Private Investigators Involved in H-P Scandal to Avoid Jail.

According to numerous wire releases, it appears that the private investigators implicated in the Hewlett-Packard Co. scandal, will avoid jail time in a no contest plea deal to misdemeanor charges on fraudulent wire communications in California.

In a statement issued by the Attorney General’s Office, the court did not accept the plea from investigators, Ronald DeLia, with the private investigation firm of Security Outsourcing Solutions Inc. and Matthew DePante, a third-party consultant working with Action Research Group. Rather, the judge offered to officially dismiss the case against them in September if they complete 96 hours of community service and pay restitution to victims.

Another defendant, private investigator Bryan Wagner, who previously worked at Action Research Group, also was charged in October. The state’s case against him was dropped after Wagner pleaded guilty to the same charges in federal court and agreed to testify for the prosecution.

The investigators were initially charged in October with four felony counts: use of false or fraudulent pretenses to obtain confidential information from a public utility; unauthorized access to computer data; identity theft; and conspiracy to commit each of those crimes. Each of those charges carried a fine of up to $10,000 and three years in prison.

While the deal with state prosecutors allows all the defendants to escape jail time, federal prosecutors have said their investigation of the HP leaks probe is ongoing. The saga continues…what do you think?

Share

7 thoughts on “Private Investigators Involved in H-P Scandal to Avoid Jail.

  1. Try again this is the finial say.
    ‘IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

    Lynn, as personal representative

    for the estate of Stickel,

    Plaintiff,

    vs.

    Johnny L. Chambers; Natalie A.

    Chambers; Tatjana Guenther,

    Defendant.

    No. CV 99-2189-PHX-MHM

    ORDER

    Presently pending before the Court are two letters from Defendant Tatjana Guenther.

    The first letter the Court has construed as a Motion to Vacate the Judgment (Doc. 40). The

    second letter the Court has construed as a Motion to Remove the Case (Doc. 42), however

    this letter looks like a continuation of Defendant’s request to vacate the judgment. Plaintiff

    has filed a Response. The Court considers the papers submitted and issues the following

    Order.

    BACKGROUND

    This lawsuit was filed on December 14, 1999. Defendant Tatjana Guenther was

    personally served with a summons and complaint on May 14, 2001. Judgment was entered

    against all Defendants, including Ms. Guenther on April 5, 2002.

    Defendant Guenther’s now requests to vacate the judgment based on the following:

    (1) it is unfair that she has been subject to post-judgment collection efforts in Oklahoma, and

    – 2 –

    (2) Jeff and Sandy Chrisman, who are not parties to this action, are persons whose character

    Ms. Guenther questions.

    LEGAL STANDARD

    Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

    On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a

    party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

    following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

    (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been

    discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether

    heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other

    misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

    been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is

    based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that

    the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason

    justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made

    within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one

    year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

    DISCUSSION

    Initially, the Court notes that Defendant Guenther did not serve the instant Motions

    on the Plaintiff. This is in direct violation of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Defendant is directed to serve on the Plaintiff any further documents that she files in this

    case. Defendant also is warned that failure to serve documents on the Plaintiff will not be

    looked upon kindly by this Court.

    Over five years have passed since entry of judgment in this case. Therefore, pursuant

    to Rule 60(b), any request to vacate the judgment for reasons (1), (2) or (3) of Rule 60(b) is

    untimely. Ms. Guenther has not suggested a basis under reason (5) that the judgment has

    been satisfied, released, or discharged. Thus, Defendant’s Motion must be considered under

    reason (4) that the judgment is void or under reason (6) that other reasons justify relief from

    the operation of the judgment.

    A judgment is void only if the court that rendered the judgment lacked jurisdiction

    over either the subject matter or the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due

    – 3 –

    process of law. In re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). Ms.

    Guenther has made no showing of any facts to suggest that the judgment here is void.

    To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate “extraordinary

    circumstances which prevent or render him unable to prosecute [the case].” Martella v.

    Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir. 1971). The party must

    demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from

    proceeding with the defense of the action in a proper fashion. United States v. Alpine Land

    & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Ms. Guenther’s primary issue with

    the judgment seems to be that the judgment from this Court was registered with the United

    States District Court in Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Ms. Guenther also takes

    issue with the alleged post judgment conduct by persons who are not parties to this lawsuit.

    Ms. Guenther states that the reason she did not file any sort of responsive pleading in this

    case was because she had just moved “out of” Tulsa, Oklahoma and was “going on a

    missionary trip out of the country and firmly believe that [she] was innocent. . .” Def.’s

    March 26, 2007 Letter to the Court. These assertions are not grounds for vacating the

    Court’s judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). Defendant has not demonstrated injury and

    circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from proceeding with the defense of this

    action. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment is denied.

    CONCLUSION

    For the foregoing reasons,

    IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s letter construed as a Motion to Vacate the

    Judgment (Doc. 40) is denied.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s letter construed as a Motion to

    Remove the Case (Doc. 42) is denied.

    DATED this 10th day of July, 2007.
    vent matter it is posted in the courts you lost.

  2. Chris and catherine BUDA are full of lies and hate you need to stop with the lies and using names becouse elder angles is going to sue you and then you will be like the chambers in jail and trouble. By the way every PI now knows about your sob story and you have shown you true colors which is why no one will touch you case(you do not have a case) tell the chambers hi.

