
81. In affidavits in support of search warrants, Agents Nesbitt and the Salt Lake
District Attorneys Office distorted the relationship between Mr. Shurtleff and Mentoring of
America. Examples of intentionally or recklessly false statements include the following:
a. The affidavits misrepresented the timing and amount of a donation from
Mentoring of America to Mr. Shurtleffs re-election campaign in
November 2008.
b. The affidavits misrepresented the Division of Consumer Protections
investigation of Mentoring of Americathe affiants fail to mention the
fact that the investigation into Mentoring of America had concluded two
years earlier.
82. Similarly, Agent Nesbitt and the Salt Lake District Attorneys Office, without any
evidence in support of such a connection, improperly suggested there was a link between
Mentoring of Americans lawful campaign contribution and Mr. Jensons criminal case.
a.
The affidavits use misleading phrases, such as not long after and
around this time, to falsely draw a temporal connection between
8Affidavit 158, 15-17.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
20/57
20
Mentoring of Americas campaign contributions and plea negotiation in
Mr. Jensons case.
b.
The affidavits fail to discuss the fact that the Mentoring of America
contribution occurred months after (i) Mr. Shurtleff had rejected multiple
requests to dismiss the criminal charges against Mr. Jenson and (ii) Mr.
Shurtleff had alerted federal authorities regarding improper efforts to
influence Mr. Jensons criminal case.
c. When discussing the relationship between Tim Lawson and Mr. Shurtleff,
Agent Nesbitt failed to disclose that Mr. Shurtleff had described Mr.
Lawson as a name dropper and that he had asked Mr. Lawson not use
their relationship.
d. The affidavit fails to disclose that Mr. Lawson was not employed by Mr.
Jenson until a later date, believed to be January 2009, months after the
Mentoring of Americas contribution.
83. As discussed above, Agent Nesbitt and the Salt Lake District Attorneys Office
had access to information necessary to accurately represent the nature of the relationship
between Mentoring of America and Mr. Shurtleff.
a. For example, Agent Nesbitt could have easily accessed campaign finance
records to verify the amount and timing of contributions.
b. Similarly, Agent Nesbitt could have easily interviewed MOA executives,
whom he references by name in the affidavits, to verify whether there was
a connection between the company and Mr. Jenson.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
21/57
21
84. Instead, Agent Nesbitt and the Salt Lake District Attorneys Office included in the
affidavits misleading statements about Mentoring of America for the express purpose of
furthering a false narrative about Mr. Shurtleffs tenure as Attorney General.
85. Agent Nesbitt compounded this error by omitting or misconstruing the timeline of
the allegations surrounding Mentoring of America for the purpose of suggesting improper
conduct.
IV. AGENT NESBITT AND THE TASK FORCE MISLED THE COURT ABOUT THEMEETING AT MIMIS CAF.
A.
While serving as Attorney General, Mr. Shurtleff met with Darl McBride todiscuss his concerns about possible criminal activity.
86. Darl McBride, a Utah-based entrepreneur once described as the most hated man
in high tech, emailed Mark Shurtleff and requested a meeting. After some delay caused by a
missed email, Mr. Shurtleff agreed to meet with Mr. McBride at his request.
87. On May 8, 2009, Mr. McBride met with Mr. Shurtleff at Mimis Caf, a
restaurant located in Sandy, Utah. Mr. McBride controlled the subject matter of the
conversation, which he surreptitiously recorded without Mr. Shurtleffs knowledge or consent.
88. As indicated in the Task Forces transcript of its enhanced recording, Mr.
Shurtleff rarely spoke during the course of the meeting. For most of the meeting, Mr. Shurtleff
asked questions to clarify Mr. McBrides narrative of events. In a few instances, Mr. Shurtleff
explained the background of Mr. Jensons prosecution and his relationship to Timothy Lawson.
89. Mr. McBride spent the majority of the meeting explaining how he had lost
substantial funds investing in a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Mark Robbins, an entrepreneur
who had connections to Mr. Jenson. Mr. McBride accused Mr. Robbins of perpetrating a Ponzi
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
22/57
22
scheme. Mr. McBride claimed that he had taken out loans to pay Mr. Robbins, and that Mr.
Robbins promised to pay back Mr. McBride but failed to do so. Mr. McBride further claimed
that Mr. Robbins had perpetrated similar fraudulent schemes on other investors.
90. In 2008, Mr. Robbins claimed that he was a victim of the fraudulent scheme at the
heart of Mr. Jensons criminal case. Prior to Mr. Jensons plea in abeyance, Ms. Barlow and
prosecutors intended to use Mr. Robbins as a key witness in Mr. Jensons trial.
91. Mr. McBride informed Mr. Shurtleff that he had been contacted by Mr. Lawson.
According to Mr. McBride, Mr. Lawson offered to assist in recovering funds paid to Mr.
McBride for a 30% commission. After Mr. McBride questioned Mr. Lawsons connection to a
bad guy like Mr. Robbins, Mr. Lawson indicated that he carried three concealed weapons and
had Polynesian friends. Mr. McBride stated that Mr. Lawson told him that he needed to deal
with it my way or . . . theres going to be consequences to pay. Mr. Lawson also allegedly
threatened to turn over to prosecutors in Chicago and New York information about Mr.
McBrides criminal conduct during a prior civil dispute with IBM.
92. Mr. McBride stated that he had received a text message from Mr. Lawson about
setting the twelfth richest man in the world against him after Mr. McBride filed a civil action
against Mr. Robbins.
93. Mr. Shurtleff listened carefully to Mr. McBrides allegations.
94. In response to Mr. McBrides concerns, Mr. Shurtleff stated that Mr. Lawson was
a talker and a name dropper. Mr. Shurtleff indicated that he had concerns about how Mr.
Lawson had used Mr. Shurtleffs name. Mr. Shurtleff informed Mr. McBride that he had told
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
23/57
23
Mr. Lawson not to promise things on Mr. Shurtleffs behalf, especially because federal
authorities were pursuing other individuals for engaging in unlawful pay to play schemes.
95.
Mr. Shurtleff informed Mr. McBride that Mr. Jenson and Mr. Robbins had been
partners, and that Mr. Jenson was currently subject to a three-year plea in abeyance.
96. Mr. Shurtleff indicated that Mr. Robbins was one of the witnesses in the criminal
case against Mr. Jenson. Mr. Shurtleff informed Mr. McBride that issues relating to the
credibility of Mr. Robbins undermined the strength of the criminal case against Mr. Jenson.
97. Mr. Lawson had no authority to make representations to Mr. McBride on behalf
of Mr. Shurtleff. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Shurtleff lacked specific information regarding Mr.
