"We are committed to: The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." —The Windermere Mission Statement "In the real estate business somebody's word is very important. If you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." —Windermere CEO Geoff Wood's Public Affirmation

DON'T BUY CONCERT TICKETS OR DONATE TO SEATTLE PRO MUSICA DETAILS HERE

DOWNLOAD PDF COPY THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S INDICTMENT PRESS RELEASE HERE

READ THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S INDICTMENT PRESS RELEASE ONLINE HERE

Lawyer for Coachella Valley Indian Tribe and Three Others Charged in Bribery Scheme Related to Projects at Spotlight 29 Casino

U.S. Attorney’s Office
May 10, 2012

Central District of California
(213) 894-2434

LOS ANGELES—An attorney for the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians is among four people who have been indicted on federal bribery and money laundering charges for allegedly participating in scheme in which associates of the lawyer hired to provide assistance to the tribe paid kickbacks to the attorney.

The 48-count grand jury indictment returned yesterday afternoon names:

• Gary Edward Kovall, 66, of Ely, Minnesota, a licensed California attorney who acted as legal counsel for the tribe;

• David Alan Heslop, 74, of Templeton, who, on Kovall’s recommendation, was hired by the tribe to oversee some tribal business;

• Paul Phillip Bardos, 57, of Rancho Cucamonga, a general contractor; and

• Peggy Anne Shambaugh, 56, of Ely, Minnesota, who is Kovall’s wife.

All four defendants have agreed to appear for arraignments tomorrow in United States District Court in Los Angeles.

According to the indictment, Kovall advised the tribe to create a limited liability company to purchase real estate, and the attorney convinced the tribe to hire Heslop as the company’s manager. Kovall and Heslop then recommended that the tribe hire Bardos to act as the tribe’s “owner’s representative” in several construction projects at the Spotlight 29 Casino. When additional construction or construction oversight became necessary in relation to casino projects, Bardos submitted proposals to perform the work, and Kovall persuaded the tribe to give Bardos the contracts. After being paid by the tribe, Bardos paid kickbacks to Heslop who, in turn, paid kickbacks to Kovall though [sic] Shambaugh.

The indictment alleges that in 2007 Bardos paid Heslop more than $186,577, most of which was then funneled to Shambaugh.

“The United States Attorney’s Office is committed to the prosecution of corruption and fraud in all of their guises,” said United States Attorney André Birotte, Jr. ‘This case demonstrates that our commitment extends to vigorously pursuing cases against unscrupulous individuals who abuse their positions to take advantage of Native American tribes.”

The indictment charges all four defendants with conspiracy. Additionally, Kovall, Bardos, and Shambaugh are charged with eight counts of bribery, while Heslop is charged with 16 counts of bribery. In addition to the conspiracy and bribery charges based on the kickback scheme, Bardos is charged with eight counts of money laundering, Heslop is charged with seven counts of money laundering, and Shambaugh is charged with two counts money laundering.

“IRS-Criminal Investigation is committed to aggressively investigating those individuals who conspire to commit bribery and launder those illicit funds to hide their criminal activities,” said Leslie P. Demarco, IRS-Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge for the Los Angeles Field Office. “IRS-CI will continue to partner with other law enforcement agencies to ensure that all who secure lucrative contracts play by the same rules.”

Steven Martinez, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, stated, “The charges allege the defendants in this case deprived the victims—the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians—of honest leadership and took advantage of their positions of trust by lining their own pockets with the tribe’s money, including government funding designated for necessary services. The FBI will continue to work with our partners at the IRS and the United States Attorney’s Office to protect groups targeted through corrupt practices and investigate those responsible.”

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in court.

If they are convicted of all counts in the indictment:

• Kovall would face a maximum statutory sentence of 75 years in federal prison and a fine of $2 million;

• Heslop would face a statutory maximum sentence of 225 years in federal prison and a fine of $5.75 million;

• Bardos would face a statutory maximum sentence of 155 years in federal prison and a fine of $4 million; and

• Shambaugh would face a statutory maximum sentence of 105 years in federal prison and a fine of $2.75 million.

The case was investigated by IRS-Criminal Investigation and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS PEGGY SHAMBAUGH AND BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY TO TRANSFER ACTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS:

Above L to R: Joseph R. "Bob" Deville and Bob Bennion of Windermere Services Southern California and

Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Coachella Valley, California; and Peggy Shambaugh,

Realtor at Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, Indian Wells office.

Editor's note: For reader continuity, the TABLE OF CONTENTS and TABLE OF AUTHORITIES originally preceding this document are not included. To review a complete copy of the document including those tables, DOWNLOAD IT HERE. Download a complete copy of the Complaint in this case HERE.

________________________________________________

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA; TWENTY-NINE PALMS ENTERPRISES CORPORATION; and ECHO TRAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DAVID ALAN HESLOP, an individual; DIVERSIFICATION RESOURCES, LLC , a limited liability company; NATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS, INC., a corporation; PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, an individual; BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., doing business as WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, a corporation, and DOES I through 100, inclusive

Defendants.

CASE NO.: RIC 10006101

MEMORANDUN OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS PEGGY SHAMBAUGH AND BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY TO TRANSFER ACTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

DATE: 5/26/10

TIME:  8:30 a.m.

JUDGE: Hon. Bernard Schwartz

DEPT.: 08

Complaint Filed: 10/07/09

Trial Date: Not Yet Assigned

Defendants PEGGY SHAMBAUGH and BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. doing business as WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, (collectively "Moving Parties") hereby submit the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their Motion to Stay Proceedings until the resolution of the investigation currently being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney into the subject matter of this case.

BACKGROUND OF CASE AND PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGATIONS

This action arises out of Plaintiffs' purchase of 47 acres of real property adjacent to their Spotlight 29 Casino in the City of Coachella, County of Riverside in September, 2007 (hereinafter "Echo Trail Property"). Moving Parties served as the real estate broker/agent representing Plaintiffs for the purposes of this land transaction, (Complaint, p. 5, lines 6-11, lodged with the court as Exhibit A). Plaintiffs allege Defendant David Alan Heslop served as the manager of Echo Trail Holding, LLC, (an entity created by plaintiffs in which to hold title to the subject property) and as an advisor to the tribe for the purposes of this acquisition. Defendants Diversification Resources, LLC and National Demographics, Inc., allegedly provided advisory services related to the purchase. (Complaint, p. 4, line 25 to p. 5, line 5; p, 6, lines 18-20, lodged as Exhibit A.) Plaintiffs paid a total of $31 million for the Echo Trail Property. (Complaint, p, 6 lines 11-13, lodged as Exhibit A.)

