Está en la página 1de 36
Sowers Haun ll 13, 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 10/21/2016 03:52:19 PM MEMO. Wien bbw STEVEN B. WOLFSON Clark County District Attorney Nevada Bar #001565 JAY P. RAMAN Chief Deputy District Attorney Nevada Bar #0010193 200 Lewis Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89155-2212 (702) 671-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA ) THE STATE OF NEVADA, CASENO: C. Plaintiff, 5 DEPT NO: II “vs. 5 JEANNE WINKLER, aka, Jeanne Lynn Winkler #1045189 Defendants. SENTENCING MEMORANDUM DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 27, 2016 TIME OF HEARING: 8:30 A.M. COMES NOW, the State of Nevada, by STEVEN B. WOLFSON, District Attorney, through JAY P. RAMAN, Chief Deputy District Attorney, and hereby submits the attached Points and Authorities in support of State’s Sentencing Memorandum, This Motion is made and based upon all the papers and pleadings on file herein, the| attached points and authorities in support hereof, and oral argument at the time of hearing, if deemed necessary by this Honorable Court. Mt My mM +20] 112011702917011F02970-MEMO-Winkler_Jeanne}.001 does, Electronically Filed CLERK OF THE COURT ~16-314005-1 1 | Seowr dks H awn " 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 m4 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES KEY FACTS Jeanne Winkler (“Defendant”) was a practicing attorney who engaged in a serious and pattern of theft and deception invoving multiple victims who were her own clients. The| Defendant was also prominently involved in two other major corruption cases, the Federal Las Vegas HOA case (Leon Benzer, et, al.) and the United States v, Steven Jones, et. al. The] Defendant’s involvement in all of these criminal actions will be detailed to the greatest extent! possible in the proceeding pages. The Instant Case On March 17, 2009, LVMPD Criminal Intelligence Section through a confidential] source and other investigated means became aware that Jeanne Winkler, a Las Vegas Attorney, was possibly stealing money from her clients. A computer search showed the Las Vegas| Review Journal released several articles outlining findings into Winkler’s business practices and her wrongdoings. A computer search also showed a possible victim Juanita Thompson| filed a LVMPD Police Report on February 21, 2008 (Event Number 080221-1656) against Jeanne Winkler. Detectives contacted the State Bar of Nevada and found that Jeanne Winkler, a Las Vegas Attomey at Law, Bar #7215, and former lawyer from Jeanne Winkler Law Firm and Associates was suspended by the Nevada Supreme Court on March, 7 2008 for allegedly misappropriating client funds from her attomey-client trust account. twas found that the State Bar of Nevada conducted an investigation and found Winkler to be in violation of numerous rules governed by the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (RP.C,) to include “Safekeeping of Property” which governs clients funds. An investigation] by the State Bar of Nevada showed Winkler misappropriated monies from clients whom) entrusted Winkler’s Law Firm with those funds. | Winkler’s Law Firm employed two other associate lawyers, Tracey Its and Louis) Schneider whom represented clients and collected retainer fees for the firm. As associate! lawyers, Itts and Schneider would turn over client fees to Winkler to be deposited into her Sew rau eun i 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorney-client trust account, Neither Itts nor Schneider had access and/or were signatories on ‘Winkler’s attorney-client trust account. On January 2, 2008, Itts and Schneider notified Dawn Reid, a State Bar of Nevada Investigator, that the firm was experiencing financial difficulties. Itts and Schneider notified the Bar because they were concerned about their clients’ retainers of approximate $80,000 not! being in Winkler’s attorney-client trust account, Itts and Schneider advised they requested| Winkler to provide an accounting record of their clients’ retainers and she refused. The State Bar of Nevada notified Winkler who scheduled an appointment with then Bar Counsel, Rob| W. Bare, On February 1, 2008, Bar Counsel/Rob Bare and State Bar Investigator/Dawn Reid had a meeting with Jeanne Winkler and her attorney Rebecca Miller. During the meeting, Winkler! admitted to misappropriating clients monies from her attorney-client trust account to fund an] investment that was going to yield her enormous returns. Winkler advised the investment didn’t pay off, Winkler admitted to misappropriating funds from her attorney-client trust account from January or February 2007 through the end of January of 2008, Winkler explained| the misappropriated funds were used for the investment while other misappropriated funds were used for office expenses. On March 7, 2008, in the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada in the matter of the discipline of Jeanne Winkler, Esq., the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board filed an order off temporary suspension against Jeanne Winkler preventing her from practicing law pending the! resolution of formal disciplinary proceedings against her. The order concluded that Winkler, posed a substantial threat of serious harm to the public, and that her immediate temporary suspension was warranted. On March 4, 2009, the State Bar of Nevada, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board filed} a Complaint against Jeanne Winkler. The Complaint outlined sixteen (16) counts against Winkler and requited Winkler to respond or answer the complaint within twenty (20) days off service of the complaint. | On April 10, 2009, Jeanne Winkler, by and through her counsel of record, Michael J. | Cer aAneen 10 I 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 ai 22 23 4 25 26 27 28 Warhola, Esq., filed her answers to the State Bar of Nevada’s formal complaint. The document was signed by Michael J.Warhola, Jeanne L. Winkler and notarized. A certificate of service was signed by Michael J, Warhola that he served Winkler’s verified answers to the State Bar of Nevada’s formal complaint to Rob W. Bare. Winkler, in her answers, admitted to many of| the complaints filed against her by the State Bar of Nevada. On March 2, 2010 and March 29, 2010, the State Bar of Nevada, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board, held hearings into the matter of the State Bar of Nevada (Complainant)| vs. Jeanne Winkler (Respondent). During the hearings, Winkler accompanied by her attorney, gave full admissions in taking her clients monies and the circumstances surrounding the reasons. On May 10, 2010, the State Bar of Nevada, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board, filed their Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations concerning the State Bar| of Nevada vs. Jeanne Winkler. In summary, the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board upon| completing their inquiry unanimously recommended to the Supreme Court of Nevada that Jeanne Winkler be disbarred from the practice of law. The Nevada Supreme Court followed} that recommendation, disbarring Jeanne Winkler. During the investigation, many of Winkler’s victims only became aware that Winkler| was possibly stealing money from her attorney-client account after reading articles posted in| the Las Vegas Review Journal and/or learning of Winkler’s suspension which took place on| March 7, 2008. It was found that many of Winkler’s victims were given advice to file} complaints with the State Bar of Nevada and not LVMPD. Victims then filed complaints with] the State Bar and only at the conclusion of their investigation, victims learned that Winkle did in fact steal their money. The Client Security Fund of the State Bar of Nevada, at the conclusion of their investigation, refunded money to many of Winkler’s victims. LVMPD Detectives served the State Bar of Nevada, Legal Counsel and Client Security| Fund, with Grand Jury Subpoenas and leamed of the victims who filed complaints with thel State Bar of Nevada, Detectives contacted those victims provided by the State Bar and found, 10 victims who wanted to move forward and file criminal complaints against Winkler. | LVMPD Detectives also served Grand Jury Subpoenas to Bank of Nevada where} Winkler’s bank statements, deposit tickets and items, and cancelled checks were located. LVMPD Financial Analyst, Nancy P. Sampson conducted a financial analysis for Winkler’ s accounts in connection with Winkler’s Law Firm. Sampson completed her analysis after analyzing Winkler’s Money Market Account, Trust Account, Operating Account, and records} received from various clients. Detectives spoke with Dawn Reid, a Paralegal/Investigator for the Office of Bar| Counsel of the State Bar of Nevada and who works under the direct supervision of Bar Counsel| Rob W, Bare. Reid stated she investigated numerous complaints filed by clients of Attorney Jeanne Winkler. i On or about November 27, 2007, Reid was asked to investigate Jeanne Winkler and alleged attorney- client trust account allegations. Reid’s investigation started when the State Bar of Nevada received an overdraft notice from Winkler’s bank, Bank of Nevada, reference] a check in the amount of $600.52 made payable to Health Plan of Nevada for a lien on one of Winkler’s clients. The State Bar sent a copy of the notice to Winkler and requested a response, On January 2, 2008, Reid was contacted by two of Winkler’s associate lawyers, Louis} Schneider and Tracey Itts who informed her that Winkler was experiencing