Lawsons communications with Mr. McBride or the purported threats.
98. Mr. Shurtleff agreed to look into Mr. McBrides concerns.
99. Unlike Mr. Lawson, Mr. Shurtleff did not attempt to discourage Mr. McBrides
pursuit of Mr. Robbins. To the contrary, Mr. Shurtleff encouraged Mr. McBride to pursue a
variety of different forms of legal relief, including additional lawsuits against Mr. Robbins.
100. Mr. Shurtleff had no financial or personal interest in resolving the dispute
between the two businessmen in favor of Mr. Robbins.
101. Mr. Shurtleff lacked leverage to cause Mr. Jenson to pay Mr. McBride, because
the court ordered payment of restitution to a class of identified victims, which did not include
Mr. McBride or Mr. Robbins.
102. Mr. McBride later brought a civil case in the Third Judicial District Court, State
of Utah, against Mr. Shurtleff for acts that allegedly occurred in 2012.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
24/57
24
B. Agent Nesbitt and the Task Force misrepresented the Mimis Caf meetingand misled the court for the purpose of obtaining warrants.
103. Agent Nesbitt and the Task Force misrepresented the conversation that occurred
at the Mimis Caf meeting in the hopes of obtaining warrants. Among other things, the
affidavits contain intentional or reckless material statements about the following subjects:
a. The affidavits erroneously suggested Mr. Shurtleff initiated contact with Mr.
McBride, when in fact Mr. McBride initiated contact with Mr. Shurtleff.
b. At one point, Mr. Shurtleff appears to have agreed with Mr. McBride that a
harsh response may be appropriate, a fact which Agent Nesbitt misconstrued
in his affidavits.
c. Although Mr. Shurtleff repeated Mr. McBrides characterization of Mr.
Robbinss activities as a Ponzi scheme, an accurate reading of the transcript
demonstrates that Mr. Shurtleff merely used the term Ponzi in response to
Mr. McBrides statements. During the meeting, Mr. Shurtleff never
confirmed that Mr. Robbins was in fact engaged in such criminal activity.
d. Contrary to the affidavits, there is no indication that Mr. Shurtleff offered
anything to Mr. McBride to remove his Skyline Cowboys website.
e. Contrary to the affidavits, there is no indication that Mr. Shurtleff expressed
concerns that Mr. Robbins would be unable to complete deals because of Mr.
McBrides Skyline Cowboys website.
f. Contrary to the affidavits, there is no indication in the audio recording or the
enhanced transcript that Mr. Shurtleff made several of the statements
contained in quotation marks in the affidavits.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
25/57
25
g. For example, Agent Nesbitt appeared to suggest that Mr. Shurtleff told Mr.
McBride: But you got your money, you got to promise us there cant be
anything else from you. You know, it just straight up. But there are either
no such statements included in the Task Forces enhanced transcript of the
recording, or Agent Nesbitt significantly misrepresented the import of the
statement.
h. Similarly, Agent Nesbitt misrepresented Mr. Shurtleffs offer of assistance.
i. By using quotation marks, Agent Nesbitt and members of the Task Force
intentionally or recklessly misquoted the tape and enhanced transcript of the
enhanced recording.
104. Agent Nesbitt and the Task Force also materially omitted key portions of the
enhanced transcript in an effort to mislead the court into issuing warrants. Among other things,
the Task Force failed to include the following material information.
a.
The affidavits fail to mention that Mr. Shurtleff described Mr. Lawson as a
name dropper and the fact that Mr. Shurtleff appears to have disavowed any
knowledge or participation in Mr. Lawsons activities.
b. The affidavits fail to mention that Mr. Shurtleff insisted that Mr. Lawson did
not represent his interests, and that he had been instructed to stop representing
that he could resolve issues through his connection to Mr. Shurtleff.
c. The affidavits fail to mention that Mr. Shurtleff never authorized or condoned
Mr. Lawsons conduct or representations to Mr. McBride.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
26/57
26
105. Agent Nesbitt either intentionally or recklessly omitted information obtained from
Mr. Robbins, who denied owing money to Mr. McBride and denied any allegation that Mr.
Shurtleff approached Mr. McBride on his behalf.
106. Agent Nesbitt possessed information that Mr. Shurtleff denied that Mr. Lawson
worked on his behalf. Despite that fact, he recklessly, intentionally, and misleadingly suggested
throughout search warrant affidavits that Mr. Lawson worked for Mr. Shurtleff without sufficient
supporting proof.
107. Finally, Agent Nesbitt misconstrued the context of the conversation and Mr.
Shurtleffs role in the conversation.
V. AGENT NESBITT AND THE TASK FORCE USED FALSE STATEMENTS ANDOMISSIONS RELATING TO JEREMY JOHNSON IN THE AFFIDAVITS.
108. Throughout the affidavits, Agent Nesbitt uses misleading inferences and
omissions relating to Jeremy Johnson, iWorks, and Mr. Swallows own campaign activities in an
effort to improperly incriminate Mr. Shurtleff and manufacture probable cause.
A. Mr. Shurtleff has never denied that he and Mr. Johnson participated in andsponsored private charitable initiatives.
109. In a series of interviews with the FBI, Mr. Shurtleff discussed Mr. Johnson.
110. Mr. Shurtleff brought federal investigators information about possible misconduct
by Mr. Swallow and Mr. Johnson in late 2012, which was months before the Lieutenant
Governors Office or the Utah Legislature began investigating Mr. Swallow.
111. Years before federal investigators pursued regulatory and criminal actions against
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Johnson participated in supporting two private charitable
organizations: the Utah Meth Cops Project, which offered treatment to police officers exposed to
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
27/57
27
hazardous chemicals during drug raids, and The Lost Boys, an organization that offers refuge to
young men without homes. Throughout the affidavits, Agent Nesbitt deliberately confuses
fundraising or assistance with fundraising for the charitable projects with political fundraising.
112. Agent Nesbitt and members of the Task Force failed to disclose that the Utah
Division of Consumer Protection resolved its investigation into Jeremy Johnson and iWorks with
a settlement agreement dated October 1, 2003 and June 8, 2005, several years before Mr.
Shurtleff met Mr. Johnson.
113. Agent Nesbitt and members of the Task Force failed to provide any supporting
evidence connecting Mr. Johnson to Mr. Shurtleff and improper conduct following his departure
from office. Despite the absence of a logical connection, Agent Nesbitt continuously emphasizes
the relationship between Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Johnson in a manner that is misleading and
inaccurate.