The Complaint also contains allegations against the Tribe's own attorney, Gary Kovall¹, who represented Plaintiffs during their negotiation and acquisition of the Echo Trail Property and allegedly made recommendations to plaintiffs with regard to the retention of other lawyers, brokers, consultants, advisors and contractors, including Moving Parties and other Defendants in this case. (Complaint, p. 4, line 16 to p, 5, line 11; p. 7, lines 1-4 and 7-11, lodged as Exhibit

_____________________________________

¹ Gary Kovall was not named as a defendant in this case but rather was sued separately in a related case in Orange County, entitled Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. Edwards et al., Case No. 30-2009-00311045, (lodged as Exhibit K.)

_____________________________________ 

A.) It is claimed plaintiffs had no knowledge of the "romantic relationship" between Kovall and Peggy Shambaugh. (Complaint, p. 5, lines 14-17, lodged as Exhibit A.)

Plaintiffs are now contending they overpaid for the Echo Trail Property and that its actual market value at the time of their purchase was no more than $20 million (Complaint, p. 6, lines 1-2, lodged as Exhibit A.). They accuse defendants of withholding and concealing information from them, including the true market value of the Echo Trail Property, the nature of the relationship between Defendant Peggy Shambaugh and attorney Gary Kovall, the details of the negotiations for the purchase of the subject property, Kovall's acquaintance with the contractor hired to work on the Spotlight 29 Casino, the quality of the contractor's work and his experience level and various other matters. (Complaint, p. 5 line 14 to p. 6, line 9; p. 6, lines 21 - 26; p. 7, lines 7-2 7; p. 8, lines 1- 15, lodged as Exhibit A.)

Plaintiffs are also alleging that Moving Parties and other Defendants provided business advice designed to benefit Defendants at Plaintiffs' expense and that Defendants received secret profits and other re-numeration as a result of their undisclosed relationships. It is also contended that Moving Parties and Defendants received large sums of money for services that were of little or no value. (Complaint, p. 4, line 25 to p. 5, line 5; p. 5, line 9 to p. 6, line 2; p. 7, lines 1-6, 11-27 and p. 8, lines 1-15, lodged as Exhibit A.)

II.

COURTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS TO PROTECT A

DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTION RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

California courts have long recognized that accommodation must be made for a party caught between the "Scylla and Charybdis" of trying to protect his constitutional right against self-incrimination while attempting to defend his interests in a civil action involving the same set of facts and circumstances. The United States Supreme Court has held that a party asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination "should suffer no penalty for his silence." Spevack v. Klein (1967) 385 U.S. 511, 514-15. (All federal cases cited are lodged with the court as Exhibit L) The California Supreme Court has charged trial courts with assessing and balancing the nature and substantiality of the injustices claimed on both sides and arriving at an accommodation that takes the constitutional rights of the defendant into consideration. People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 885-86. Thus, courts are obligated to weigh the competing interests of the defendant seeking to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege, versus the plaintiff seeking redress for alleged civil wrongs, with a view toward protecting the interests of both parties. A solution that does not provide a remedy that accommodates defendant's dilemma is an abuse of discretion by the court. Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal. App.3d 686, 688.

In Pacers, several agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration sued a nightclub and its employees for assault and battery as a result of a fight that broke out while the agents were working undercover at the club. Although the federal grand jury had refused to issue indictments against the club and its employees for the incident, the United States Attorney was maintaining an "open file" on the case. At their depositions in the civil action the club employees asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination due to the threatened criminal proceedings. The trial court penalized the employees by prohibiting them from testifying at trial as to all matters forming the subject matter of the lawsuit. The Court of Appeal overturned the ruling, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to fashion a remedy accommodating the interests of both sides. It also granted the request for a Stay of Proceedings until the statutes of limitation ran on the criminal prosecution. Pacers, supra., at pp. 687-88.

The Pacer's court held that the employees could not be penalized for exercising a fundamental constitutional right. Their inability to testify on their own behalf because they asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege made asserting that privilege "too costly". Further, because the agents had no right to information protected by the Fifth Amendment, Pacer's and the employees had not violated any discovery rules and the imposition of an order that protected only the agents was an abuse of discretion. Pacers, supra., at p. 689.

Citing to numerous federal cases, the court found that where a person's silence is constitutionally guaranteed, the court should weigh the competing interests and fashion a remedy that protects the rights involved while accommodating both parties. An order Staying the matter until expiration of the criminal statute of limitation is just such a remedy. Imposing a Stay is in accord with federal practice, "where it has been consistently held that when both civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, an objecting party is entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter." Pacers, supra., at p. 690; United States v. Kordel (1970) 397 US. 1, 9; Campbell v. Eastland (1962) 307 F.2d 478, 492-93. The Pacers court found it to be in the best interests of all parties that the civil case be Stayed until the threat of criminal prosecution was resolved. Where delay and inconvenience to a civil plaintiff is weighed against the Fifth Amendment privilege, "a party's constitutional right is paramount." Pacers, supra., at p. 690. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to accommodate these rights. Pacers, supra., at p. 688.

Other courts have found it to be "in the exercise of sound discretion and in the interest of public policy" that civil proceedings be stayed "until the final disposition of the criminal proceedings." United States v. Bridges (1949) 86 F. Supp. 931, 933. "The noncriminal proceedings, if not deferred, might undermine the party's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, expand rights of criminal discovery" beyond statutory limits, "expose the basis of the defense to the prosecution in advance of criminal trial", and otherwise prejudice the parties, Brock v. Tolkow (1985) 109 F.R.D. 116, 119. Requiring a party threatened with criminal prosecution to "participate in a civil action at the peril of being denied his worldly goods" violates concepts of elementary fairness and basic justice. Avant! Corporation V. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App. 4^th 876, 882.

Even in the absence of any indictments or actively filed charges, constitutional rights must prevail. To allow prosecutors to monitor civil proceedings hoping to obtain incriminating testimony through civil discovery would not only undermine the Fifth Amendment privilege but would also violate concepts of fundamental fairness and work a grave injustice on the defendant. Pacers, supra. at p. 690; United States v. Kordel, supra, at p. 5. As stated by the California Supreme Court, forcing a party under suspicion of a crime to choose between the privilege against self-incrimination and his opportunity to be heard in a civil proceeding subjects that party to a "cruel" and grossly unfair penalty. Requiring an individual to choose between such unpalatable alternatives "runs counter to our historic aversion to cruelty reflected in the privilege against self-incrimination." People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 878. For this reason courts have discretion to remove this dilemma by Staying the civil matter until the criminal proceedings have run their course, or the statutes of limitation expire. Where the interests of law enforcement and redress for civil wrongs collide, the appropriate remedy is for the trial court to Stay the civil matter in the interests of justice. County of Orange v. The Superior Court of Orange County (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4^th 759, 768.

III.