financial difficulties. Winkler’s associates informed Reid that payroll checks were bouncing and the) business’ power was shut off. Winkler’s associates were concerned because they deposited all their clients’ monies into Winkler’s attomey-client trust account and were in fear the money wasn’t there. In return, the Nevada State Bar subpoenaed Winkler’s attorney-client trust account] bank records from the Bank of Nevada, collected bank records from Winkler directly, andl interviewed Winkler on several occasions. The State Bar of Nevada found Winkler to have misappropriated over $200,000 of clients monies by either not paying on agreed loans with} clients and/or taking clients monies from her trust account without the clients’ permission. Cer ann eon 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 4, 2009, the Nevada State Bar filed 16 complaints against Winkler and found| Jeanne Winkler to be in violation of numerous Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct (R.P.C). Rule 1.15, Safekeeping Property, was one of the numerous rules Winkler was in violation of} governing client’s funds. On March 2, 2010, and March 29, 2010, the State Bar of Nevada, Southern Nevada| Disciplinary Board conducted formal hearings into the matters relating to the State Bar of] Nevada (Complainant) vs. Jeanne Winkler (Respondent). On September 1, 2010, Detectives! received transcripts from the State Bar of Nevada documenting these hearings. During the proceedings, Jeanne Winkler, Esq. testified on her own behalf and was| sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Winkler, in summary, gave the following testimony: Winkler outlined her history as an| attorney and provided a chain of events which lead up to the point where she misappropriated! funds from her attomey-client trust account. Winkler advised she graduated from Whittier Law School in 1997 and passed the Nevada State Bar in 1999, Winkler then married her| husband Michael Metzger in September 2000 and had two children together, Gage and Sienna, In 2001, Winkler and her husband bought an electrical business, Direct Electric, Metzger was responsible for running field operations while Winkler kept the books, paid the} vendors, did the billing, everything that an office manager or office person would do, Winkler| also worked full time as an attorney for Carmine Colucci. Direct Electric grew from having] one employee in 2001 to 35 electricians. During the growth of Direct Electric, Winkler hired] an employee by the name of Kelly Geib who assisted her with office duties. Winkler came to} know Kelly Geib before she hired her because she represented Geib on a theft case. Winkler] explained Geib was charged with numerous counts of theft and the end result was Geib] received 5 years probation and had to pay restitution. Winkler explained she and Geib became friends during the time she was representing Geib, Winkler then discussed hiring Geib with| her husband and they both decided Geib deserved a second chance. During the following year, Winkler explained life for her became really busy where she| was burning the candle at both ends. Winkler explained things became difficult because she} was pregnant with her first child and continued to keep up with her responsibilities. Winkler was trying to keep up with the daily office duties for Direct Electric which was an ever growing business while still running the family law portion for Carmine Colucci Law Office and on top of it, she was also traveling to Kingman, Arizona on an average of three to four days a week where she was taking care of two PD contracts. In February of 2002, Winkler voluntarily left Mr. Colucci’s office and opened her own Law Practice. Winkler opened her law firm with only her and a paralegal and within two months the law office became so busy they couldn’t keep up. Winkler attempted to maintain| both businesses and finally moved Direct Electric’s office into her law office where she] wouldn’t have to travel between the two offices. Winkler explained eventually she couldn’t give the necessary time to both business so she gave Geib the office duties for Direct Electric. Winkler continued and explained, on December 31, 2003, her and her husband found] out Geib had been stealing money from Direct Electric since August 2002. Winkler stated she| reported the theft to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Winkler advised she| worked with Metro for a little over a year as well as a forensic accountant and were able to] determine that Geib had taken about $350,000 from Direct Electric, At the conclusion, Metro was able to trace $89,000 to $90,000 that Geib misappropriated from Direct Elect, Therel was a lot more money stolen but Metro was unable to trace it through Geib’s accounts and the} DA’s office couldn’t charge her with stealing the full amount of $369,350 because they| couldn’t prove it. Winkler advised that Geib finally went to prison as a result of the theft} committed by Geib. Winkler explained the theft devastated her and her husband financially. Winkler and| her husband tapped out every conceivable penny they could get their hands on. Winkler said| they took loans, equity loans on their homes, as well as, the rental home they owned at that! time, and raw land that they owned in Sandy Valley. Around 2005/2006, Winkler advised Direct Electric wasn’t doing very well. Winkler explained she started making loans from her law office to help sustain Direct Electric employee salaries and all the rest of the expenses. Winkler provided these loans to Direct Soewmraaur wn MW 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Electric from her law firm from July of 2005 clear through September of 2007. Winkler| advised this wasn’t trust money at this point in time. In 2006/2007, Direct Electric couldn't rebound and was forced to close. Winkler advised Direct Electric didn’t have any} outstanding bills because neither her or her husband wanted others to be harmed because they had been victims of someone taking money from them. The Defendant’s Own Words The following is quoted from a transcript of the Bar Hearing. This is Mr. Warhola’s| direct examination of Winkler during the hearing: “Q”(Warhola) “A”(Winkler) Q. Do you recall the first time you took money from the trust account? A. Ido, Q Can you just tell us which time that was and how much it was, if you recall?” A. The first time was approximately January of ‘07 and I had just returned back from| Christmas vacation in Illinois with my husband’s parents. I had already made ~ I had been| approached in December to put some money into~ I call it an investment because that’s how it was presented to me. | Q. Let me stop you right there. I have a question, Was your misappropriation of money in the} trust account triggered by, I’m sorry this was previously stated, but what was triggered by? Was it triggered by financial strain in the office or was it triggered by you wanting to make| this investment? A. Itwas triggered by the financial strain that I was under, but I made a mistake. Q Can you describe briefly the nature of this investment and how it was presented to you, how you were introduced to it? A. From the time the money was stolen from Direct Electric or shortly thereafter, I was friendsbecame friends with a judicial officer at family court. I had went to him on numerous| 0 ions and he knew of the situation with the financial strain. He tried to put us in touch] with people that could employ my husband so that he could close the business and still have| income coming in that we didn’t have after Kelly stole money. We were putting out, but wel Secwraaunun i 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 25 26 27 28 didn’t have any coming in from Direct Electric, He tried to ~he tried to help any way he could think of to help. And he told me that he had friends that were involved in an investment that he had talked to and they had agreed to help me. Q Can you describe this investment? A. What I thought it was then or what I know it is now? Q. What you thought it was then I think is relevant. | A. What I thought it was then was a — it was explained to me that it was a humanitarian effort or based on humanitarian efforts in other countries that was funded by World War I bonds having to do with the Chinese government and I don’t even know if I can remember everything that was told to me, but I was shown copies of these bonds that had been issued in the 1920's, 1930's and it was explained to me that these bonds, there were bearer bonds, who ever held| them, they were able to cash these in along with the interest which exponentially-allegedly exponentially increased every 10 years. And that this person had about 100 of these bonds and they were secured by water rights, for valuable water rights by Hoover Dam and that there were various states involved with senators} of those states because of the water rights. Q And did you make an investment? ‘A. I did. Initially with my own money, but yes, I did. Q. How much initially with your own money? A. $18,000. Q. And then after that what was the next amount and what was the source of those funds. A. Initially it was out of my general account so monies I had earned. I think it was by the third) time that I was — and you have to ~ well, you don’t have to understand, but I was told that specifically by people I trusted, implicitly, that this guy- Q Let me ask you this— A. Go ahead. Q. What was you understanding as to what the yield would be if you invested in this? Would it be a small yield or a large