114. Agent Nesbitt deliberately omits a key piece of an interview with Mr. Johnson, in
which Mr. Johnson appears to have stated: [T]here was no quidpro quo with Mark Shurtleff.
VI. AGENT NESBITT AND THE TASK FORCE MISLED THE MAGISTRATE IN ASERIES OF MISCELLANEOUS ALLEGATIONS.
115. Throughout the affidavits, Agent Nesbitt and members of the Task Force
juxtaposed unrelated pieces of informationwhile omitting key informationin an effort to
mislead the Magistrate and obtain warrants. Numerous examples of misleading and untruthful
statements are identified below.
116. In addition to providing false information and materially omitted key information,
Agent Nesbitt and the members of the Task Force juxtaposed unrelated information in order to
create false syllogisms and mislead the Court about the basis for the warrants.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
28/57
28
117. Examples of material omissions and misleading statements are identified below.
These examples will be supplemented by additional information contained in the undisclosed
Bradymaterial, as well as the evidentiary hearing.
A. Agent Nesbitt misled the magistrate with inaccurate information aboutJonathan Eborn and Mr. Shurtleffs interview with the FBI.
118. In affidavits, Agent Nesbitt and members of the Task Force mischaracterized
statements made by Jonathan Eborn, as discussed below.
119. During an interview with Agent Nesbitt, Mr. Eborn made vague references and
admitted that he could not remember specific statements, given the length of time that had
elapsed between his interview and events in 2008.
120. Despite Mr. Eborns weak recollection of events, Agent Nesbitt and members of
the Task Force misquoted Mr. Eborns statements throughout the affidavit without disclosing
issues pertaining to his memory.
121. Agent Nesbitt also failed to disclose that Mr. Eborn candidly admitted that he
made assumptions about Mr. Johnsons relationship with Mr. Shurtleff.
122. Agent Nesbitt mischaracterized Mr. Shurtleff as publicly defending Mr.
Johnson and proclaim[ing] Mr. Johnson a legitimate businessman, when Mr. Eborn disavowed
similar statements during an interview with Agent Nesbitt.
123. Based on a comparison of interview transcripts and statements made in the
affidavits, it appears that Agent Nesbitt, at times, fabricated statements and attributed them to
Mr. Eborn.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
29/57
29
B. Agent Nesbitt misled the magistrate with inaccurate statements about Mr.Shurtleffs Senate campaign and FBI interview.
124. Agent Nesbitt and members of the Task Force mischaracterized the reasons that
Mr. Shurtleff abandoned a campaign for the United States Senate in 2009.
125. Agent Nesbitt fabricated the statement: Mark Shurtleff said that the Bennett
campaign was not going to release any campaign ads against him.
126. In fact, throughout his interview, Mr. Shurtleff described in detail the family
challenges and difficulty of balancing the responsibilities of the Attorney Generals Office with a
Senate campaign. Mr. Shurtleff clearly stated that he dropped out of the race in order to devote
additional time to his daughter, who was struggling with significant health issues.
127. During his interview, Mr. Shurtleff was surprised at the allegations relating to the
Bennett advertisement, informed the FBI agents that it was the first instance that he had heard of
the allegations, and stated that his campaign staff may have been aware of the advertisement but
that they never said anything to Mr. Shurtleff.
128.
Despite the transcript, Agent Nesbitt attempts to create a misleading inference of
false statements to the FBI, when in fact Mr. Shurtleff openly addressed and responded to the
FBI agents questions relating to his decision to drop out of the Senate campaign.
C. Agent Nesbitt mischaracterized statements from other interviews.
129. Agent Nesbitt failed to inform the Magistrate of the contents of an interview with
Ms. Barlow, where Ms. Barlow indicated that she did not have personal knowledge of a quid
pro quo agreement between [Mr. Shurtleff] and [Mr. Jenson, and that she] did not think that it
was unethical that [Mr. Shurtleff] wanted a plea in abeyance instead of a trial.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
30/57
30
D. Agent Nesbitt mischaracterized the basis of the State of Utahs participationin and withdrawal from a private civil action against Bank of America.
130. Throughout the affidavit, Agent Nesbitt used material misrepresentations and
omissions to mislead the magistrate about the State of Utahs participation in Bell v.
Countrywide Bank NA, a private civil suit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah from March 2011 to February 2013.
131. Overall, Agent Nesbitt failed to accurately represent or investigate facts and
details relating to the Bank of America allegations. For example, the private action, which
involved more defendants than just Countrywide Bank, N.A. d/b/a/ Bank of America, was
originally filed in state court. It was not removed to federal court until March 22, 2011.
Similarly, Agent Nesbitt made little or no attempt to obtain relevant and key information from
Troutman Sanders before including sweeping misrepresentations in the search warrant affidavits.
132. Agent Nesbitt either intentionally or recklessly attempted to create a negative
inference from the fact that Mr. Shurtleff met with Countrywide representatives and then, two
weeks later, granted an extension to Countrywide. There is nothing improper or unlawful about
meeting attorneys or granting an extension as part of civil litigation. In fact, Utahs Standards of
Professionalism and Civility encourage attorneys to grant reasonable requests for extensions.
133. To further confuse the separate and independent conduct of Mr. Shurtleff and Mr.
Swallow, Agent Nesbitt falsely alleged that Mr. Shurtleff gave the order to grant the extension,
when in fact evidence suggested that the order for an extension originated with Mr. Swallow.
134. Agent Nesbitt confused the timeline of the Bell litigation by intentionally omitting
the fact that Mr. Swallow did not know that hosts of the fundraiser were involved in the
foreclosure case until after the date of the States intervention or the extension.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
31/57
31
135. Agent Nesbitt referenced Mr. Shurtleffs interview with a future employer in an
effort to mislead the magistrate into believing that the two events were related. Agent Nesbitt
had no information or evidence that Mr. Shurtleffs offer of employment on the State Attorneys
General Team of a nationwide firm that represents hundreds of corporate clients bore any
relation to the States minor participation in theBell litigation.
136. Agent Nesbitt attempted to create a negative inference by referencing Assistant
Attorney General Jerry Jensens exclusion from the Bell litigation in the fall of 2012. Agent
Nesbitt, however, fails to inform the magistrate that Jerry Jensen, who instigated intervention in
the litigation, had been removed from the case due to a perceived personal conflict.
137. Agent Nesbitt created a false and misleading inference about the circumstances
surrounding the settlement of theBell litigation.
138. Misconstruing the import and scope of settlement negotiations in the Bell case,
Agent Nesbitt intentionally or recklessly attempted to create a misleading inference that the
Attorney Generals Office abandoned the interests of thousands of Utah citizens. In fact, even as
it withdrew from the Bell litigation, the Attorney Generals Office remained active in asserting
the same arguments and interests in other cases.