A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT MOVING PARTIES' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST THE INVESTIGATION BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY INTO THE FACTS ALLEGED IN PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

A. Moving Parties Are Under Investigation by The Federal Bureau of Investigation And the United States Attorney As To The Allegations In Plaintiffs' Complaint

Moving Parties have been contacted by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in regard to the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint. (Declaration of Cheryl D. Davidson, para. 3, filed herewith.) Special Agent George Krumpotich and Special Agent Mark C. Hunter, have contacted Peggy Shambaugh in regard to her involvement in plaintiffs' purchase of the Echo Trail Property. (Declaration of Cheryl D. Davidson, para. 3, filed herewith.) From the business cards these agents gave to Ms. Shambaugh, it appears they are based out of the FBI office at 601 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. (Business cards, lodged as Exhibit B). From information obtained from these agents, it appears they are investigating plaintiffs' purchase of the Echo Trail Property, including the price paid for it, the purpose of the acquisition, how it was acquired, and the role the Moving Parties and other Defendants and persons played in the transaction. The FBI is also investigating Moving Parties and Defendants' involvement in other transactions with the Tribe (as referred to in the Complaint,  p. 7, lines 1-6; p. 7; p. 8, lines 1-15.) (Declarations of Matthew M. Horeczko, para,3 and 4, Edward M Robinson, para. 2-5 and Cheryl D. Davidson, para. 3, filed herewith.)

Counsel for Moving Parties and for Gary Kovall have also contacted the office of the United States Attorney, who confirmed that an investigation is being conducted into Moving Parties and Defendants' roles in the Tribe's acquisition of the Echo Trail Property and in various other business ventures and transactions. The United States Attorney has also indicated in indictment is under consideration. (Declaration of Edward Robinson, paras. 2-5 and Declaration of Matthew M Horeczko, para.. 3 and 4, filed herewith.)

In view of the information received from the FBI and the United States Attorney, there is a substantial threat of criminal proceedings being instituted by the FBI against the Moving Parties and Defendants in this action in regard to the same facts and circumstances alleged in plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendants in this case, including Moving Parties, have been forced to retain criminal defense attorneys to protect their interests in this matter and in any criminal action that may be brought by the U.S. Attorney or any other law enforcement agency. These criminal defense attorneys have instructed their clients to assert their rights to remain silent. (Declarations of Edward Robinson, paras. 2 and 3, and Matthew M Horeczko, para. 5, filed herewith.)

B. Discovery Disputes Have Already Arisen Due To Moving Parties' Assertion of The Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Shortly after Moving Parties were served with the Summons and Complaint in this matter, Plaintiffs propounded discovery to them, consisting of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. The Form Interrogatories contained the appended definition of the term "INCIDENT" as follows: "The Purchase of the property identified in paragraph 13 of the Complaint in this action." (Form Interrogatories to Shambaugh, lodged as Exhibit C.)² The Requests for Production of Documents demanded production of all documents "related in any way to the Echo Trail Property" and/or to communications with any other person

___________________________________________

² Nearly identical discovery requests were propounded on Windermere, but for purposes of economy, are not lodged.

______________________________________

or entity related to the Echo Trail Property. Plaintiffs also demanded production of Moving Parties computers, files, and other private documents, including Ms. Shambaugh's bank and credit card records, real property records, and "All Documents and Electronic Data that refer to You and Gary Kovall as being husband and wife." (Requests for Prod., lodged as Exhibit C.)

On December 16, 2009, Moving Parties served timely and verified Written Responses to this Discovery, lodging appropriate objections. (Discovery Responses, lodged as Exhibit D.)³ Responsive, non-privileged and non-objected to documents were Bates Stamped and prepared for Inspection by plaintiffs. However, prior to the production, Ms. Shambaugh was contacted by the FBI and Defendants became aware of the current investigation. To protect the rights of Moving Parties, production of these documents was withheld on the basis of the Fifth Amendment until such time as Moving Parties could seek legal advice from criminal defense attorneys as to their rights and alternatives in view of the circumstances. (Declaration of Cheryl D. Davidson, para. 5, filed herewith.)

On December 1, 2009, plaintiffs propounded a second set of Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production containing the same set of definitions as the first set. The Interrogatories asked Moving Parties to "State all facts upon which you base the denial or special or affirmative defense" in your Answer. It also requested the names of persons with knowledge of these facts and the identification of all documents upon which the denial or affirmative defense was based. The Requests for Production demanded production of these documents. (Discovery Requests, Set Two, lodged as Exhibit E.) Moving Parties asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in response to this discovery. (Responses to Discovery, Set Two, lodged as Exhibit F.)⁴

Although counsel for Moving Parties attempted to explain the situation to plaintiffs' counsel and obtain an extension of time in which to address the Fifth Amendment issues, this request was continually denied. (Correspondence of Cheryl D. Davidson and Gordon

________________________________________________

³ For purposes of economy, Windermere's Responses have not been lodged.

⁴ For purposes of economy, only the discovery to and from Shambaugh have been lodged.

__________________________________________

Bosserman, lodged as Exhibit I.) Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Responses to the Discovery, which was set by the court in San Luis Obispo for April 15, 2009. The motion was taken off calendar by the San Luis Obispo court when the Motion to Transfer was granted and this case was transferred to Riverside County. (Declaration of Cheryl D. Davidson, para. 4, filed herewith.)

For their part, Moving Parties served several sets of Discovery on Plaintiff on November 30, 2009, prior to discovering the FBI investigation. (Moving Parties Discovery Requests, Set One, lodged as Exhibit G,)⁵ In retaliation for the assertion of the Fifth Amendment, Plaintiffs served Objections to each and every request. In their responses Plaintiffs stated that they would "provide only objections in connection with this response", citing Moving Parties assertion of the Fifth Amendment as the reason why they would not respond to Moving Parties Discovery Requests. Although Moving Parties attempted to "meet and confer" in regard to this improper retaliatory response by plaintiffs, no response was elicited from Plaintiffs on this issue.⁶ (Plaintiffs' Responses to Moving Parties' Discovery, lodged as Exhibit H; Letter of Cheryl D. Davidson, lodged as Exhibit J.)

As underscored by the allegations in the Complaint, the questions propounded in their Discovery Requests (and attached "Definitions") and the Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery, plaintiffs are attempting to obtain facts, documents and witness names pertaining to the purchase of the Echo Trail Property and the involvement of Defendants therein. This is the identical subject matter currently being investigated by the FBI. Moving Parties are caught in the precarious situation of having to defend themselves in a multi-million dollar civil lawsuit while at the same time preserving their fundamental constitutional right against self-

_______________________________________

⁵ For purposes of economy, only the discovery propounded to the Tribe, and their responses have been lodged, although identical requests were went to all three plaintiffs and nearly identical responses received from them.

⁶ Moving Parties were unable to file a Motion to Compel Further Responses Due to the filing of the Motion to Transfer Proceedings to Riverside County and the court's lack of jurisdiction to bear other matters prior to that motion.