yield? A. Millions of dollars. Sewer sau nwn i 13 14 15 16 7 18 He 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Q. Inhow much time? ‘A. When I made my first investment I was told that he just needed 18,000 and some-odd dollars to close the deal and that by Christmas Day he would have — I think that was like on the 18th of December, and by Christmas Day we would have the money back. Q. When you say “he,” are you talking about the judicial officer or somebody else? A. There was a little bit of both. I can’t tell you who said what. Q. But the point of it is, is that you had to come up with the money in order to make this investment and you made the investment and you utilized the trust account money to do it, correct? A. After a short period of time, yes. Q. Now, your use of those funds, you invested in a substantial amount of money, approximately how much did you invest including your own money and trust account money| toward this investment? A. About $500,000. Q. And about how much of that was yours? About half of it? ‘A. Over half, I think. Well, it had to be over half because I took $233,000 from my trust account over time, Q. Over what period of time did you take — without the trust account, I’m not talking about} that, but over what period of time did you invest your own money, like, from what time to what time? ‘A, Well, I started in December of ‘06 and [tried to do as much as I could with my own money, but because I would take my money and invest, then I wouldn’t have money to pay my own] bills, So it became very convoluted, but it was all coming from the same place. | Q. Now, $500,000, that’s a lot of money. It seems like that could have gotten you out of yout, =I mean, obviously, some of that was trust account money, but at least more than half of tha was your own money. It seems like that could have gotten you out of your financial woes or, if that’s an incorrect statement and if so why? A. Looking back it probably could have, but that was over time and I didn’t take a paychecl from my law office because — everything that I was making I was ~ I kept being told, if you 10 ScocwrdsHuaeun WW 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 just put in a little bit more, he’s closing, Jeanne, he’s closing. And he would come — not the judicial officer, but his name is Tom Cecrle, he would come to my office and pick up cash or send someone else to do it. And he signed several things for me saying, if you just give me this money, I'll give you X dollars in a week or two weeks. Q. Let me ask you this: As he was saying that to you, obviously, there came a point where the money was not coming in from the investments, correct? A. Correct. Q. So there had to be some point where you got wise to that, I mean, why didn’t ~ what took you so long to become — to kind of get wise to it for lack of a better way of saying? ‘A. I don’t think it took me too long to get wise to it. I think that I had misgivings, probably beginning in March, February, March of ‘07, and I would voice those misgivings to various people that were involved that was also putting money in. And they would say, We'll go meet with him. And I swear on my children’s lives, he is the biggest con artist and the best talker I have ever, ever, ever come across. Q. Now, when you say “he,” who do you mean? A. Tom Cecrle. Q So, obviously, it didn’t yield anything, correct? A. It did not. Q. What was this investment to you? How did you view this investment? What was it to youl in your life? ‘A. Itwas my savior, my savior. Q Save you from what? ‘A. From the bar, from myself, from everything. Q. What was your plan if this investment yielded any funds? What was your plan, what were you going to do with those funds? A. The very first thing I was going to do was put all of it back in my trust account. The secon thing I was going to do is give all of my staff a very big bonus because they all had worked very, very hard, a Q. Looking back, do you think you made rational decisions back then? A. I don’t think, I know I did not. Q. Why not? ‘A. Because no rational person would have kept giving this person money. They just wouldn’t have. Q. Can you describe anything that made you particularly susceptible to making this investment? I mean, you know, we kind of touched upon some things, but regarding you! personally, describe why you were particularly susceptible? ‘A. Well, I don’t kniow about being particularly susceptible, but I can tell you that had it not been for the judicial officer who had represented to me that he had also put money into this| investment, I would have never done it. Never. Q Let me ask you this, are you blaming that judicial officer? A. No, I’m not. No, I am not. Q Was he the victim of this investment to your knowledge as well? A. As far as I know he is a victim. Q But as far as you know, he didn’t invest to the extent that you did? A..No, he didn’t, as far as I know. (Questioning Continues....) The following is quoted transcript from Mr. Bare’s cross-examination of Winkler during the} hearing: “Q”(Bare) “A”(Winkler) Q. Ms. Winkler, I wanted to ask you about this investment again. I think I heard in your testimony that there was a point in time, I think I heard in your testimony that there was a point in time, I think you mentioned a December 18th date where you put the first $18,000 into the} investment; is that right? A. [believe it was right around there. It was, yes. Q Did I get your testimony correct that your testified earlier that — so it’s December 18th, I take it that’s 2006? A. Right. Q. That you put, the question I think on the table was, as posed by Mr. Warhola, when was the! 12 Secwrxr vaueun i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a 26 27 28 first time that you invested or put money into the investment, and correct me if I’m wrong now, but I think what you said was, again, December 18, 2006, you put $18,000 of your own money in; is that right? A. I don’t know the exact amount, but that amount sounds familiar and, yes, it was the latter] part of December of ‘06. Q And then I took it, and, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you said that by Christmas you were going to get millions? A. That's what we were told, yes. Q. So that’s a week away? A. I know. Q Is that right? A. Yes. Q. So is that your testimony that you, you know, put whatever it was, I think you said $18,000, and then a week later you were going to get millions? A. Lwas fist told that I would get approximately a million dollars. Q. A week later? A. (Witness nods head.) And then it went up from there. Q What was your understanding as to how that could be that you could invest or put in less that 20,000 and then in a week it’s a million? A. Rob, I know you don’t — I know you don’t understand and it’s hard for everyone — it’s hard for everyone to probably understand, I had a judge that I trusted implicitly and I was told that] I would get a million dollars because this was the final amount he needed and he didn’t ~ “he,” being Tom Cecrle didn’t have any more ability to get money from anyone else and that he was willing to promise me a thousand or, excuse me, a million dollars because he didn’t want t lose this deal. Q. Well, I mean, Christmas comes and goes and you don’t get the million bucks, right? A. No, I don’t. | Q So what happens over time with this investment? 1B | Sew raw eun i 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘A; Over time I’m told that, Oh, the numbers were just wrong. There were supposedly lockers at different airports in what was represented to me to be Homeland Security Office’s that held —1 know this sounds so out of this world ~ that held these original bonds and those lockers! had — rent had to be paid on them and if they weren’t paid within a certain amount, it would double and triple in hours. So it was always at the last minute I’ve got to have this amount. I’ve got to have this amount. I’ve got to have this amount. And I resisted many times only then to be told, Well, you're going to lose all that money you put in, Jeanne, every bit of it. And I knew if I couldn’t get that money back I would be sitting right where I am today. And I knew that the one thing that I had tried so hard to get I would lose. And that’s exactly what happened, And I’m going to tell you that I went to the authorities and I have cooperated fully! with every authority. Q. Let me ask you, again, taking it from this scenario that it’s around December 18th, 2006, you put in some money, you think you’re going to get a million by Christmas, it doesn’t happen, time goes on, and it sort of almost looks like — I mean, who knows what we could] hear next. I mean, we heard earlier World War I, Chinese government, water rights, senators, now it’s lockers at airports, Homeland Security. What did you do, if anything, to sort of — I mean, you're a lawyer at the time ~ to do some due diligence to try to figure out what was really going on with this investment? A. I didn’t do a whole lot because I trusted- first of all, I — I was so financially devastated I didn’t have any money at all and I had 17 people relying on me for their jobs and their paycheck to feed their families. Q. So you didn’t look at it, Did you ever get anything in writing from anybody who is telling| you to invest describing the investment, any sort of written documents? I mean, we have this exhibit book, do you have any written documents at all to substantiate the investment? ‘A. I do not have them in my book. I was shown them by various people that you’ve heard about today. Q