139. The Attorney Generals Office had completed an investigation into Bank of
America two years before Mr. Bell filed his private civil action. Mr. Shurtleffs office negotiated
a nationwide settlement with the five largest banks, including Bank of America, which brought
tens of millions of dollars to Utah homeowners and the State for the benefit of those who fell
victim to anti-consumer practices.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
32/57
32
140. For example, the Utah Supreme Court issued a decision favorably to Utah in
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Sundquist,9 a case which was briefed during Mr.
Shurtleffs administration and decided after his departure from office.
141. Moreover, Agent Nesbitt failed to provide any discussion of the five cases in
which the State continued to pursue the interests of homeowners, despite the fact that Judge
Jenkins considered these cases when determining whether to allow dismissal in theBell case.
142. By failing to mention these cases, Agent Nesbitt misled the magistrate about Mr.
Shurtleffs evaluation of the costs and benefits of continuing the litigation.
143. Agent Nesbitt further failed to mention that Judge Jenkins ultimately approved the
settlement, in part based on the States representation that the interests of homeowners were
protected in other pending litigation.
E. Agent Nesbitt mischaracterized Mr. Shurtleffs voluntary interview with theFederal Bureau of Investigation.
144. On May 6, 2013, Mr. Shurtleff visited the FBIs office for the purpose of answers
questions arising out of the investigation of Mr. Swallow. Mr. Shurtleff perceived his
participation as voluntary. Attendees included Mr. Shurtleff, Special Agent Jon Isakson, Special
Agent Crystal Bowen, and Ed Sullivan.
F. Agent Nesbitt created a false narrative surrounding Mr. Shurtleffs visit toCalifornia based principally on statements of Mr. Jenson without adequatelydisclosing that Mr. Jenson was serving a prison sentence.
145.
In May 2009, Mr. Shurtleff travelled to a resort in California to devote time to
finishing a work of historical fiction, which was later published as Am I Not A Man? The Dred
Scott Story.
92013 UT 45, 311 P.3d 1004.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
33/57
33
146. Throughout the affidavits, Agent Nesbitt created a series of false and misleading
statements in an effort to suggest that the visits to California were illegal or had an improper
purpose, as discussed below.
147. In doing so, Agent Nesbitt relied heavily on statements obtained during an
interview of Mr. Jenson. Agent Nesbitt fails to mention or ignores significant exculpatory
statements derived from recordings of Mr. Jenson, who was serving a lengthy prison sentence,
and which Agent Nesbitt obtained from Beaver County Jail.
148. Agent Nesbitt ignored or underemphasized evidence that Mr. Shurtleffs office
pursued Mr. Jenson after he failed to make restitution payments to victims.
149. Agent Nesbitt deliberately ignored or failed to disclose evidence that Mr.
Shurtleff continued to actively pursue restitution payments through 2009 and 2010.
VII. AGENT NESBITT AND MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE KNEW THAT THEINFORMATION IN THE AFFIDAVITS WAS FALSE AND MISLEADING.
150. The Salt Lake District Attorneys Office and FBI-Utah provided oversight,
encouragement, and assistance to Agent Nesbitt and other members of the Task Force throughout
the course of the investigation, which lasted several months.
151. On information and belief, FBI-Utah provided state agencies with access to the
files containing accurate information about Mr. Shurtleffs role in its investigation of Mr.
Jensons attempts to improperly influence his criminal case in 2008.
152.
Agent Nesbitt interviewed SA Pickens and SA Isakson. Both FBI-Utah agents
possessed accurate information about the circumstances surrounding the recorded conversations.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
34/57
34
153. The Salt Lake District Attorneys Office, which had access to FBI-Utahs files,
provided oversight when Agent Nesbitt submitted intentionally and recklessly false statements in
affidavits in order to manufacture probable cause and particularity where none actually existed.
154. For all of these reasons, the Task Force, including Agent Nesbitt and the Salt
Lake District Attorneys Office, could not have been mistaken about the false and inaccurate
statements used in the affidavits to secure a series of search warrants.
VIII. AGENT NESBITT AND THE TASK FORCE REPEATED THE FALSE ANDMISLEADING STATEMENTS IN A SERIES OF AFFIDAVITS.
155.
If Mr. Shurtleff pursues the Motion to Suppress, he intends to file an exhibit that
cross-references the many instances in which Agent Nesbitt used identical intentional or reckless
misrepresentations and material omissions to obtain otherwise private information from
numerous other sources and individuals.
IX. AGENT NESBITT RELIES HEAVILY ON ASSERTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THETASK FORCE THROUGHOUT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVITS
156.
When preparing and submitting the search warrant affidavits, Agent Nesbitt relied
heavily on statements provided by FBI-Utah and its investigative work. Agent Nesbitts
dependence on the federal investigatory work is illustrated by the fact that SA Isakson is
referenced approximately 67 times throughout Search Warrant Affidavit 158, and SA Ulsh is
referred to approximately 9 times. Agent Nesbitt also references interviews initially conducted
by FBI-Utah or DOJ-PIN, including interviews involving Mr. Shurtleff.
157. Agent Nesbitt devotes substantial time and attention in the affidavits to several
key witnesses in this case, including Mr. Jenson and Mr. Johnson, who both appear to have
interacted with FBI-Utah.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
35/57
35
158. Given FBI-Utahs substantial role in the investigation, the broad range of
individuals referenced through Agent Nesbitts affidavits, and Agent Nesbitts misleading
narrative, as described above, Mr. Shurtleffs ability to assert and prevail on his Franks claim
will depend, at least in part, on production of all exculpatory and impeachment evidence,
including information pertaining to the propriety of FBI-Utahs involvement in the investigation
and documents within the scope of Mr. Shurtleffs outstanding discovery requests.10
159. The following table, which incorporates the facts described above, contains
examples of specific instances in which Agent Nesbitt used material omissions or
misrepresentations to obtain a search warrant to invade Mr. Shurtleffs home. The analysis is
intended to be illustrative, not comprehensive.