___________________________________

incrimination. This is exactly the type of scenario for which courts have fashioned the remedy of a Stay of Proceedings.

C. Moving Parties Should Not Be Penalized For Protecting Their Constitutional Rights In This Case

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that no person shall be compelled "in any criminal case" to be a witness against himself. Article One of the California Constitution provides that persons may not be compelled "in a criminal cause" to be a witness against themselves. Cal.Const., art. I, Section 15. California courts have found that these protections extend even further, allowing a person not to answer questions in any proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory, where that person believes the answers might incriminate him in a criminal action. One cannot be forced to choose between forfeiting the privilege against self-incrimination on the one hand or asserting it and suffering a penalty for doing so on the other. Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara (2009) 45 Cal. 4^th 704, 714; Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal. 3d. 878, 886

As embodied in the statutes, "A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose any matter that may tend to incriminate him," California Evidence Code Section 940. Privileged matters thus lie beyond the reach of discovery and trial courts may not compel individuals to make responses that they reasonably believe could be used in a criminal prosecution or which could, at the very least, lead to evidence that might be so used. A & M Records, Inc. v. Heilman (1977) 75 Cal. App. 3d 554, 566.

To invoke this privilege a witness need not be guilty of any offense. Rather the privilege is properly invoked whenever the witnesses' answers would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the witness for a criminal offense. Sachs v. Sachs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4^th 1144, 1151.

As the United States Supreme Court and California courts have held, a party to a civil suit should not be forced to suffer any sanction, penalty or other "costly" action for protecting their fundamental constitutional right against self-incrimination. People v. Coleman, supra., at p. 885; Spevack supra. at p. 515; Pacers, supra., at p. 689. However, without a Stay, Moving Parties and Defendants in this action would be precluded from testifying at trial as to all matters for which they have asserted the privilege, A & M Records, supra. at p. 566. Essentially, they would be unable to testify as to their role in the Tribe's purchase of the Echo Trail Property and in the other transaction of which plaintiffs complain. This "costly" penalty could "cost" Moving Parties millions of dollars, their excellent reputation among real estate professionals and clients and ultimately, their livelihood. Should Moving Parties be forced to litigate this matter without being able to respond to relevant discovery, produce their documents, or testify on their own behalf as to the issues in this case, their defense would be severely crippled, to the point of being nearly non-existent. In addition, their inability to fully participate in their defense by testifying and producing documents could cause them to lose their insurance coverage, exposing them to millions of dollars in civil liability and defense costs. Not being able to defend themselves in a court of law, or in the court of public opinion, while plaintiffs' allegations are freely pronounced, reported in the media and brandished to the public, would cause permanent harm to Moving Parties' ability to continue in their chosen fields. Especially in the real estate profession, where referrals and repeat business are essential, a one-sided trial with the attendant publicity would severely impact their business and personal lives. An award for plaintiffs, earned merely by taking advantage of Moving Parties' need to protect their constitutional rights, could bankrupt Moving Parties and significantly impact their own security and welfare and that of their families.

D. A Stay Is Necessary To Preserve All Parties' Rights, Efficiently Use Court Resources and Ensure a Fair and Meaningful Trial in Accordance with Public Policy

In determining whether to Stay the Proceedings until the completion of a criminal matter or the running of the statutes of limitation on the underlying actions, courts must attempt to protect the constitutional rights of the party asserting the privilege, while taking into consideration a litigants' interest in pursuing its lawsuit. Although issuing a Stay of Proceedings may cause some inconvenience to an adverse party, courts have usually deemed the prohibition against self-incrimination to be the more important consideration. United States v. Kordel, supra. at p. 9: Brock supra., at p. 119: County of Orange, supra., at p. 767. Protecting a party's constitution rights is paramount and overrides any inconvenience or delay it might cause to the complaining party. Pacer's, supra., at p. 690. In addition, Staying the Proceedings until all parties are free from the threat of criminal actions ensures that all the parties to the civil litigation can obtain a fair trial.

1. All Parties' Rights Are Protected by a Stay, Including Plaintiffs

California courts have held that Staying a civil action to await the outcome of a related criminal case can benefit all litigants to the civil action and does not create an undue burden upon the civil plaintiff. Fuller v. Superior Court (87 Cal.App.4^th 299, 306. A Stay of Proceedings in this matter would preserve not only the constitutional rights of Moving Parties, but Plaintiffs' right of discovery against Moving Parties. As evidenced by their Discovery Requests, their counsel's refusal to allow an extension of time to respond to them, and by their Motion to Compel Responses, Plaintiffs are in need of Moving Parties' evidence, documents and testimony to prepare their case. Without discovery responses and deposition testimony from the Moving Parties and Defendants in this matter, Plaintiffs' ability to prepare their case and meet their burden of proof will be significantly prejudiced. Staying this matter until Moving Parties (and all Defendants) are free to respond to discovery and provide documents and testimony would ensure all parties to this action are able to fully prepare their case before trial and elicit testimony from all witnesses at trial.

In addition, a Stay would prevent all parties from expending significant time, effort and money in bringing and defending discovery motions. Plaintiffs have already incurred the time and expense of "meeting and conferring" and bringing a Motion to Compel as against Moving Parties. Plaintiffs also face these same types of expenses as to all the Defendants (and some witnesses) in this matter as long as the criminal action looms. Staying this case would obviate these issues.

Finally, Staying this matter would prevent the "unfairness" plaintiffs perceive in having to respond to discovery when they are unable to obtain it from Moving Parties. As evidenced by the retaliatory "Objections only" responses received by Moving Parties to their Form Interrogatories and basic contention interrogatories, Plaintiffs are unwilling to produce their evidence in this case without reciprocity. (Plaintiffs' Responses to Discovery, lodged as Exhibit H.) Staying this matter would resolve these issues.

2. Staying the Case Would Avoid Burdening the Court with Discovery Motions, Evidence Hearings, "In Camera" Proceedings and Other Adjudications and Promote Efficient Use of Court Resources

The alternative to imposing a Stay on this case is proceeding with the litigation and dealing with Moving Parties, Defendants and witnesses' assertions of their Fifth Amendment rights as to each discovery request that could impinge on their rights against self-incrimination. The court's time and resources would be taken up with motions and hearings into the numerous issues generated by the assertion of this privilege. The court would be required to continually balance the competing interests of the parties in an effort to keep this case on track. Already, Plaintiffs have filed one Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. More are sure to follow. Disagreements have already arisen in regard to a few of the issues that are sure to arise. As evidenced by the letters between counsel, these parties already disagree about issues such as the applicability of the Fifth Amendment to entities and to the production of documents, whether certain discovery requests pertain to evidence protected under the privilege, and the procedures that are followed in connection with the assertion of the privilege. (Correspondence between Plaintiffs' counsel and Cheryl D. Davidson, lodged as Exhibit 1.) Inevitably, the court will be brought in to adjudicate these disputes through motions to compel, motions for protective orders, "in camera" hearings, ex parte applications and other procedures.