You were shown A. I was shown copies of the World War I bond, I was shown copies — I was given numbers 14 SeocwmrdsHeon ll 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 7 28 that equate that this was the rent for this locker. I’ve got e-mails regarding that and I’ve turned| all of that over to the courts. Q. What I’m asking you is, do you have any sort of security instrument or some sort of contract, or any sort of written document to show when you’re giving all this money, I guess, you're saying you were giving this money to Mr. Cecrle, is that it? A. Orhis people, yes. Q. Do you have anything to show, like I say, a security instrument or any sort of written| acknowledgment of the investment itself? A. If you will, let me see if I can find it. I’ve given most of it to various law enforcement, but| I was able to get one copy that I found and it’s only much like a promissory note signed by| Thomas Cecrle. Mr. Bare continues: Q. Here is what I want to ask you, then, your testimony is that, again, it's 18 December, you give some money, you figure you’re going to get a million by Christmas. Did the amount that you were going to get in your mind go up? Because I think we heard testimony that you thought you were going to get millions as opposed to a million? A, It didn’t go up in my mind, It was represented to me by Mr. Cecrle that it would be more] Q So in your mind what did I t become over time? What did you think you were going to| come into? A. It wasn’t in my mind, Mr. Cecrle told me 60 million by the time — Q. 60 million A. Yes Q So is it fair to say, then, over time, again it’s Christmas of 2006, we know that you were| taking money from the trust account starting in January ‘07, so shortly thereafter. Shortly| within a month after you get involved in the investment you're using client money to fund the| investment, correct? And that goes on ~ A. In part, yes. Q. -for a another year? 15 Seowud aH eon u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Yes. Q. Sos it fair to say, then, that when you’re taking your clients’ 200-something thousand, and Ms. Hood’s money too along the way, which is right in the middle of 2007, as far as your thoughts are concerned, you go from getting a million dollars at the end of 2006 and it s progresses all the way to where you think this is going to turn into $60 million over that yea time; is that what we’re talking about? A. That’s what I was told. Q. Did it just sort of progress over time? In other words, it starts that you think you're going| to get a million, then you get to where, Oh, I’m going to get two or three, then five, then 10, then 20, is that how it worked? A. Yes. } Q. So that’s what you thought you were coming into as you were taking this money from your clients and putting it into the investment, that sort of progression of the amount you were going| to come into was what you thought you were going to look at, right? ‘A. That's what I was told. And by the end, Rob, I didn’t care if I got anything other than what] Iput in, I wanted nothing more to do with these people. Q. What's your thought regarding the investment now? I mean, today is it going to pay off? A. No. No. It’s a scam. It’s a scam of the biggest variety. It’s a cam and people are still putting| money into it. Not me, but people that were still putting money into it then are still doing it. Q. When did you draw a conclusion, then, that it was a scam and, therefore, I guess, stopped] dealing with it? A. Probably about June of “08, July ‘08, right in there. Q. Did you ever do anything to take any legal action other than a criminal process concerning! Cecrle or anybody involved? A. No, because he has no assets that’s in his name, [ looked. I couldn’t find any. Q Do you know what happened to the — you put $270,000 of your own money in, right, and! 230 of you clients’-- A. Right in that amount. 16 Sewer sHewn i 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Q. -that’s 500,000, right? A. Yes Q. What happened to that 500,000 bucks, do you know? A. Ihave not the slightest idea. It’s in somebody’s pocket or it’s in a gambling machine, but it’s not available to me. And if could change it, I would. But I can’t. (Questioning Continue Mr. Bare continued his cross-examination of Winkler and asked her questions relating to Ms. Geib. Winkler, in summary, explained again that she hired Geib to work in the office! of Direct Electric after she represented Geib on a felony theft case. Geib eventually became the bookkeeper for Direct Electric and between August 2002 and December of 2003 Winkler and her husband discovered Geib had stolen $369,000 from the company. Winkler stated she worked with the police which caused Geib to receive another felony conviction. Bare asked! Winkler, “Did you want her to get five years in prison for stealing $369,002 Winkler| responded, “Yes, I did. If I were to tell you any different, I would be lying.” On May 10th, 2010, the State Bar of Nevada Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board| submitted their findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations reference the State Bar of Nevada (Complainant) vs. Jeanne Winkler (Respondent). The Panel unanimously] recommended that the Defendant be disbarred from the practice of law. The Nevada Suprem Court agreed and disbarred the Defendant. Victims Thompson, Juanita (Event Number: 08021-1656) $49,221.20 On April 26, 2009, Detective Hunkins and Detective Downing met with Juanita Thompson] who advised she was a victim of Jeanne Winkler. Juanita explained she hired attorney Jeanne| Winkler, Esquire to handle her divorce proceedings between her and her husband John} Thompson, Juanita explained Winkler stole in excesses of $70,000 of monies owed to her} through the divorce proceedings. Numerous letters detailed what occurred with Juanita ‘Thompsons case, and it is anticipated she will give victim impact at sentencing. 17 Sewmraanunaun i 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kafantaris, Carolyn (Event Number: 090601-2711) $2,860.52 On 06/01/09, Detective Downing met with Carolyn Kafantaris who stated attorney Jeanne| Winkler from Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law Firm embezzled $3,500 from her after she! retained the Firm for legal representation, On 11/04/08, Kafantaris filed a complaint with the State Bar of Nevada. Kafantaris| documented within the complaint that she knew Winkler was suspended on March 7, 2008 for misappropriation of client funds. Kafantaris advised after a year of corresponding with the State Bar, they determined and reimbursed her $2,860.52. Kafantaris submitted a copy of a check registry receipt #1791, dated 10/17/07, in the| amount of $3,000, paid to the order of Tracy Itts for attorney fee. Kafantatis also submitted] copies of check registries, #1909 and #1915, dated 07/15/08 and 07/31/08 in the amounts of} $703.60 and $109.20 to Tracey Its for legal representation after Itts left Winkler’s Law Firm, Holland, Joy (Event Number: 090601-2708): $3,081.10 On 06/01/09, Detective J. Downing met with Joy Holland who stated attorney Jeanne Winkler from Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law firm stole $3,500 from her after she retained the] Firm for legal representation. Holland explained, in November 2007, she paid Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law firm a $3,500 retainer for attorney services. The $3,500 went into Jeanne Winkler’s attorney- client trust account and associate Tracey Its was assigned to handle her legal matters. On| January 18, 2008 Holland contacted Winkler’s Law Firm and was told Tracy Itts was no longer employed with the Firm. Holland was given an option to stay with Winkler’s Law Firm or} have the retainer be transferred to Tracey Itts, Holland requested the retainer be transferred to Tracey Itts. On February 27th, 2008, Holland made contact with Itts and learned the retainer hadn’t been transferred. In March 2008, Holland learned Winkler misappropriated funds from Winkler’s} attorney-client trust account and filed a complaint with the State Bar of Nevada. The Nevada| State Bar forwarded the complaint to Winkler and she responded, in summary, that $418.90} | 18 | | | Seow raunun i 1B 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 of legal services were rendered to Holland and the remaining $3,081.10 was misappropriated from her trust account. Holland didn’t dispute this fact. LVMPD Analyst Sampson’s analysis showed Winkler’s bank accounts didn’t reflect a payment made by Holland in the form of a check. Sampson advised credit card transactions. wouldn’t reflect in the bank statements. Bank records also didn’t showed any reimbursement to Holland from Winkler’s accounts. Holland attached a copy of her credit card statement, credit card receipt, and a receipt from Jeanne Winkler’s firm reflecting the $3,500.00 charge. Harwick, Adeline (Event Number: 90604-2508) $30,429.12: Victim 60 years of age or older| On 06/01/09, Detective J. Downing, P#7042, met with Adeline L. Harwick who stated, in summary, Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law firm stole in excess of $30,000 from her after| she retained Winkler for legal representation, Harwick explained, on April 21st, 2003, she retained Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law Firm to handle a personal injury accident case. On March 15th, 2006 Harwick was awarded an undisputed amount of $30,000 from the UM/UIM policy and the full amount o $30,000 was transferred to Winkler’s attorney-client trust account. Harwick advised