10See Ex. A toBradyMotion, III.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
36/57
36
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statements
in Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
!" $%&'()*) +&'(,- .,(/ 0,1' &223&*. .%&. 4%) -&4 &4435*)/ .,6',4)71.) .%) 7&4) &5&3*4. 8&'7 9)*4,* &*/ .%&. 4%) 23()/ .%)7%&'5)4 &5&3*4. 8&'7 9)*4,*" $%&'()*) +&'(,- .,(/ 0,1'&223&*. .%&. &4 .%) 7&4) -&4 6',7))/3*5: 4%) %)&'/ .%&. 8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
37/57
37
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OM" $%&'()*) +&'(,- .,(/ 0,1' &223&*. .%&. =)2,') .%) 7&4)&5&3*4. 8&'7 9)*4,* -&4 ')4,(F)/: .%) @.&% A..,'*)0B)*)'&(J4 K2237) ')7)3F)/ & 7,>6(&3*. &=,1. 8&'7 9)*4,*J43*F,(F)>)*. 3* .%) 8,1*. P,((0 6',Q)7.: &*/ 4%) 2,'-&'/)/.%) 7,>6(&3*. ., .%) @.&% E3F343,* ,2 )/3& ')5&'/3*5 .%) 7&4)" $%&'()*) +&'(,- .,(/ 0,1'&223&*. .%&. .%) &'.37() >)*.3,*)/ =)%3*/ .%) 47)*)43*2,'>&.3,* &=,1. 8,1*. P,((0 &*/ .%&. 8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
38/57
38
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OO" $%&'()*) +&'(,- .,(/ 0,1' &223&*. .%&. =)2,') .%) .'3&( -&4., =)53*: G3'; H,'5)*4)* .,(/ %)' .%&. 8&'; ., ,22)' 8&'79)*4,* &*0.%3*5 ., >&;) .%) 7&4) 5, &-&0" $%&'()*) +&'(,-.,(/ 0,1' &223&*. .%&.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
39/57
39
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OL" K* ,' &=,1. K7.,=)' TO: LMOT: )44&5)4 -&4 2',> 8&'; )4 &*/ 4,>) ,.%)'4: U 4155)4.)/ U -,1(/ 4)'3,14(07,*43/)' & 6()& 3* &=)0&*7)" 3 -3(( 4)*/ & 7,60 /,-* ., 0,1.,/&0 .%',15% 3*Z%,14) >&3(" U* 4%,'.: %) ,22)'4 ., 6()&/ J*,7,*.)4.J ., .%')) .%3'/4: 6&0 & [O\:MMM 23*) ., ,*.%&=)0&*7)" V,' ')&4,*4 U -3(( =) %&660 ., )N6(&3* 3* 6)'4,*: U&> 3*.)*. ,* &77)6.3*5 & *, 7,*.)4. 6()& 3* &=)0&*7) ., .%')).%3'/ /)5')) 2)(,*3)4: =1. ,=F3,14(0 .%)') *))/4 ., =) & (,*5)'&=)0&*7) 6)'3,/ &*/ >,') ')4.3.1.3,* &*/ 6)'%&64 & %)2.3)'23*) """H%) S1)4.3,* U -,1(/ (3;) 0,1: G3'; &*/ $%&'()*) .,7,*43/)' 34 32 -) 7,1(/ ')S13') & (,*5)' 6)'3,/ =1. '1* 3.').',&7.3F)(0 ., 4,>) /&.) ?3")" =3*/Z,F)': ,' 4,>).%3*5C"""UJ>41') .%34 )>&3( -3(( =) F3)-)/ &4 7&63.1(&.3,* ,* >0 6&'. &*/ U-,1(/ (3;) ., /347144 .%34 -%,() .%3*5 &. ()*5.% =1. U -&*.)/., 5). 4.&'.)/ ,* .%34 -%3() O&> ')7,F)'3*5 2',> >0 &//3.3,*&(41'5)'0 .,>,'',-" ]()&4) ;*,- .%&. U &> *,. 41771>=3*5 .,='3=)4 ,' .%')&.4" H%34 %&4 ., /, -3.% .%) 2&7. .%&. &>,*5 .%)
/,^)*4 ,2 7,*F)'4&.3,*4 UJF) %&/ -3.% 9)*4)* 4166,'.)'4: & 2)-U /))>)/ ., =) 7')/3=(): 43*7)') &*/ *,. >,.3F&.)/ =0 &23*&*73&( 3*.)')4. ,' .3) ., 9)*4)*R .%) 6',=()>4 -3.% ,1'-3.*)44)4 -%37% >&0: ,' >&0 *,.: =) ;)6. 2',> .%) Q1'0R &*/>0 ,-* 7,*F)'4&.3,*4 -3.% 9)*4)* &*/ >0 7,*7(143,* .%&. %)-3(( =) F)'0 =)(3)F&=() ., & Q1'0"X
X20
X21
20Agent Nesbit mischaracterizes Mr. Shurtleffs role in negotiations. See supra SOF, II.
21 Agent Nesbitt intentionally misconstrues the email, which states: In sum, Im okay with a shorter abeyanceperiod but think he should pay a bigger financial penalty. . . . My biggest concern is that Charlene will think I donttrust her or value all of her outstanding work on this case, so please discuss it with Charlene.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
40/57
40
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OT" A77,'/3*5 ., 3*2,'>&.3,* 6',F3/)/ ., 0,1' &223&*. =0
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
41/57
41
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
O\" A77,'/3*5 ., 3*2,'>&.3,* 6',F3/)/ ., 0,1' &223&*. =0344 .%)@ABKJ4 7%&'5)4 &5&3*4. 8&'7 9)*4,*" ]&1( _)(4,* 7,*.3*1)/., 7,17% %34 4.&.)>)*.4 3* .)'>4 ,2 /,3*5 X.%) '35%. .%3*5X &*/8&'; 6&35*7,*.'3=1.3,*4 ., 8&'; ):H3>,.%0 c&-4,* -,';)/ 2,' & 7&((Z7)*.)' ?.)()>&';).3*5C7,>6&*0 7&(()/ 8)*.,'3*5 ,2 A>)'37& ?8KAC" 8KA -&4 .%)41=Q)7. ,2 .%')) 2'&1/ 3*F)4.35&.3,*4 =0 .%) @.&% E3F343,* ,2$,*41>)' ]',.)7.3,* .%&. ')41(.)/ 3* &/>3*34.'&.3F) 73.&.3,*4&*/ ,*) )*2,'7)>)*. &7.3,*" dN)71.3F)4 ,2 8KA >). -3.%
8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
42/57
42
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OW" K* 9&*1&'0 W: LMM!: 8&'; &3( ., %344)7').&'0 P)()* ]).)'4)*: XP)()*: 7&* 0,1 6()&4) 7&(( 8&'4%&K'3.3 """ &. 8)*.,'3*5 ,2 A>)'37& Pe 3* $&(32,'*3& &*/ 4). 16& (1*7% >)).3*5 -3.% $dK E,15 B'&F3*; &*/ $KK B&'0P)-3.." V,' *)N. -));f g437h H%)0 -3(( 2(0 16 %)') 2,' .%)>)).3*5 ?&*/ ='3*5 >) &*,.%)' [O\G"C 8&'4%& 34 )N6)7.3*50,1' 7&((" U 4155)4. 8&';). &*/ (). %3> ;*,- /&.) &*/ .3>) &2.)'0,1 4). 3. 16" H%&*;4iX H3>,.%0 c&-4,* -&4 7,63)/ .%) )Z>&3( &. 21((*)4.)'Oj*).^)',"7,>" $&>6&35* ')7,'/4 4%,-.%&. 2',> A1514. LMMW .%',15% _,F)>=)' LMM!: 8&';)'37&:
A77,'/3*5 ., 23()/ 7,1'. /,71>)*.4: .%) V)/)'&( H'&/)$,>>3443,* ?VH$C 23()/ & 7,>6(&3*. &5&3*4. 8KA: E,15(&4B'&F3*;: B&'0 P)-3..: &*/ ,.%)'4 3* 91*) ,2 LMMI 3* .%)@*3.)/ H3>,.%0 c&-4,* ')&/4: XA(( U-,1(/ (3;) 0,1 ., /, =', 34 ')F3)- .%34"X H%) )Z>&3( -&4 4)*.2',> H3>,.%0 c&-4,*J4 21((*)4.)'j0&%,,"7,> )Z>&3(&77,1*. ., 8&'; )*. &(4, ')S1)4.4 &* &((,-&*7) 2,' 8&'7 9)*4,* .,7,*.3*1) -,';3*5 ,* .%) 8,1*. P,((0 ]',Q)7.: )F)* .%,15% 3.-,1(/ ')S13') ()*/3*5 &*/ =,'',-3*5Z21*/4"
X32
30Agent Nesbitt intentionally misrepresents the amount of the campaign contribution. Supra Part III.