Court intervention will also be required to prevent retaliatory refusals to participate in Discovery from Plaintiffs. In response to Moving Parties' assertion of their Fifth Amendment privilege, Plaintiffs have refused to serve any substantive responses to Moving Parties Discovery requests. As they indicated in their Responses to the Special Interrogatories served by Moving Parties, "Plaintiff will only provide objections in connection with this response", citing the Fifth Amendment issues that had arisen between the parties. As a result, Moving Parties must now bring a Motion to Compel, further clogging up the court's calendar.⁷ (Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses, lodged as Exhibit H.)

Unless this matter is Stayed until these issues are moot, the court will be dealing with these types of disputes not only between Moving Parties and Plaintiffs, but between Plaintiffs and the Defendants and witnesses named in the Complaint, such as Gary Kovall. (See Declaration of Edward Robinson, paras. 2 and 3.) These issues would no doubt also arise as to any person called to testify in this case who is a party or witness in the other lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs alleging the same facts alleged in the instant matter. (See Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians v. Edwards, et. al, Orange County Case No. 30-2009-00311045⁸; and Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises v. Cadmus Construction, San Bernardino County Case No. CIVRS 908132, lodged with the court as Exhibit K.) Obviously, this would take up a significant amount of the court's time and resources and would still yield a trial in which none of the parties have the information it needs to conduct a fair and meaningful presentation of evidence. In addition, any verdict arrived at by the trier of fact would be based not upon the true evidence in the case, but rather an abridged and lop-sided rendering of the allegations by Plaintiffs.

3. A One-Sided Trial Against Defendants Asserting Their Fifth Amendment Protections Is Inherently Unfair and Against Public Policy

There is a strong public policy in California that favors trial on the merits of a case, where all sides have an opportunity to put forth their entire case and testify on their own behalf. Hamburg v, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4^th 497, 502. In fact, California promulgated its Discovery Act in an effort to make trial a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest possible extent. The fairness and efficiency of trials are of paramount importance to the court system and to the public. Rights long deemed essential to a

_____________________________________

⁷ Although Moving Parties sent a "Meet and Confer" letter to Plaintiffs' Counsel in regard to the refusal to comply with Discovery, no response was ever received to this letter. (See Cheryl D. Davidson letter, lodged as Exhibit J and Declaration of Cheryl D. Davidson, para. 6, filed herewith.)

⁸ This is the lawsuit in which Gary Kovall was named a defendant. The allegations in this Orange County Complaint mirror those in the instant case (See Orange County Complaint, lodged as Exhibit K and the instant Complaint, Exhibit A.)

________________________________

fair trial are the right to effective counsel, to summon, confront and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to testify on one's own behalf. Wilson v. Superior Court (2010) 2010 WL 1009962; Greyhound Corporation v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 376.

Without a Stay, the court and all parties to this action would labor significantly and expend excessive time, effort and resources to give birth to a verdict that is hollow, inherently unfair, one-sided and not reflective of the actual merits of the case. A civil trial in which all the defendants are forced to remain silent to protect their constitutional rights is unjust and punitive and would be more of a "prove-up" hearing than a trial. Public policy, California law, and Federal law dictate that all possible efforts must be made to avoid such a result. US. v. Bridges, supra., at p. 933; Pacers, supra., at p. 690.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the complete file, the moving papers, and the evidence presented, Moving Parties respectfully request that the court grant its Motion to Stay Proceedings until the resolution of the criminal matter being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's office, or the running of all applicable statutes of limitation.

DATED: April 8, 2010             SUNDERLAND I McCUTCHAN, LLP

                                                By: ________________________________

                                                            Robert J. Sunderland

                                                            Cheryl D. Davidson

                                                Attorneys for Defendants, PEGGY SHAMBAUGH,

                                                an individual, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE

                                                HOMES, INC., doing business as WINDERMERE

                                                REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, a

                                                corporation

________________________________

The Windermere Real Estate Relocation Rape Case:

Court Declares that Windermere "...condoned a rape by a business colleague..."

Editorial Preface: The incredibly violent and insidious psychological ramifications of rape, connected through an “abusive work environment” serves as an unfortunate yet credible subtext for the way in which Windermere Real Estate treats employees and damaged customers alike: Windermere’s application of aggressive, wasteful and mendacious litigation to stall and ruin innocent consumers, serves as the coercive metaphor of corporate power and arrogance: Windermere has no concern for the social damage it has done to people or communities. It cares only about how to manipulate the law and the courts to avoid any legal responsibility.

(Above L to R) Windermere CEO Geoff Wood (far left) is currently listed as a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation. Peggy Scott (second from left), also a current Governing Person of Windermere Relocation, "... did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint or any follow-up interview with Little." Windermere General Counsel, attorney Paul Drayna (third from left) is listed as the registered agent of RELO LLC, the current entity name of Windermere Relocation. Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi (fourth from left) along with Gayle Glew (far right) are listed as Governing Persons of Windermere Relocation during the Little case. Glew told Ms. Little he did not want any "clouds in the office," and subsequently, after she would not accept a pay cut, that she should clean out her desk.

All citizens who abhor such treatment of women in the workplace should recall Maureen Little v. Windermere Relocation when choosing real estate services. WindermereWatch visitors will also want to read the United States District Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit's Order and Amended Opinion from the Little case.

Summarized and excerpted from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals

Maureen Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services (“Windermere”) as a Corporate Services Manager, a position that required her “to develop an ongoing business relationship and relocation contacts with corporations in order to obtain corporate clients needing relocation services for their employees.” Until she was terminated, she received only positive feedback from her supervisors. Windermere’s records confirm that during the relevant period, Little had the best transaction closure record of all corporate managers by a large margin.

Unlike the other managers, Little’s employment contract provided that Little would receive $2,000 monthly, plus a $1,000 monthly override and $250 per closed sale. The override was based on the assumption that Little would close four transactions per month, with a provision for rollover when she did not make the target. According to Windermere President Gayle Glew, the other managers had not received the $1,000 override.

One of Windermere’s clients was the Starbucks Corporation. Some time in 1997, Little performed some relocation services for Starbucks Human Resources Director, Dan Guerrero, on a contract basis, and she learned from him that Starbucks was dissatisfied with its primary relocation provider. Glew told Little that he would “do whatever it takes to get this account” and that Little should “do the best job she could.” Thus, little believed that, as part of her job, she was to build a business relationship with Guerrero to try and get the Starbucks account, and she had at least two business lunches with Guerrero toward this end.

On October 14, Little accepted Guerrero’s invitation to discuss the account at a restaurant. After eating dinner with Guerrero and having a couple of drinks, Little suddenly became ill and passed out. She awoke to find herself being raped by Guerrero in his car. She fought him off and jumped out of the car, but again she became violently ill. Guerrero put her back in the car and took her to his apartment, where he raped her again. Little fell asleep, and when she awoke he was raping her again. Afterward, he showered and drover her to her car.