Winkler] was entitled to $12,690.11 for fees and services rendered but failed to release the remaining] $18,884.89 to her. Harwick also advised, on June 6, 2003, “U.S.A.A.” insurance paid out a settlement of] $15,000 as the result of the accident which was deposited into Winkler’s attorney-client trus account, Harwick hasn’t received any proceeds from Winkler’s Law Firm as the result of these settlements. Harwick advised she should have received in excess of $30,000 because Winkler stole her money and didn’t see the case through to the finish as promised. Harwick’s total los: from Winkler’s actions was $30,429.12. Harwick also advised that her birthday was 02/11/35) which shows her to be a victim 60 years of age or older, On March 10, 2010, Adeline’s husband, David Harwick testified on behalf of Adeline Harwick at the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board Hearings reference the State Bar of Nevada vs. Jeanne Winkler. Adeline Harwick was present at the time of the hearings. David 19 was questioned by Rob Bare and stated, in summary: David advised he and Adeline were married for 55 years and together for 59 years and did things together all the time. David recalled Adeline was involved in an automobile accident in 2003. After the accident, David and Adeline found and retained Jeanne Winkler for legal services. David advised Winkler| thought she could possibly get up to $100,000 for them from their case. Rob Bare asked David to view an exhibit of Winkler’s response to the Bar and aj reconciliation of the accounting relating to Adeline’s case, David reviewed the exhibit and advised on March 15, 2006, they received a letter from Winkler stating the insurance company, sent them a check for ($30,000.00) thirty thousand dollars. The exhibit also showed that on April 14, 2006, Winkler advised she received the sum of $1,575.00 as a medical payment from Adeline’s insurance carrier. David advised he was unaware of the $1,575.00 payment. David indicated he and Adeline didn’t initially pursue collecting the $30,000 because they were| under the impression that Winkler deposited the money into her attorney-client trust account| and would settle and disburse the money once the case was over. Winkler communicated to} them that she was seeking more money from the lawsuit for them. ’ David advised, around March, 2008, they were approached by a friend who told them| that Jeanne Winkler was on the news and was being investigated by the State Bar for stealing] from her attorney-client trust account, David stated they attempted to contact Winkler on! several occasions but she never returned their phone calls. David did advise they received al letter from Winkler outlining that she had been suspended from practicing law in the State o! Nevada and that Harwick’s file had been sent to a different lawyer. David stated this was the| time frame when they suspected Winkler might have stolen their money. Richards-Boeckle, Leigh (Event Number: 090601-2712): $8,000.00 On 06/01/09, Detective J. Downing met with Leigh Richards-Boeckle who stated attorney Jeanne Winkler from Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law Firm stole $8,000.00 from her after, she retained the Firm for legal representation, Richards-Boeckle explained, on October 1, 2007, she paid Jeanne Winkler and| 20 Seocwrxaaueon i 1B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 23 4 25 26 7 28 Associates Law Firm an $8,000 retainer for attorney services. The $8,000.00 was deposited into Jeanne Winkler’s trust account and associate attorney Louis Schneider was assigned to handle her legal matters. Several months later, Richards-Boeckle contacted Winkler’s Law Firm and was told Louis Schneider was no longer employed with the Firm, Richards-Boeckle was given an option to stay with Winkler’s Law firm or have the retainer be transferred to Louis Schneider. Richards-Boeckle requested that the retainer be transferred to Louis Schneider. Richards-Boeckle made contact with Schneider and learned the retainer was never| transferred, Richards-Boeckle then learned Winkler had stolen the money from Winkler’s clients- attorney trust fund, at which time, she filed a complaint with the State Bar of Nevada. On 02/21/08, Richards- Boickle wrote a letter to Rob Bare and, in summary, outlined her situation with Winkler and asked for his advice. Richards-Boeckle then filed an application for! reimbursement with the State Bar of Nevada signed and dated 03/29/08. The State Bar of} ‘Nevada stamped the application received on 05/16/08, Heil , Wesam (Event Number: 10408-1120): $5,250.00 On 04/08/10, Detective Downing met with Wesam Heilig who stated attorney Jeanne Winklei from Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law Firm embezzled $5,250.00 from her after she retained the Firm for legal representation. Heilig explained, in November 2007, she paid Jeanne Winkler and Associates Lay Firm a $5,250.00 retainer for attorney services. The $5,250.00 went into Jeanne Winkler’ trust account and associated attorney Louis Schneider was assigned to handle her legal matters. In the days leading up to April 12, 2008, Heilig learned Winkler’s Law Firm was stealin; money from their clients, Heilig contacted Schneider and learned he was no longer conioye with the firm, Schneider told Heilig he would assist her in filing a complaint with the State Bar of Nevada against Jeanne Winkler for the money she had taken and he would continue representing her through her divorce proceedings. Heilig advised she lost all trust in lawyers and attempted to proceed with the divorce proceedings herself. 21 Sewr dH sewn i io 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ra) 26 27 28 Overstreet-Gillenwater, Natasha (Event Number: 100105-2203): $3,500.00 | On 05/05/10, Detective Downing met with Natasha Overstreet-Gillenwater who stated attorney Jeanne Winkler from Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law Firm embezzled $3,500.00 from her after she retained the Firm for legal representation. Overstreet-Gillenwater explained, on November 20, 2007, she paid Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law Firm a $3,500.00 retainer for attorney services. The $3,500.00 went into Jeanne Winkler’s trust account and associate attorney Tracey Itts was assigned to handle her legal matters. Approximately a year later, Itts informed Overstreet-Gillenwater that her| $3,500.00 retainer was taken by Winkler and Itts was locked out of the law office and didn’t| have access to any of her clients files. Itts informed Overstreet-Gillenwater to file a complaint with the State Bar of Nevada if she wanted to be reimbursed. At some point, Overstreet- Gillenwater was informed she could only file a complaint with the State Bar of Nevada or| LYMPD but not both, Overstreet-Gillenwater filed a complaint with the State Bar of Nevadal in May of 2009. The State Bar of Nevada told Overstreet-Gillenwater they received! correspondence from Winkler’s attorney stating Winkler admitted to taking $3,200.00 of the $3,500.00, As of January 5, 2010, Overstret-Gillenwater stated she hadn't received any) reimbursement of money from Jeanne Winkler and/or the State Bar of Nevada. Suarez, Paula (Event Number: 100113-2400) $750.00: ictim 60 years of age or older On 01/13/10, Detective Downing met with Paula Suarez who stated attorney Jeanne Winkle from Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law Firm stole $750.00 from her after she retained the; law firm for legal services. Suarez explained, on October 31, 2007, she paid Jeanne Winkler and Associates La Firm an $750.00 retainer to have the firm draft her a “Will”. The $750.00 went into Jeanne Winkler’s trust account and associate attorney Tracey Itts was assigned to handle her legal matters, Suarez advised she waited several months for the “Will” to be completed and finally, requested Winkler’s Law Firm to refund her money. Suarez contacted the firm and spoke to, 22 Seward Hu een ul 12 13 4 15 16 7 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 whom she thought was Itt’s paralegal who told her that the firm didn’t have any money to pay her, Suarez also advised her birthday was 09/28/39 which shows her to be a victim 60 years of age or older. In April 2008, Suarez assumed Winkler was never going to return her money so she contacted the State Bar of Nevada and filed a complaint against Jeanne Winkler. Suarez advised, in the early months of 2009, she received a reimbursement of $750.00 from the State Bar of Nevada. Brown, Theresa (Event Number 100830-1305) $40,000.00 On 03/30/10, Detective Downing met with Theresa Brown who stated Attorney Jeanne Winkler from Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law firm stole $40,000.00 from her after she retained the Firm for legal representation. Brown explained, on June 5, 2007, she retained Jeanne Winkler and Associates Law} Firm for legal services pertaining to a guardianship case, probate case, as well as, a wrongful death and personal injury case after the death of her husband. Winkler negotiated the case and| on July 26, 2007, Brown was issued two separate checks for a total amount of $40,000.00 from the insurance companies to settle the case. The checks were from National Guaranty] Insurance Company in the amount of $15,000.00 and State Farm Mutual automobile Insurani ‘Company in the amount of $25,000.00. Brown advised she signed both checks over to Winkle expecting her to deposit them in her attorney-client trust account and, in return, Winkler was going to issue a check to Brown, Brown