PIMA COUNTY SHERIFF’S PARTNER ADMITS TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN OPEN COURT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

3/8/16

CONTACT: Arek R. Fressadi, 520-216-4103
arekfressadi@gmail.com

TUCSON, AZ – Yesterday, attorneys for Rob Robertson Enterprises, Inc. admitted that their client criminal conduct in open court. Rob Robertson Enterprises, Inc. is a joint partner of Pima County Sheriff’s Department, and is also under contract with the Department of Justice.

Robertson’s attorneys introduced evidence in Pima County Superior Court that Robertson knowingly submitted false writings to ADOT/MVD in violation of ARS 13-2311, a felony, in order to commit theft of a motorcycle in violation of ARS 13-1802, another felony.

Robertson’s attorneys were attempting to enforce a settlement agreement with Arek Fressadi. Fressadi had offered to settle with Robertson so long as Robertson was not involved in any class action wrong doing, RICO activity or had violated constitutional rights under color of law that could be prosecuted pursuant 42 USC §1983. Fressadi asked attorneys for Rob Robertson these questions point blank to which Robertson’s attorneys had said no.

Robertson’s attorneys argued that a settlement agreement exists regardless of whether it was obtained by deceit, even though Fressadi had asked for full disclosure. “When one is asked a question that fairly calls for disclosure of a material fact, he or she commits fraud by concealing the truth or otherwise answering in a manner deliberately calculated to mislead,” Lerner v. DMB Realty, LLC, 322 P.3d 909, 916 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Tr. Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 483 (Ariz. 2002) (en banc))) (“Unlike simple nondisclosure, a party may be liable for acts taken to conceal, mislead or otherwise deceive, even in the absence of a fiduciary, statutory, or other legal duty to disclose.”

Robertson is represented by Daniel Campbell and Angela Cooner of O’Conner & Campbell. Arizona attorneys are required to take remedial measures including disclosure to the Court if the lawyer comes to know that its client has engaged in criminal conduct or offered false evidence. ER 3.3. Attorneys are not allowed to unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence, or falsify evidence. ER 3.4. The Court may impose serious sanctions against Robertson for failing to disclose damaging or unfavorable information including dismissal of its motion or defense.

“Robertson’s admission of criminal conduct is cause for further claims,” says Fressadi, “especially considering that Robertson is the Joint Venture Partner of Pima County’s Sheriff and the State was complicit in their criminal conduct.” Pima County Sheriff’s Department receives 1/3 of storage fees from Robertson and 60% of the sale proceeds of vehicles sold at auction. ADOT/MVD administers a fine of $500 against owners of vehicles that are sold at auction.

Persons who sustain reasonably foreseeable injury to their person, business or property by a pattern of racketeering may file an action in superior court for the recovery of up to treble damages and the costs of the suit including reasonable attorney fees. ARS 13-2314.04.

 

###

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

About Arek

just a common man
This entry was posted in The Work and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.