Little was reluctant to tell anyone at Windermere about the rape because, in her own words, “I knew how important the Starbucks account was to Mr. Glew. Mr. Glew would ask me on a consistent basis the status of the account and I was afraid that if I told him about the rape, he would see me as an impediment to obtaining the Starbucks account.” This belief was reinforced when, a few days after the rape, Little reported the rape to Chris Delay, Director of Relocation Services (apparently not one of Little’s supervisors), and Delay advised her not to tell anyone in management. Little believed that Delay feared “what might happen to [Little] if [she] did tell.”

On October 23, about nine days after the rape, Little reported it to Peggy Scott, the Vice President of Operations, who was designated in Windermere’s Harassment Policy as a complaint-receiving manager. Little described Scott’s response:

She came out around the desk and I could tell she was upset and she just gave me a hug and said she wished there was something she could do. She didn't understand what I was going through. She asked me if I was in therapy. Then she proceeded to tell me she wouldn't say anything to [Glew] unless I proceeded to seek legal action [against Dan Guerrero].

Scott told Little that "[s]he thought it would be best that [Little] try to put it behind [her] and to keep working in therapy," and that she should discontinue working on the Starbucks account. She did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint or any follow-up interview with Little. Scott testified in her deposition that, because the rape occurred outside the "working environment," she believed that it fell outside the scope of Windermere's Harassment Policy.

Despite Little's supposed removal from the Starbucks account, Glew continued to ask her about the status of the Starbucks account during the next six weeks. "[As of December 2,] Gayle was asking me questions about Starbucks ... a couple of times every month to see what the status was." Concerned by Glew's questions, Little told her immediate supervisor, Linda Bellisario, the Vice President of Sales and Marketing, on December 2, 1997, about the rape. Little had been reluctant to tell Bellisario because she "felt that [Bellisario] would immediately go to Gayle and Gayle would terminate my position.... I knew how much this account meant to him. He said he would do whatever it took to get this account." Bellisario told Little to inform Glew of the incident.

When Little told Glew of the rape, which, according to Glew, was the first he had heard of it, Glew's" immediate response was that he did not want to hear anything about it." He told Little that she would have to respond to his attorneys. Glew then informed her that he was restructuring her salary from $3,000 monthly to $2,000 monthly plus $250 per closed transaction. The pay reduction was effective immediately and non-negotiable. Bellisario, who was present at that portion of the meeting, appeared "surprised and upset" to Little.

Little found the pay cut unacceptable, and Glew told her to go home for two days to think it over "because he did not want any `clouds in the office.'" When Little still found the pay cut unacceptable two days later, Glew told her it would be best if she moved on and that she should clean out her desk.

Little brought suit against Windermere, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Revised Code of Washington § 49.60; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Windermere on all four claims.

Little appealed dismissal of her claims, and the appeals court reversed in part, and ruled:

In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career."

Incredibly, Windermere asked for a rehearing, but "...the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

________________________________

WINDERMERE: AMERICA'S PREDATORY REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISE

Consumer advocates, legal experts and elected lawmakers all agree that the American real estate industry demands greater regulation to protect consumers from the human disaster of real estate fraud perpetrated by unethical realtors employed at companies like Windermere Real Estate. Windermere manipulates our clogged, inundated courts and the justice system to stall, wear down and financially exhaust victimized consumers, many of whom are wiped-out by the cost of pursuing civil justice in a process where innocent victims must CHASE perpetrators of real estate fraud through the courts AFTER a fraudulent offense has been committed. Acts of fraud are so common and widespread throughout the Windermere real estate network, that the defense of real estate fraud has become has become just another bottomline expense on the Windermere balance sheet. And the litigation nightmare of real estate fraud can happen to anyone who deals with Windermere Real Estate. It could happen to you. Windermere is by far the most unethical, deceitful, and culturally toxic real estate company operating in the United States. Windermere knowingly, deliberately, and unabashedly profits on corrupt franchise owners, brokers and agents with proven histories of fraud and ethical misconduct, many of whom are profiled in the pages of WindermereWatch.com. Despite Windermere's well-documented assault on victim speech rights, more and more unconscionable cases of Windermere fraud continue emerging.

Windermere is headquartered in Seattle, at franchiser Windermere Services Company. It was founded by John W. Jacobi, and he has kept the company a private, family-owned enterprise, eluding the transparency and ethical accountability required by stockholders. For decades, Windermere has harnessed the art of positive PR, affixing itself—however superficially—to community art events, the homeless, and even an annual college rowing competition which opens Seattle's boating season—the Windermere Cup—irresponsibly promoted by, and in conjunction with, the University of Washington. But those are the disingenuous and cynical sideshows created by an adept market manipulator, shown only briefly to the public, to obscure and obfuscate Windermere's true predatory nature.

FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES' MANAGEMENT TEAM AND DESIGNATED GOVERNING PEOPLE: EXPERTS IN MARKETING FRAUD, ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS, AND AT COERCING DAMAGED WINDERMERE CLIENTS INTO SILENCE BY SUPPRESSING THEIR SPEECH RIGHTS

The shameless greed and repugnant ethics of Seattle's Jacobi family, deliberately profiting on the loss and suffering of Windermere victims through commissions on the fraudulent home deals and unlawful misconduct of dishonest Windermere agents, brokers and franchise owners. Forget human decency, commercial reputation or social responsibility—it's all about the money.

Before turning the business over to his children and son-in-law, Windermere founder John W. Jacobi (left) simply ignored any complaints of fraud from Windermere victims, sending them straight to the lawyers. Yet despite claims of retirement, Jacobi is still indeed quite active at franchiser Windermere Services Company:

In Complaint 10-2-36192-8 SEA, filed in King County Superior Court on October 12, 2010, Windermere Services Company has sued former Windermere Puyallup Canyon Road owner Joe Maxwell for default on an “Unconditional Guaranty of Payment” promissory note. The Maxwell Answer and Counterclaims state that the “Plaintiff's [Windermere Services Company] claims are barred by Plaintiff’s fraud, duress, and unclean hands,” and alleges $4,000,000 in damages and violation of Washington's Franchise Investment Protection Act; and also that "The alleged Note and Guarantee are unconscionable and unenforceable." Maxwell's Counterclaims state "6. The WPCR Operating Agreement contains a provision granting Jacobi a special veto power which among other things, states that the company shall conduct its business and manage its affairs in accordance with the directions of Jacobi and all management decisions are subject to Jacobi’s review," and "13. In early 2006, WSC and Jacobi decided to open another WSC office in the territory in which WPCR was operating, despite the objections of Maxwell. As a result of the opening of this new WSC office, WPCR lost a significant number of its real estate agents and revenue that transferred to the new office in Graham, Washington," and "14. As a direct result of these actions taken by WSC and Jacobi, WPCR was left with a large debt burden and overhead, and WPCR’s revenue was significantly reduced... 22. On September 14, 2010, Maxwell heard from a real estate agent working at WPCR that the agent had received and email from WSC notifying him WPCR’s franchise had been terminated. This notice was sent to WPCR’s real estate agents before Maxwell learned of the termination of WPCR’s franchise." Read the complete report on this case here.