advised she never received any payments from Winkler. Brown explained, around July or August, 2009 she was notified by the State Bar of Nevada that Winkler had misappropriated the money that was owed to her. Brown advise this was the first time she was aware of Winkler stealing her money. After Brown was notified of these acts which were committed by Winkler, she filed a complaint with the State Bar o' Nevada. In conclusion, Jeanne Winkler swore to an oath as an attorney and was entrusted by hej clients to uphold that oath. Winkler was entrusted by her clients to protect their money which 23 Sowmraauarwn int 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 by her own testimony she used for her own personal use. Winkler’s victims who filed complaints with LVMPD were at a total loss of $143,091.94. On May 17, 2016 the Defendant pled guilty to | Count of B Felony Theft. The HOA Case On May 31, 2012, Defendant Jeanne Winkler pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 for her role in a sprawling] conspiracy to take over Las Vegas-area Homeowners’ Associations (“HOAs”) and award their legal and construction work to members of the conspiracy. Defendant Winkler participated in a conspiracy and fraud scheme that targeted certain Las Vegas HOAs involved in construction defect (“CD”) litigation. The purpose of the scheme ‘was to control various HOA boards of directors so that the HOA boards would award the handling of CD lawsuits and remedial construction contracts to a law firm and construction] company designated by Defendant Winkler’s co-conspirators. It is helpful to understand! generally how the scheme worked and then understand Defendant Winkler’s role in the scheme, Leon Benzer (who has pled guilty in United States v. Benzer, Case No. 2:13-cr-00018+ JCM-GWF) was the owner of Silver Lining Construction (“SLC”) and conceived a plan t take over control of several HOA boards through a pattern of fraud and deceit in order to direc and control financially lucrative CD litigation and remediation (i.e. construction work). T execute his plan, Benzer recruited real estate agents, notaries, lawyers, property managers an individuals into his fraudulent scheme. Through this assembled network of co-conspirators. Benzer methodically set out to control HOA boards to perfect the scheme, initially keeping his principal investor apprised of his progress. Benzer directed the purchase of condominium: at targeted HOAs through a network of straw buyers and systematically took control of several HOA boards through a pattern of fraud and deceit, including the rigging of HOA board elections. uw 24 Benzer’s control of HOA boards followed a pattern, Benzer first recruited straw buyers with good credit scores so they could obtain financing for the purchase of condominiums at various HOAs. Benzer provided the recruited straw buyers all the funds necessary to purchase the condominiums at targeted HOAs. This included all down payments, HOA dues, and mortgage payments and taxes. The purchases were generally financed through a financial institution. The straw purchasers often falsely represented to the lender that none of the down] payment was borrowed and that the condominiums were to be their primary residence. The straw buyers, at Benzer’s direction, would often re-finance the condominiums or stage a sale to another recruited straw buyer in order to take equity out in a rising real estate market, In return for their agreement to act as straw buyers and use of their good credit scores, the buyers| generally were promised $4,000-$5,000 per year for a minimum of 4 years, as well as a 50%| interest in any profit once the condominium was sold. In addition to recruiting the straw buyers, Benzer also recruited “politicians” (the term| used by the conspirators), who would be the individuals designated by Benzer to run for the board at a targeted HOA. Sometimes the straw buyer would fill the dual role of the straw} purchaser and “politician.” At times Benzer designated another person to run for the HOA| board. In order to qualify the designated ‘politician’ to run for the HOA board, the straw purchaser would ~ at Benzer’s direction — convey a percentage interest in the condominium to the designated “politician.” This was done through a quitclaim deed from the straw buyer to the designated politician. Once deeded onto the condominium, the politician was qualified t run for the HOA board at the targeted HOA. For their efforts, Benzer generally compensate the designated “politicians” with regular cash payments for attending board meetings and voting according to his directions. Once a straw owner or “politician” was in place, the straw owner or “politician” would be instructed by Benzer to run for the HOA board at the targeted HOA. Very often, to insure that Benzer’s candidate or candidates won, the co-conspirators rigged the elections at Benzer’ instruction, Once a majority of the HOA board was controlled by Benzer’s puppet directors, the puppet board would hire a general counsel as well as a property manager designated by 25 Seowrdvsauanwn i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Benzer. Through his hand-picked general counsel and property managers, Benzer’s control was assured. The puppet board would regularly meet with Benzer and other co-conspirators to receive instructions as to how to vote and what actions to take at HOA board meetings. This pattern was replicated at several HOAs targeted by Benzer. The ultimate goal of the HOA takeover scheme was to award the CD legal work to a) law firm owned by a co-conspirator, and to award the remediation work to SLC. The scheme succeeded at one HOA (Vistana), and was in process at several other HOAs when the FBI and! Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department conducted raids on SLC’s office, Benzer’s home, and several other locations in September 2008. Defendant Winkler, in her role as a Benzer-controlled general counsel for Vistanal HOA, assisted the HOA takeover scheme. After taking a personal loan from Benzer for which! she ultimately benefited $47,000, Defendant Winkler was hired on Vistana by the Benzer| controlled Vistana HOA board on November 29, 2004. During the process of being hired, Defendant Winkler did not disclose her relationship with Quon or Benzer, whom she had! represented in personal matters, worked with in an additional business venture, and owed $47,000 to. Defendant Winkler served as Vistana’s general counsel for approximately two| years until March 31, 2007. During her time as Vistana’s general counsel, Defendant Winkler knew that Benzer controlled the board and took direction from Benzer and his co-conspirators in performing her duties as Vistana’s general counsel to the aid of the conspiracy. The Leniency Granted to the Defendant in the Federal Case for her Assistance in the HOA and Steven Jones Cases During the investigation and prosecution of the 37 Defendants in the HOA case, man} decided to cooperate with the Federal Government and provide testimony in exchange fo: leniency. The defendant provided assistance and received much leniency in exchange for her testimony. In United States v. Benzer et al.,Case No. 2:13-cr-00018-JCM-GWF, which wen to trial in February 2015 as to four defendants, as well as her cooperation in an unrelated case| United States v. Jones, et al., Case No. 2:12-00400-JAD-GWF. 1 26 Defendant Winkler provided detailed information regarding her conduct, and after her plea, she participated in three trial preparation sessions with the prosecution team in| anticipation of her trial testimony in the Benzer case. During all of those sessions, as well as many meetings with investigators, Defendant Winkler provided detailed information regarding her participation and the participation of others, and information she provided| helped secure further guilty pleas and significantly advanced the investigation in this case Attrial, Defendant Winkler also provided testimony regarding her involvement as the| general counsel for Vistana, She testified about how she was approached by co-conspirators about being general counsel for Vistana, how she quickly learned that Benzer controlled the| Vistana HOA board, and how she was expected to — and did — take direction from Benzer and her co-conspirators in acting as Vistana’s general counsel. | Defendant Winkler also assisted in the Jones case. She met with prosecutors at least six} times, testified in grand jury, and testified at sentencing. Defendant inkle ntence in the Federal Court At sentencing, the US Attorney’s Office sought for Defendant Jeanne Winkler to be| imprisoned for up to 6 months, with supervised release for an additional 3 years and al restitution amount of $47,000.00 on the one (1) count of Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wi Fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec 1349. This recommendation was within the downward departure she] received from the Federal Government, and ability to plead to reduced charges for her cooperation with the Federal Government. Judge Mahan decided to give Defendant Winkler} even more leniency, sentencing her time served and supervised release for a term of three (3) years, with $47,000.00 in restitution owed. On October 20, 2016 the State contacted Federa Parole and Probation, and according to their records Defendant Winkler has only paid $1,358.00 in restitution since being placed on Federal Probation on June 16, 2015. mn Ml Mt 27 ARGUMENT I THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE NOT A