31Supra SOF, 84-85.
32Supra SOF, II.A, II.C; see also SOF, 72.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
43/57
43
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OI" K* ,' &=,1. 8&0 O: LMM!: 8&'7 9)*4,* &..)>6.)/ ., )*.)'3*., .%) 6()& 3* &=)0&*7) &5'))>)*. .%&. 3*7(1/)/ %3> 6&03*5& [O\:MMM 23*): *, ')4.3.1.3,*: &*/ *, .)'> ,2 3*7&'7)'&.3,*"H%) 6()& -&4 6')4)*.)/ ., 91/5) D,=3* D))4) ,2 .%) H%3'/E34.'37. $,1'. 3* )*. .%&. 3*F,(F)/ %3> 6&03*5
& [O\:MMM 23*) &*/ [`:OMM:MMM 3* ')4.3.1.3,* .%&. %&/ ., =)6&3/ -3.%3* .%) Tb >,*.% 6()& 3* &=)0&*7) .)'>" H%) 6()&&5'))>)*. &(4, &((,-)/ 8&'7 9)*4,* ., 7,*.3*1) %343*F,(F)>)*. 3* .%) 8,1*. P,((0 6',Q)7." 8&'7 9)*4,* /3/ *,.6&0 &*0 ')4.3.1.3,* /1'3*5 .%) Tb >,*.% 6)'3,/"
X35
LO" A77,'/3*5 ., ')7)36.4 6',F3/)/ =0 8&'7 9)*4,*: =).-))*&=,1. 8&0 ,2 LMMI &*/ 91(0 ,2 LMMI: 8&'; )*.4 >&/) =0 8&'7
9)*4,*: 8&'7 9)*4,* 6&3/ 2,' .%)> ., 4.&0 &. .%) (1N1'0 ')4,'.3*7(1/3*5 6&03*5 2,' .%)3' >&44&5)4: 5,(2: 2,,/: &*/ 7(,.%3*5"8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
44/57
44
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
LL" Y,1' &223&*. ,=.&3*)/ ')6,'.4 2',> ,.%0 c&-4,* .,%&F) &77)44 ., 8&'; *,. ., -,''0&=,1. &=,F)" 8&'7 9)*4,* .,(/ 6(&3*3*5 ., .%) @.&% A..,'*)0B)*)'&(J4 K2237)"
X37
LT" 8&'7 9)*4,* .,(/ ,.%0c&-4,*J4 F&(1) ., %3> -&4 %34 7(,4) 2'3)*/4%36 -3.% 8&';,.%0 c&-4,* 2,'8&'; ?8&'7 9)*4,*C &. ])(37&* P3((" 8&'7 9)*4,*.,(/ _)- Y,'; &*/ c,4 A*5)()4" 8&'7
9)*4,* .,(/ .%&. %) -&*.)/ ., >)). %34 =143*)44 &44,73&.)4 ., 4));21*/3*5 2,' %34 @*3.)/
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
45/57
45
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
L`" 8&'7 9)*4,* .,(/ &.3,* ., H3>,.%0 c&-4,*J421((*)4.)'j0&%,,"7,> &77,1*." H3>,.%0 c&-4,* ')6(3)/ .,]).)' H,'')4J )Z>&3( ,* A6'3( LT: LMMI 2',> .%) 4&>) )Z>&3(&77,1*." A. .%) =,..,> ,2 .%) )Z>&3(: H3>,.%0 c&-4,*3*7(1/)/ %34 )Z>&3( &77,1*. ,2 &/53((7j5>&3("7,> &4 6&'. ,2%34 435*&.1')" U* .%) =,/0 ,2 .%) )Z>&3(: H3>,.%0 c&-4,* 4&3/XH%&*;4 &5&3* 2,' )F)'0.%3*5 =',"X H3>,.%0 c&-4,* )Z>&3()/%34 =&*; &77,1*. 3*2,'>&.3,* ., ]).)' H,'')4 ,* A1514. L!:LMMI" H%34 )Z>&3( -&4 4)*. 2',> H3>,.%0 c&-4,*J4 XA66()E1>6(3*5 B&*5X )Z>&3( &77,1*.: &/53((7j5>&3("7,> &*/3*7(1/)/ &* &..&7%>)*. -3.% =&*; -3') 3*4.'17.3,*4" U* .%)=,/0 ,2 .%) )Z>&3(: H3>,.%0 c&-4,* .,(/ ]).)' H,'')4: XP)0=',: U %&/ ., 7(,4) >0 &/53 &77,1*. =)7&14) ,2 &(( .%) =,1*7)/
X42
X43
39Mr. Shurtleff expressly denies making the false statements attributed to him in this paragraph.