Jacobi's Washington Loan Company is also currently being sued for Intentional Misrepresentation—read that report here. And the Windermere affiliated service company, Commonwealth Land Title Company of Puget Sound, has recently been found negligent by a jury who awarded the third-party plaintiffs $1,190,000. Read the Commonwealth report here.

Current Governing Person and Windermere Services Company CEO Geoffrey P. Wood (left) is married to John W. Jacobi's daughter, Jill Jacobi-Wood. Wood is the chief architect of Windermere marketing fraud, inducing business volume through—among other fraudulent promotion—an express warranty of "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." When called upon to honor his company's warranty, Wood instructs Demco lawyers—led by Matthew F. Davis–to sue vocal victims for libel and defamation. Wood is also a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation, the subject enterprise of Windermere's employee rape case. He was briefly a real estate sales person in 1994, but that license was CANCELLED in 1995, and Wood currently has no real estate license of any kind that WindermereWatch can find.

Governing Person Jill Jacobi-Wood (left), Windermere Services President, is a licensed real estate broker in Washington State, and as such is subject to the statutory condition of RCW 18.86.030 "(d) To deal honestly and in good faith." For her part in Windermere's marketing fraud and malfeasance, Jacobi-Wood's RE license should be cancelled by the Washington State DOL's real estate division. By promoting honesty and integrity—while in reality—she is suing and coercing Windermere victims to shutup about their Windermere experience, Jacobi-Wood is hardly dealing honestly and in good faith.

Governing Person John O'Brien "OB"Jacobi (left) is General Manager of franchiser Windermere Services Company and also has many Windermere realty brokerage offices. He's a licensed real estate broker who is also called upon by statutory law to "Deal honestly and in good faith." But John "OB" Jacobi instead promotes fraudulent claims of honesty and integrity, and falsely sues victims of Windermere misconduct for libel and defamation to intimidate them and coerce their silence. Then this junior Jacobi runs away and voluntarily dismisses his own mendacious lawsuit when a victim refuses to sign Windermere's dark clause settlement agreement that has cost the victimized party so much distress and money to defend.

Windermere Services Governing Person and attorney—WSBA# 26636—Paul Drayna (left) has even more stringent ethical requirements placed upon him through his collateral professions of Lawyer and Notary Public; and Drayna is also bound by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. But Mr. Drayna is not just practicing marketing fraud at Windermere. As Windermere in-house counsel, Drayna oversees Windermere's legal strategy of abusing process by falsely suing victims for libel and defamation, and then attempting to intimidate and coerce those victims out of their speech rights and into Windermere's Dark Clause silence agreement. When victims WON'T sign the Windermere Dark Clause, Drayna runs away too, and voluntarily dismisses his own company's lawsuit under Civil Rule 41—but only after first costing the victim thousands to defend the phony lawsuit. Drayna is even copied on the mendacious, Demco-authored settlement documents meant to quash speech rights and be signed by Windermere victims. Drayna is also listed on the Board of Directors at Seattle Pro Musica, "a world of choral beauty," as being Pro Musica's Corporate Secretary and Legal Counsel. Pro Musica states as part of its mission "Respect/Integrity—a principle of respect and integrity in all our endeavors." So while Mr. Drayna is ruining lives by prosecuting costly, false and mendacious lawsuits that seek to intimidate Windermere victims and terminate their speech rights, he is also promoting "...a belief in the importance of music as a means of connection to each other and the community." Visitors to WindermereWatch.com and responsible citizens alike are urged to boycott Seattle Pro Musica concerts.

WINDERMERE'S DEMCO LAW FIRM: ESCHEWING ETHICS and DOING WHAT OTHER LAWYERS JUST WON'T DO

Attorney and multi-office Windermere broker John Demco (left) is the ethically-elastic Windermere kingpin lawyer who operates Demco Law, Windermere’s in-house legal firm, whose primary job is to stall and outspend small fry consumers damaged by dishonest Windermere brokers, agents and franchise owners. When an innocent real estate consumer has the misfortune to suffer one of Windermere’s many bad apples, Demco Law Firm will refuse to settle the matter forthrightly, no matter what conspicuously unlawful or offensive conduct the agent or broker has committed. Demco and Windermere will force the aggrieved party to sue or swallow their damage and go away—standard Windermere operating procedure.

WindermereWatch has compiled voluminous evidence that Windermere-Demco attorney Matthew F. Davis (left), WSBA# 20939, is the kind of lawyer about which jokes are coined. Davis is franchiser Windermere Services' frontline bully—the guy in the legal trenches actually wrecking lives, making threats, and suing victims who speak out. When Shakespeare was recommending "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," in Henry the Sixth, Part 2, he was talking about egomaniacal lawyers like Matt Davis.

Attorney Matt Davis of Windermere's Demco Law Firm is so unethical, so deceitful and intimidating, that he's famous in law circles. As Windermere-Demco's lead attorney, Matthew F. Davis is renown for his dishonesty, dubious legal tactics, lack of decency and disrespect for the rules of professional conduct. He will do absolutely anything to win—without regard for truth or justice. He will lie to courts and opposing parties. He will file fallacious and erroneous documents with the court. He will email opposing parties telling them not to hire a lawyer when he has just served them a lawsuit. He will call a judge's chambers and request more time without informing the opposing party. He will file orders for a bench trial when he knows a jury trial has been demanded and paid for. He will trick, stall, coerce, menace and threaten. He will invent and extend mendacious Windermere litigation and abuse the legal process for no other reason than to exhaust an opponent’s pocketbook. If he can, he will get YOUR attorney to quit—a favorite tactic.

Windermere, Davis and Demco Law will push a $5 cat poop case all the way to the state supreme court just to avoid paying damages—because it’s all in the Windermere operating budget. And in the end, Windermere and Davis will try to coerce silence about your Windermere experience by trying to make you sign a "settlement" agreement that terminates your speech rights, so you can't ever inform the public about your Windermere debacle. What if you DON'T sign that you'll shut up, and then SPEAK UP instead? Windermere-Demco's Matt Davis will sue you for libel and defamation, then run away and dismiss his own lawsuit on the eve of trial—because after all—you're telling the truth.

Windermere's Clear and Overt Marketing Fraud:

"THE HIGHEST ETHICAL STANDARDS. UNCOMPROMISING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY."