PRODUCT OF MISTAKE, | OR STUPIDITY - THEY WERE PURELY DRIVEN BY GREED The Defendant’s actions hallmark greed, corruption, as well as a complete lack of moral, ethical, or legal compass. She is no Victim, she is a person who wanted very badly to become rich and stole from numerous people and broke many rules to try and achieve that goal. For her misdeeds, she finally deserves the logical outcome of someone who commits as many crimes as her ~a lengthy prison term. It is anticipated that Defendant will try to mitigate her actions by painting this as a product of falling for Judge Jones and Mr. Cercle’s scam, and doing so to try and recover after Kelly Geib embezzled from her and her husband’s electrical business. This is a false narrative which masks the true motivations behind how the Defendant has operated askew of the law. It was not a mistake or stupidity that the Defendant hired Kelly Geib to work as a| bookkeeper for her and her husband’s electrical company — it was bad judgment and a lack of ethics. The Defendant worked as Kelly Geib’s criminal defense lawyer, defending her on one| or more case where she had embezzled money from her employer, and/or defrauded! individuals by issuing checks and not having sufficient money to back up those checks. In the! embezzlement case, the Ms. Geib embezzled $63,619.94 from C.B, Enterprises and M.T. Real Estate Investments, Inc. The ultimate plea negotiations struck for Ms. Geib were to plead to three (3) felony Theft counts, and dismiss ten (10) other felony cases, and one (1) misdemeano: case. Defendant Winkler represented Ms. Geib while she worked at Carmine Colluci’s office. Despite having very good knowledge of who Ms. Geib was and what she had done, she put her in a position of financial responsibility within her company. Within the same month a Ms. Geib’s sentencing (8/8/2002, Dept 21) Ms. Winkler hired Geib — while still technically, representing her, which is an ethical violation besides an extreme example of bad judgment, The restitution ordered in that case, payable to Defendant Winker’s electrical company was $89,468.73. 28 ‘A person who makes a decision without asking the right questions, without thinking, without intelligence is stupid. Miriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “stupid,” as: (1) not intelligent: having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things (2) not sensible or logical (3) not able to think normally because you are drunk, tired, ete. As a person who has a bachelor’s degree, and then a juris doctorate — she was not unintelligent, not unable to learn or understand things, and not illogical. She knowingly chose to violate rules and ethics to do what benefited her. Chances are, Direct Electric needed a bookkeeper and it was easier for Defendant Winkler to hire someone, all be they her client and a criminal defendant, to do the| books because she could be paid less, was her friend, and Defendant Winkler didn’t have to] look far to find someone to do the job. Defendant Winkler also wanted to give Ms. Geib al “second chance” — which would give Defendant Winkler a sense of well-being and happiness! for helping Ms. Geib. The Defendant will claim that she stole her clients’ money because she was in such! financial peril because of Ms. Geib's actions, or other financial hardships. The fact that Defendant Winkler stole her clients” money because she was greedy and trying to get rich. All indi tions were that Ms. Winkler was running a relatively successful law firm, She wa bringing in good money, landing many clients, and even had two associates working for her] Between 2002 and 2005, the Las Vegas (as well as national) economy was roaring because o: the real estate boom. Frankly, all lawyers were doing quite well in that timeframe. The financial hardship that Ms. Geib causes, could have been corrected for should she had staye the course and continued to earn money the legal way. This negates any real ‘need’ to steal money to erase the damage. Much more obvious that this is greed not need, is that the Defendant’s original return was to be $1,000,000.00 from this WWI bond investment scheme] The Defendant did not need $1,000,000.00. This was nearly three times what would have beer needed to ‘break-even’ as the damage was claimed to be $350,000.00 even though restitutio: was only $89,468.73. The Defendant admitted that she put $270,000.00 of her own money! and $230,000.00 of her clients’ money into this scheme to get the millions. If the Defendant had $270,000.00 of her own money at her disposal, se clearly was not hurting debt-wise from an Sewer ueun Ms. Geib’s theft. As the scheme went on, and she sunk more and more of her own money and her clients’ money into it, the payout was as high as $60,000,000.00. The Defendant was clearly driven by greed, not need or stupidity. Another example of the Defendant’s greed was her participation in the large scale corruption known as the HOA scandal. The Defendant was installed as the general counsel at Vistana HOA, and served at Leon Benzer’s pleasure. The scheme was to elect straw members to HOA boards, and falsify votes to get construction defect litigation going and benefit Benzer’s construction company. The Defendant willingly participated in this scheme, and reaped a benefit of $47,000.00 from Benzer in the form of a ‘loan.’ The Defendant knew well enough that what she was doing was immoral, uriethical, and a crime — yet she did it to get the money. This is another simple case of greed. Greed that leads to theft must be punished, As a nation, we have seen the devastation| that unmitigated and unpunished greed can lead to ~ financial devastation and lack of] confidence in the system. The Defendant deserves a sentence of 4 to 10 years for her greed. I. THE DEFENDANT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED AS MUCH OR MORE) LENIANCY THAN SHE WAS ENTITLED TO. ‘The Defendant was involved in many crimes in the Federal criminal justice system, was cooperative, and received leniency in those ses, None of that leniency is applicable in this case. ‘The Defendant played a prominent role in the HOA case, having been an attorney who} ‘was general counsel to one of the HOA boards that Leon Benzer tried took over for personal gain. For her part, she received $47,000 from Benzer. The Defendant was also one of the) people who funneled money into a scam ran and facilitated by a Clark County District Coury Judge. The Defendant became a cooperating witness for the Federal Government, and i exchange was given a deal of 1 Count of Wire or Mail Fraud, and not charged in the Steverl Jones, et. al. case. In the end, as a cooperator the Defendant received no jail time whatsoever! and limited her exposure to a maximum of 6 months in jail. The restitution order for $47,000 amazingly became joint and several with other co-defendants, and while there is a substantial 30 Rw LN Cw a aw 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ra 28 amount still outstanding ~ the Defendant has only personally repaid $1,358.00 since being on supervised released for over a year. This is an extreme amount of leniency for someone who occupied a position of trust, who swore an oath as an attorney, and then attempted to profiteer against all rules no matter what the cost. ‘The Defendant has never been punished for the acts she committed in the instant case. ‘The Defendant never signed a cooperation agreement of any sort with the State of Nevada. ‘The fact that she was a cooperating witness in the Federal system bears no impact in this case, as it is beyond clear that she received substantial benefits in her case. Besides what the deal the Justice Department cut her, she got two additional leniencies that she wasn’t necessary entitled or worthy of, 1) not going to jail, and 2) having her $47,000 restitution joint and several. Do not be fooled that this case took so long to get to the plea and sentencing phase because she was somehow ‘cooperating’ with the State. Over the years, the State has agreed! to continue the Nevada State case about client trust theft until the resolution of the HoA| Benzer case ~ that’s all. Once that case finished, the Defendant pled guilty. The condition] within the Guilty Plea “the State has no opposition to this case running concurrently to the| federal case” is not a signal of cooperation or leniency due to what she did in the federal case. That language was part of an original offer which was extended August 2, 2011 and ultimately} accepted by the Defendant. It was anticipated at the time that there was a high likelihood that) the Defendant would go to prison in the federal case. It is possible that when this Court sentences the Defendant to prison that the supervised release may convert to prison time, and| at least the State case will run concurrently to the federal case. It would be an injustice to extend the Defendant duplicate leniency because she was a| cooperator in a Federal case ~ this case was not part of the bargain. II LAWYERS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW People need lawyers, and lawyers need people ~it’s a symbiotic relationship that relies on trust, as well as upholding ethical rules, moral standards, and the law. It is important that when a lawyer breaches the public trust that they are held accountable, just like everyone else. Frankly, because of the level of education and position of impact lawyers hold in the lives o 31 | Seamus Hueun their clients, their misdeeds if anything should be punished more severely as they have all the tools to