40Supra SOF, II.A, II.C; see also SOF, 77-78, 145-149.
41Supra SOF, II.A, II.C; see also SOF, 77-78, 145-149.
42Supra SOF, II.A, II.C; see also SOF, 77-78, 145-149.
43Supra SOF, II.A, II.C; see also SOF, 77-78, 145-149.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
46/57
46
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
7%)7;4 ).7 """ P)') 34 & 7()&* &77,1*." U2 0,1 %&F) &*0S1)4.3,*4 (). >) ;*,- =',: &*/ &4 141&(: U 5,. 0,1' =&7; &*/=)(3)F) 3* 0,1 OMMklOM"X A77,'/3*5 ., @.&% E)6&'.>)*. ,2$,>>)'7) ')7,'/4: H3>,.%0 c&-4,* 34 .%) D)534.)')/ A5)*.&*/ 3*7,'6,'&.,' ,2 .%) =143*)44 A66() E1>6(3*5 B&*5U*F)4.>)*.4"
L!" A77,'/3*5 ., /,71>)*.4 6',F3/)/ =0 &*/ 4.&.)>)*.4 >&/)=0 d/-&'/ E,**)': ,* 8&'7% L`: LMMI: H3>,.%0 c&-4,* 4)*.&* )>&3( >)44&5) ., H3> +)(( .%&. -&4 3*.)*/)/ 2,' H3> +)((
&*/ d/-&'/ E,**)'" H%) 41=Q)7. (3*) ')&/ XD)a H%,15%.4 2,'H3> +)(( &*/ E'" E,**)'X: &*/ .%) >)44&5) ')&/ XU2 E'"E,**)' %&4 &*0 S1)4.3,*4 .%&. U &> 7&6&=() ,2 ')4,(F3*5 .%)4)23*&*73&( 3441)4 .%&. %) 34 3*F,(F)/ -3.% ,* .%) 8,1*. P,((06',Q)7. %) 34 >,') .%&* -)(7,>) ., )>&3( .%) AB g) ,2 .%)4) 3441)4 =0 &/34.&*. >1.1&( 2'3)*/ &*/ .%) AB"""" Y,1 &*/ E'" E,**)' ().>) ;*,- -%&. 0,1' /)7343,* 34 )3.%)' -&0" P)') 34 .%)A..,'*)0 B)*)'&(J4 )>&3( &//')44" V))( 2')) ., 7,*.&7. %3>"8&'; &/53((7j5>&3("7,>X
X44
44Agent Nesbitt does not include any reference to an explanatory email from Mr. Wadley to Mr. Donner.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
47/57
47
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
TT" A* )>&3( /&.)/ =)' LT: LMMI: -&4 2',> c&-4,* 4&04.%&. .%) AB >). -3.% 8&'; 9)*4,* 3* $&(32,'*3& &',1*/ $3*7,/) 8&0,: &*/ .%&. c&-4,* -&4 .%)') -3.% %3> -%)* .%)>)).3*5 ,771'')/" H%34 -,1(/ =) & /322)')*. >)).3*5 .%&* .%),*) -) ;*,- &=,1. 3* 91*) -%)') .%) AB -)*. ., 7%1'7% &*/%&/ (1*7% -3.% 9)*4,*" H%34 7,3*73/)4 -3.% 8&';J4 /3')7.3F) .,61. & =1*7% ,2 8,1*.0 P,((0 7,>6(&3*.4 ,* & 2&4. .'&7;:3*F,(F3*5 3*5 ., %&F)=))* =3(;)/ =0 4,>) F)'0 =&/ >)* ,1. ,2 _)- Y,';" 8&';
61. ,1. .%,4) 7,>6(&3*.4 ,* 8&0 !: &'51&=(0 &2.)' %34 >)).3*5-3.% 9)*4,* &*/ c&-4,* &*/ 5)..3*5 &* )&'21( &=,1. 8." P,((0&*/ 6',=&=(0 4&03*5 4,>).%3*5 (3;) J61. 3. 3* -'3.3*5 &*/ UJ((53F) 3. ., >0 3*F)4.35&.,'4: &*/ 3* .%) >)&*.3>) UJ(( 7&(( >05,,/ 2'3)*/ AB $1,>, 3* _)- Y,'; &*/ 5). 4,>).%3*55,3*5 2,' 0,1"J U*.)')4.3*5 32 .'1)" m%).%)' 3.J4 .'1) ,' *,.:$%&**)( \ %&4 3.: -%37% >)&*4 .%&. )F)'0=,/0 -%, 7&')4 %&43. .,,: &*/ 3. -3(( 7,>) ,1. 4,>).3>) /1'3*5 .%) 7&>6&35*" &. 8&'; D,==3*4J 7,>6&*0 A(]" E&'(87+'3/) .,(/ 0,1' &223&*. .%&. 8&'; D,==3*4 .,(/ %3> .%&. %34=&4) 4&(&'0 -&4 ., =) [\MM:MMM -3.% [O:\MM:MMM 3* =,*14)4"
X46
45Supra SOF, II.A, II.C.
46SupraSOF, IV; see also SOF, 105.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
48/57
48
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
T\" A77,'/3*5 ., 4.&.)>)*.4 >&/) =0 E&'( 87+'3/) ., 0,1'&223&*.: %) 7')&.)/ & -)=43.) 7&(()/ &.3,* ., G)/3&.)(0&2.)' .%) G,.%0 c&-4,* 7&(()/ E&'(87+'3/)" H3>,.%0 c&-4,* .,(/ E&'( 87+'3/) .%&. %) %&4
=))* .&(;3*5 ., 8&'; ,.%0 c&-4,* .,(/ E&'( 87+'3/) .%&. 32 %)/3/ *,. =&7; ,22 ,2 8&'; D,==3*4 &*/ .&;) .%) -)=43.) /,-*:%) -,1(/ =) 43..3*5 3* Q&3( 2,' & (,*5 .3>) =)7&14) 8&';,.%0 E&-4,* .,(/ E&'( 87+'3/) .%&. %) 46,;) -3.% 8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
49/57
49
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
TW" A77,'/3*5 ., 4.&.)>)*.4 >&/) =0 E&'( 87+'3/) ., 0,1'&223&*.: &=,1. .-, -));4 (&.)': 8&'; ,.%0 c&-4,* 14)4 %34 *&>) &*/ .)((4 6),6() .%&. %)')6')4)*.4 .%) A..,'*)0 B)*)'&(" 8&'; ,.%0 c&-4,* %&/ 3*.',/17)/ %3> ., 6),6()-%, =)7&>) 7,*.'3=1.,'4 ., %34 7&>6&35*" 8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
50/57
50
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
TI" H%) ')7,'/3*5 ')F)&()/ .%&. /1'3*5 .%) >)).3*5: 8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
51/57
51
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
\I" A77,'/3*5 ., 7&>6&35* /,*&.3,* ')7,'/4: 9)')>0 9,%*4,*:%34 =143*)44 6&'.*)'4: &*/ 2&>3(0 >)>=)'4 -)') 6,(3.37&(/,*,'4: %&F3*5 53F)* >,') .%&* [LMM:MMM 3* 7&>6&35*7,*.'3=1.3,*4 ., .%)* @.&% A..,'*)0 B)*)'&( 8&'; )*. -3.%.%) @.&% A..,'*)0 B)*)'&(J4 K2237)" K* ,' &=,1. 8&'7% Ob:LMOO: H3>,.%0 &*/ 9)**32)' +)(( 23()/ 413. &5&3*4. +&*; ,2A>)'37& &*/ D)7,*J H'14.: & 2,')35* 7,'6,'&.3,*: 3* 2)/)'&(7,1'. 7%&(()*53*5 .%) 2,')7(,41') 6'&7.37)4 ,2 D)7,*J H'14. 3*.%) 2,')7(,41') ,2 .%) +)((4J ')43/)*7) (,7&.)/ &. \T`b ,.3,*., /34>344 -&4 /)*3)/ ,* 8&'7% O\: LMOL"
X63
X64
60SupraSOF, V; see also id. SOF, 111.