—The Windermere Real Estate Mission Statement

Windermere widely promotes its deceptive express warranty in sales documents and on the internet which states "We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." In other Windermere promotion, like the Puget Sound Business Journal, Windermere CEO Geoff Wood is quoted as saying "In the real estate business somebody's word is very important. If you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." The article goes on to say, "Geoff oversees marketing, legal, financial and internet development services throughout the Windermere network..." Mr. Wood claims absolute dominion over both Windermere legal and internet strategy, making him chief architect of Windermere marketing fraud.

Effective reportage can be harsh in recounting facts, but it must be said in consideration of all the Windermere victims profiled here who truly sought Windermere's vaunted honesty and integrity, that Windermere Services CEO Geoffrey P. Wood is simply lying when he states his company's utterly false and fraudulent commitment to honesty and integrity. He both lies and deceives again when he says that "In the real estate business somebody's word is very important. If you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." Wood clearly doesn't do what he says he's going to do—be committed to uncompromising honesty and integrity. Wood himself is indeed IN the real estate business and his word is absolutely no good at all. He sues victims of Windermere misconduct for trade libel and defamation to shut them up, and then he tries to use the legal system to suppress victims' speech rights when they ask him to actually perform on the warranty he promotes. As this website proves, Mr. Wood does anything BUT what he says he's gonna do. Far from providing victimized Windermere customers a commitment to high ethical standards, honesty and integrity, Wood and Windermere run away and hide behind their lawyers when innocent consumers are ruined by their Windermere experience.

John W. Jacobi, Geoff Wood, his wife Jill Jacobi-Wood, and governing cohorts John O'brien "OB" Jacobi and attorney Paul Drayna have gone to the absolute ends of the earth in stonewalling, ignoring, denying and fleeing any and all responsibility for Windermere wrongdoing and misconduct. When called upon by victimized Windermere consumers to make good on its warranty of honesty and integrity, Windermere even states in legal pleadings that Windermere agents are NOT agents of Windermere at all—but independent contractors. As the legally-designated Governing People and top managers of the Windermere empire who drive policy, ethics and market promotion, it demands repeating that John W, Jacobi, Geoff Wood, Jill Jacobi-Wood, John OB Jacobi and attorney Paul Drayna are all clearly lying when they promise high ethical standards and uncompromising honesty to the public and consumers of real estate services.

Protect your life, home, family and future by cancelling or not renewing your Windermere listing. Don't risk doing business with Windermere Real Estate, the brand built on lies, fraud and ruined lives. Refuse to fund public predator Windermere Real Estate with commission from the sale of your home.

________________________________

Is WindermereWatch.com of social benefit to consumers and the public? You decide:

Windermere Real Estate is one of our country’s largest real estate companies and widely promotes a fraudulent express warranty that states “We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity.” The definition of an express warranty from Black's Law Dictionary is: "A warranty created by the overt words or actions of the seller. • Under the UCC, an express warranty is created by any of the following: (1) an affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer relating to the goods that becomes the basis of the bargain."

But when customers are victimized by dishonest Windermere brokers and agents, and complain in writing through legal counsel to franchiser Windermere Services Company, it is absolutely silent in the face of clear and convincing evidence, and forces the customer to sue or go away. In many cases, unsuspecting consumer lives are thrown into complete chaos through costly litigation; and also because the subject homes may actually be uninhabitable or unserviceable for reasons about which Windermere knew and had a legal obligation to disclose—but did not. For some victims, the long and expensive litigation forced upon them even results in bankruptcy and homelessness. Despite their clear evidence, many victims go on to lose in court because they can't afford attorneys or have no legal experience, and Windermere exploits those impediments to endless advantage—lives, homes, and personal finances are ruined forever. And Windermere expects those victims to just go away without their lives and homes, merely for buying a house through Windermere Real Estate, innocently.

Although such irrefutable evidence of Windermere broker/agent misconduct has been presented to franchiser Windermere Services Company, it knowingly continues collecting commissions from dishonest agents and brokers by deliberately passing them on to other unwitting consumers. Just one example is Windermere S.C.A. Redmond's Paul Stickney, who received a $522,200 court judgment for not disclosing a conflict of interest, but is still producing commissions for his Windermere SCA franchise, and Windermere Services Company. Is that the "Highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity?" You may want to search and visit more websites about Windermere's predatory business conduct.

When victims use the media to report their Windermere experiences honestly, Windermere sues them for libel and defamation through false lawsuits to intimidate, silence, and hush bad PR—read one of those lawsuits here. It then tries to coerce victims into signing a “dark clause settlement agreement” that permanently terminates their speech rights—read some of those "settlement" agreements here. Through an expensive and emotionally distressing roller coaster ride with Windermere's nasty Demco lawyers, a victim of Windermere fraud is told they will be taken all the way to trial on trumped-up libel and defamation charges, and if they don't sign the dark clause, their life and future will be ruined. When a victim persists in refusing to sign, Windermere voluntarily dismisses its own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41, just before trial, after costing the victim years and yet thousands more to defend against the false action. This predatory legal tactic is known as abuse of process or malicious prosecution. In one example cited below, franchiser Windermere Services Company served an outspoken victim a lawsuit for libel and defamation, and then immediately sent them an email instructing that they "...need not hire an attorney," and further stating, “…we will try to resolve this directly and outside the legal system.”

Every Windermere office in every state is legally tied to franchiser Windermere Services Company's fraudulent express warranty, false advertising, predatory conduct and policies through privity and its pecuniary franchise agreement. Some legal observers believe that Windermere's conduct has RICO and Civil Rights violation implications. If you have recently purchased a Windermere franchise without having been disclosed Windermere's falling brand value, PR decline, and its adverse website problems, click here for its duty of disclosure under Federal Trade Commission rules. Proof that Windermere Services Company knew about WindermereWatch.com in March of 2007 is in this document.

Windermere Real Estate is a textbook corporate predator who operates franchises in Washington State, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii and British Columbia. Windermere repeatedly makes the false claim that it has offices in Wyoming, but it does not. If you’re buying or selling property through ANY Windermere office, a percentage from your transaction will be used by franchiser Windermere Services Company to silence and financially ruin innocent parties who’ve encountered Windermere fraud. Windermere won't pay legitimate damages or acknowledge wrongdoing, and will stall settlement of cases all the way to state supreme courts, a legal strategy that Windermere routinely employs to bankrupt victims and exhaust their resources.

We believe the information presented here is of profound social benefit to consumers and the community, and we are dedicated to providing it.

THROUGH FEES AND COMMISSIONS PAID TO FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY, EVERY WINDERMERE NETWORK OFFICE IN EVERY STATE IS AN ENTHUSIASTIC PARTNER AND KNOWING ACCESSORY TO WINDERMERE MARKETING FRAUD AND ITS PREDATORY POLICIES

(Back to top)