do what’s right, and no excuses when they lie, cheat, and steal. The Defendant’s conduct hurt the legal profession. Each and every client that the Defendant stole from, and there were many, had to go through a ton of work with the State Bar of Nevada, as well as the LVMPD detectives to piece together where the money they gave the Defendant went, or where the money they were expecting from a settlement was. Once it was conclusively determined that the Defendant utilized client trust money for personal endeavors, namely trying to get rich quick, the Nevada State Bar stepped in to make the victims as whole as they could, within guidelines. As a profession, we have a Client Security Fund because there will be thieving attorneys or other legal personnel who engage in this type of conduct — but no one wants to have to make those payments or do those investigations. Jeanne Winkler’s crimes were publicized in the Las Vegas Review Journal multiple times, painting a very ugly picture of the criminal conduct done by a local Las Vegas attorney. While it likely will be argued that Ms. Winkler was ‘disbarred for life’ as a result of] this case, it is clear that disbarment; striping her of a privilege is not a punishment. When someone commits a DUI offense, and loses their driver’s license ~ nobody argues that they| have been punished enough. That is because losing a license, or privilege is not punishment, it is a collateral consequence that takes away a special privilege because someone was| unwilling to follow the rules. The same goes for disbarment, She was disbarred because she| poses a substantial threat to the public if allowed to practice as an attorney. Furthermore, if cannot be said that the disbarment was only ever going to be due to her client theft. Lest wel forget that the Defendant engaged in many criminal acts and was federally prosecuted and i a felon as a result. Given her conduct and the consequences levied on similarly situated! individuals, it is exceedingly likely that she would have been disbarred solely due to her involvement in the HOA case. The Defendant’s actions also put a significant financial strain on the Client Securit Fund, The payouts that the Nevada State Bar's Client Security Fund made on behalf of Jeanne, Mit 32 Winkler amounted to $160,438.88. This money was paid to twenty-one (21) victims. $160,438.88 is not a small amount of money for the Nevada State Bar to have to pay out, There is no rational basis to not punish a lawyer who commits a crime the same as anyone else who commits a crime. IV. THE TYPE OF OFFENSE, ‘LACK OF CRIMINAL HISTORY’ AND AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION TO BE REPAID SHOULD NOT MITIGATE THE PRISON TERM A. NATURE OF OFFENSE The argument that this is a non-violent property crime should not negate the fact that the Defendant should be sentenced to four (4) to ten (10) years in prison. There are many important reasons why the Defendant's criminal acts should not be treated like a trivial matter. As stated in this memorandum, the amount of $143,091.94 is an extremely large sum of money to steal. It is over 40 times the statutory threshold ($3,500!) for the B felony Theft range of punishment. When looking at the punishment aspect of for thefts, clearly minimal| thefts deserve less punishment than high level thefts. The fact that the legislature created aj Felony Theft statute with a range of punishment of up to 4 to 10 years in prison, per offense, is proof that the legislature intended for there to be harsher punishment for serious thefi incidences. There are cases where someone deserves a high sentence ~ this is one of those} cases. Any counter-argument that the range was set-up to punish people who were multiple! time convicts, is belied by the fact that we have a habitual criminal statute, (NRS 207.010) where much more harsh penalties await people with such criminal records. If Jeanne Winkler, doesn’t deserve the maximum penalty under the Theft statute, who would? ‘A.40-times-the-threshold stealing from multiple victims is not your typical ‘non-violent property crime’ and it should be punished accordingly by incarceration for a significant periog of time, 4 to 10 years. MW dt ' Technically, the threshold during the time of her crimes was $2,500.00 or more, meaning that she committed an offense 57 times the statutory threshold. 33 Seowrxauneun ll 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 B. ‘LACK’ OF CRIMINAL HISTORY When looking at criminal history beyond the abovementioned crime, it’s important to | look at what exactly she did. Although the Defendant has pled to two (1) felony theft counts | count in this case, there were originally eleven (11) charges in the criminal complaint. Within those I1 charges, many individual crimes took place over a span of two and a half years - this represents a significant criminal history. It is deeply troubling that a person could commit this many crimes and not be deterred by morality or the guilt of having done these things. It is deeply troubling that she could continue the fagade of being the ‘attorney for a client’ while actively stealing from them and stringing them along to delay discovery, especially when we are talking about people who are elderly, people who are injured in accidents, or trying to work through a divorce, Besides the prolonged conduct in this case, one needn’t look any further than the crimes she committed in the Federal system, for which is already convicted felon. In fact, it further negates any argument that the felony conviction here and probation is punishment — she is already a felon, so being a 2x felon is no added burden, and she is already doing a poor job repaying her other restitution while on federal supervision. There is nothing in the Defendant’s criminal history that justifies a sentence of less than 4 to 10 years. C, AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION The large amount of restitution that is required to be repaid should not be a factor in| favor of probation. The Defendant will owe $143,091.94 between seven victims. This amount] will be next in line after the $47,000.00 she is currently repaying. The fact that it is an extremely large amount, and the Defendant has demonstrated that she is not capable o repaying restitution orders, so people are not made whole by her efforts. The Martinez v. State case hold that victims who are reimbursed from insurance companies must still be the named Victim for the purpose of assigning restitution. The insurer (or in this case, the Nevada Statd Bar) will be repaid through subrogation, Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 974 P.2d 133 (1999). The Nevada State Bar has submitted a restitution request of $132,359.83 to replenish the Client Security Fund for what was paid out. Mh 34 tl oe oo ne 5S 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Poorly made arguments often are presented to the court that there isn’t a ‘debtor's prison’, and ‘how are we to ‘make the Victims whole’ if the Defendants are stuck in prison. ‘These arguments fail quickly — because restitution ordered as a result of crime is not a debt; | the stealing of money was not a loan. The Victims can be, in theory ‘made whole’ if the Defendant is sent to prison when she eventually paroles. It is a fallacy to believe that the Victims will be repaid any meaningful amount of money if she is sentenced to probation. After parole, a judgement will still exist for outstanding owed restitution. The reality of any scenario where the Defendant gets probation and is ordered to pay | restitution, is that hardly anything will be repaid. Nevada’s restitution statutes are wholly lacking in enforceability. The Department of Parole and Probation would have the Defendant fill out a form to determine how much of their monthly income can be spared for restitution — the numbers can be skewed to their benefit with minimal accountability. Should the Defendant miss payments, or a significant amount of restitution is unpaid — there is rarely any relief in} the way of a revocation of probation. So, simply ordering the Defendant to probation does not fulfil the goal of punishment for those who commit the crime, and rarely gets the victim repaid. Even if the Defendant fully repaid restitution (which is complete fantasy), there is still the fact that this conduct requires significant punishment regardless of repayment, The collateral] damage as can be seen by sentencing letters, is far higher than the $143,091.94 she pled guilty] to, and it is something the Victims will bear for the rest of their lives. a M a a Mt M mM ut Mu Row Seward sy ll 12 13 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Y. CONCLUSION Punishment for a total term of 4 to 10 years in prison is a justified and reasonable sentence for the Defendant. High dollar Theft should not, and will not be tolerated in Clark County, Nevada. Therefore, the State strongly recommends a sentence of 4 to 10 years and restitution ordered inthe amount of at 143,091.94 to be paid tothe Vietms inthis ese DATED this_Z! Say of October, 2016 Respectfully submitted, STEVEN B, WOLFSON Clark County District Attorney Nevada Bar # 001419 BY Chet Depa pe District Attorney Nevada Bar #010193 CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Thereby certify that service of the above and foregoing was made this 24*day October, 2016, by electronic transmission to: AUGUSTUS CLAUS (702)463-4800 BY u/| M. CRAWFORD. Secretary for the lisirict Attorney's Office 11F02970X/JPR/me/FDD 36

También podría gustarte