61Infra note 56.
62As discussed throughout the Brady Motion and Exhibit A, Mr. Shurtleff seeks a wealth of Brady informationrelating to allegations involving Mr. Johnson and Senator Harry Reid, both of whom Agent Nesbitt referencesthroughout the search warrant affidavits.
63Supra SOF, VI.D; see also SOF, 131.
64Supra SOF, VI.D; see also SOF, 139.
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
52/57
52
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
IM" K* A1514. W: LMOL: 9,%* ). -3.% .%) +&*; ,2 A>)'37&&..,'*)04 &*/ .%) =&*;J4 (,==034. ., /347144 .%) +)((4J(3.35&.3,*" K* A1514. OM: LMOL: 9,%* .%) (,==034. &4;3*5 2,' .%) )'37& ')S1)4.)/.%) )N.)*43,*: &*/ .%) @.&% A..,'*)0 B)*)'&(J4 K2237)7,*4)*.)/ ., .%) )N.)*43,*: H%) ,'/)' ., 7,*4)*. ., .%))N.)*43,* 7&>) 2',> 8&'; &* &*
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
53/57
53
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
IW" K* K7.,=)' TM: LMOL: .%) +)((4 -)') &77)6.)/ 3*., & (,&*>,/3237&.3,* 6',5'&> -3.% +&*; ,2 A>)'37& .%)0 4,15%. .,,=.&3* 2,' 4)F)'&( >,*.%4" H%) >,/3237&.3,* 7&>) &2.)'7,*.&7.3*5 9,%* ,/3237&.3,* .%)+)((4 ')7)3F)/ )*.&3()/ & [O"OT >3((3,* ')/17.3,* 3* .%)3' (,&*=&(&*7): &*/ ')/17.3,* ,2 .%)3' 3*.)')4. '&.) 2',> W"\k .,L"b\k" H%) >,/3237&.3,* /3/ *,. &22)7. .%) 6)*/3*5 (3.35&.3,*,* =)%&(2 ,2 .%,14&*/4 ,2 @.&%*4 -%,4) 3*.)')4.4 -)') =)3*5')6')4)*.)/ =0 .%) @.&% A..,'*)0 B)*)'&(J4 K2237)" "
X69
X70
II" A77,'/3*5 ., .)N. >)44&5)4 =).-))* H3>,.%0 c&-4,*: &6)'4,*&( 2'3)*/ ,2 8&'; 0 -&0 ., _Y$ 3* .%) >,'*3*5" B)..3*5 7(,4) ., &77)6.3*5,22)' -3.% *&.3,*&( (&- 23'>X"
X71
X72
OML" K* E)7)>=)' O: LMOL: 9,%* =)' LMOL: AAB9)''0 9)*4)* &..)>6.)/ ., 6()&/ .%) >,.3,* 2,' 41>>&'0Q1/5>)*. -3.% .%)* A..,'*)0 B)*)'&( 8&'; &*
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
54/57
54
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OM`" K* ,' =)2,') E)7)>=)' OI: LMOL: .%)* A..,'*)0 B)*)'&(8&'; )'37&(,==034. &*/ .,(/ %3> .%) 3443*5 3.4 7&4)"K* E)7)>=)' LW: LMOL: .%)* A..,'*)0 B)*)'&( 8&'; 0 9,%*4,*" H%) +)**)..B',16 7(&3>)/ .%&. 9&4,* ],-)'4: 8&'; -3.%3* /&04 ,2 ()&'*3*5 ,2 .%) +)**)..B',16J4 &/ 7&>6&35* &*/ .,(/ .%)> *,. ., '1* .%) &/ =)7&14)8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
55/57
55
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OOI" E1'3*5 .%) 3*.)'F3)- -3.% ,.%0 c&-4,* ., 6)'41&/) 8&';
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
56/57
56
Excerpts of Agent Nesbitts Statementsin Search Warrant Affidavit 158
Contain An
Express
Falsehood
Contains
Material
Omission(s)
Misleads Re
Third-Party
Statement
Relies on
Misleading
Inference
Misc.
Additional
Issues
OLW" E1'3*5 .%) 3*.)'F3)- -3.% )/ $%&'()*) +&'(,- 61(()/ %)'4)(2 ,22 .%) 8&'79)*4,* 7&4) =)7&14) 4%) (,4. 7,*23/)*7) 3* .%) 7&4)" $%&'()*)+&'(,- .,(/ 0,1' &223&*. .%&. 4%) %&/ *)F)' 4))* & %35% 6',23()7&4) (3;) .%34 ')41(. 3* & 6()& 3* &=)0&*7) &5'))>)*.: &*/
7/25/2019 Shurtleff Exhibit B 6/24/16
57/57
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on the 24th day of June 2016, a copy of the foregoing was filed and servedvia electronic notification on the following:
Troy S. RawlingsDavid M. ColeDavis County District Attorney800 West State StreetFarmington, Utah 84025
Simarjit S. GillChou Chou CollinsByron Fred BurmesterSalt Lake County District Attorney111 East Broadway, Suite 400Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
/s/ Nathanael J. Mitchell
Recommended