  3. The Faithfinders our working well!The Chambers are scams.I KNOW for fact. I have reports filed on the Chambers dated back 5 yrs.Natalie has a black heart and will do anything to get what she wants.She blessed me and ran off with my Husband while still a active Preacher’s Wife.What kind of person would attack and sit on top of a 8 month pregnant women.Report with witness filed SandSprings Oklahoma. My daughter witnessed it all too.It still has impact on her.Goes around comes around. One DAY>

  4. Religious affinity fraud is on the rise and this Chambers judgment is a classic case. They have been trying to get out of the half million plus dollar judgment since it was exposed on television. The judgment clearly states that it is CIVIL FRAUD. Why didn’t they just show up during the time they were suppose to and they could of plead their side. Now they are going around slamming these people that exposed them. The truth is obvious, their is a federal judgment. It looks like the lady (Guenther) who tried to get out of the judgment was denied in both Oklahoma and Arizona after the federal judge as much said her tactices were not fondly looked upon in his court. She tried to manipulate the court like she is used to in scamming people but it was denied.

    Dale

  5. Here is the finial say.
    ‘IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

    Lynn, as personal representative

    for the estate of Stickel,

    Plaintiff,

    vs.

    Johnny L. Chambers; Natalie A.

    Chambers; Tatjana Guenther,

    Defendant.

    No. CV 99-2189-PHX-MHM

    ORDER

    Presently pending before the Court are two letters from Defendant Tatjana Guenther.

    The first letter the Court has construed as a Motion to Vacate the Judgment (Doc. 40). The

    second letter the Court has construed as a Motion to Remove the Case (Doc. 42), however

    this letter looks like a continuation of Defendant’s request to vacate the judgment. Plaintiff

    has filed a Response. The Court considers the papers submitted and issues the following

    Order.

    BACKGROUND

    This lawsuit was filed on December 14, 1999. Defendant Tatjana Guenther was

    personally served with a summons and complaint on May 14, 2001. Judgment was entered

    against all Defendants, including Ms. Guenther on April 5, 2002.

    Defendant Guenther’s now requests to vacate the judgment based on the following:

    (1) it is unfair that she has been subject to post-judgment collection efforts in Oklahoma, and

    – 2 –

    (2) Jeff and Sandy Chrisman, who are not parties to this action, are persons whose character

    Ms. Guenther questions.

    LEGAL STANDARD

    Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:

    On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a

    party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the

    following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

    (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been

    discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether

    heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other

    misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has

    been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is

    based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that

    the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason

    justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made

    within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one

    year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

    DISCUSSION

    Initially, the Court notes that Defendant Guenther did not serve the instant Motions

    on the Plaintiff. This is in direct violation of Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Defendant is directed to serve on the Plaintiff any further documents that she files in this

    case. Defendant also is warned that failure to serve documents on the Plaintiff will not be

    looked upon kindly by this Court.

    Over five years have passed since entry of judgment in this case. Therefore, pursuant

    to Rule 60(b), any request to vacate the judgment for reasons (1), (2) or (3) of Rule 60(b) is

    untimely. Ms. Guenther has not suggested a basis under reason (5) that the judgment has

    been satisfied, released, or discharged. Thus, Defendant’s Motion must be considered under

    reason (4) that the judgment is void or under reason (6) that other reasons justify relief from

    the operation of the judgment.

    A judgment is void only if the court that rendered the judgment lacked jurisdiction

    over either the subject matter or the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due

    – 3 –

    process of law. In re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). Ms.

    Guenther has made no showing of any facts to suggest that the judgment here is void.

    To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must demonstrate “extraordinary

    circumstances which prevent or render him unable to prosecute [the case].” Martella v.

    Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir. 1971). The party must

    demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from

    proceeding with the defense of the action in a proper fashion. United States v. Alpine Land

    & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Ms. Guenther’s primary issue with

    the judgment seems to be that the judgment from this Court was registered with the United

    States District Court in Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Ms. Guenther also takes

    issue with the alleged post judgment conduct by persons who are not parties to this lawsuit.

    Ms. Guenther states that the reason she did not file any sort of responsive pleading in this

    case was because she had just moved “out of” Tulsa, Oklahoma and was “going on a

    missionary trip out of the country and firmly believe that [she] was innocent. . .” Def.’s

    March 26, 2007 Letter to the Court. These assertions are not grounds for vacating the

    Court’s judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). Defendant has not demonstrated injury and

    circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from proceeding with the defense of this

    action. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment is denied.

    CONCLUSION

    For the foregoing reasons,

    IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s letter construed as a Motion to Vacate the

    Judgment (Doc. 40) is denied.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s letter construed as a Motion to

    Remove the Case (Doc. 42) is denied.

    DATED this 10th day of July, 2007.

  6. Rapest, drug dealers, childmolests, and thieves all are rejoicing over the new cel-phone laws. For 27 years I have chased criminals across the United States using telephone records. This tool has been taken from me and all the bondsmen in the United States. Without us hunters the criminals go free for years before they do something stupid enough the police arrest them. There are not enough law enforcement officers to keep citizens safe thats’ why there is such a demand for PI’s and Private security. The Rich will remain safe but the average citizens is at the mercy of the criminals. God help us all!

  7. Bryan Wagner is identified as “a private records investigator” in this article, which is an improvement over the the usual private investigator label.

    The California AG’s spokesperson points out “AT&T has said the number of pretexting allegations that the phone company is investigating internally has dropped.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *