RELEASE:

From Andrew Bennett Spark, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Economic Crimes

August 8, 2011
Cell: 941.321.5927

I. Introduction
By way of introduction, I have served as an Assistant Attorney General in the Economic Crimes Division of the Florida Attorney General’s Office since March of 2004, first in Orlando, and the last 6 ½ years in Tampa. I have been reading articles concerning the controversies swirling around the Attorney General’s Office with respect to the forcedresignations of June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards (from whom I took over day-to-day handling of the ProVest investigation), and the employment of Joe Jacquot with Lender Processing Services, one of the companies at the heart of the foreclosure robo-signing issues. While I have a significantly different philosophy concerning these cases than Clarkson, Edwards, and most other homeowner advocates, the people of the State of Florida are entitled to fair and honest government, independent of personal connections and powerful interests, and I have decided to speak out.

As an important caveat, please note that the below contains various factual statements, and asks questions. If I ask a question, it is because I truly do not know the answer, not because I am implying any particular answer to the question.

II. Former Director of Economic Crimes Mary Leontakianakos now works for foreclosure law firm Marshall Watson
Joe Jacquot is not the only high-ranking recent member of the Attorney General’s Office to now be working with a company which has been the subject of one of our foreclosure investigations. Mary Leontakianakos, who was Director of Economic Crimes until approximately January 3 of this year has, according to The Florida Bar, taken a job at foreclosure firm Marshall Watson.
http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/C1D818F4CF8FA1EE85256A8400081E2D?Open

Document Leontakianakos was centrally involved in the foreclosure investigations while leading our Division, including the investigation of Marshall Watson:
http://www.abc-7.com/Global/story.asp?S=12968488

It appears that Watson and/or Leontakianakos have been secreting her employment from the public. By using a personal email address as her contact email address rather than the Marshall Watson email address suffix MarshallWatson.com, Leontakianakos has been able to avoid search functions which would reveal her affiliation. It is through the use of email suffixes that one may search the Florida Bar’s database for former employees of the foreclosure firms under investigation. In addition, Watson has taken down the portion of his website showing the attorneys in the firm; it appears to be the only portion of his website that is inaccessible from elsewhere on the firm’s website (interestingly enough, Watson’s own attorney profile on that portion of the website is easily found directly from a Google search, and so does Caryn Graham’s, but there’s none for Leontakianakos)..

As has been widely reported, the Attorney General’s Office entered into a settlement with Marshall Watson in March of this year. A copy of the settlement agreement with Marshall Watson is found here:

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/SKNS-8FAHED/$file/WatsonAVC.pdf

Note that Paragraph 4.1 of the agreement requires Marshall Watson to name a liaison to the Attorney General’s Office. Is Mary Leontakianakos that liaison? I do not know. However, Leontakianakos’ address on The Florida Bar website is listed as Fort Lauderdale, and yet a search of the website of the Broward County Clerk of Court reveals that she has not appeared as an attorney in a lawsuit in Broward County – ever.

If Leontakianakos is that liaison, would she have been switching sides during the course of a controversy, Rule 4-1.9 of The Florida Bar states, “[a] lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent;”

Of course, the Economic Crimes Division acts in a parens patriae role as a representative of the people of the State of Florida. Consent of the people of the state cannot meaningfully be given in such a situation – and judging by the reaction of so many of people in the state the past few weeks since the Clarkson/Edwards/Jacquot story broke, it is safe to say such consent by the people would not be given even if it meaningfully could be given.

The Case Report for the investigation indicates that attorney Caryn Graham is the “point person” to contact at Watson for concerns about the AVC. According to The Florida Bar website, Graham is still with the Watson firm. Watson recently hired former Broward Chief Judge Tobin in a supervisory capacity. Indeed, the Miami Herald reported that Tobin said he would not spend much time in the courtroom.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/18/2222892/browards-chief-judge-resigns.html

If Leontakianakos is not actually the liaison, despite the entry about Graham in the Case Report, this begs a few questions, one of which is what, if anything, Leontakianakos is doing there?

The other question that arises is whether Leontakianakos’ hiring by Watson is connected to the settlement. The settlement agreement does not specify as such; however, I have been told by someone in my office that in another case some years back, another highranking individual with Economic Crimes received a job with a subsequent employer out of settlement proceeds from a case – and the connection between the settlement and the job was not disclosed.

Perhaps tellingly, the Attorney Geneal’s press release concerning the Watson settlement states, “The Marshall Watson firm fully cooperated with theinvestigation since its inception.”
http://myfloridalegal.com/__852562220065EE67.nsf/0/478149A91AA0E2528525785E0
06C1EED?Open&Highlight=0,marshall,watson

During her tenure as Director of Economic Crimes, Leontakianakos encouraged side agreements that werecontemporaneous with but not memorialized in the formal settlement documents (“AVC”s). Perhaps as some sort of Freudian-like slip reflective of what may be in effect a golden parachute, on the Bar website Leontakianakos still describes her practice in the “Occupation” field as “Government attorney.” The Marshall Watson settlement contains an unusual provision, paragraph 6.1, requiring the Attorney General to close the investigation upon the execution by all parties. It is typical for our office to close investigations following execution, and parties do typically want the public to know that the investigation is closed; what it is unusual, however, at least in my experience, is for the settlement agreement to explicitly state as such memorializing the closing as a priority. Why the extra concern? (Interestingly enough, despite that provision, I should note that the investigation is now open – I don’t know whether it remained opened or was reopened).

[…]

THIS IS MINDBLOWING…continue below!!

[ipaper docId=61985571 access_key=key-1tqrvtjuwe5lp5zzmcb6 height=600 width=600 /]

ALL-in-ONE, Excellent report by HuffPo’s William Alden on the facts of what went down, when those who work for the people get fired, pushed out for getting a bit too close to exposing the AG’s office.

Is she waiting for the statue of limitations to run it’s course? When there is much more left to expose.

HuffPO-

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Last December, when she was still investigating foreclosure fraud as a top lawyer in the Florida attorney general’s office, June Clarkson gave a PowerPoint presentation to a legal association.

Her presentation amounted to an indictment of Lender Processing Services, or LPS, a company near the center of ongoing state investigations into claims that foreclosures have been rushed en masse through the legal machinery, without proper documentation. She flashed images of paperwork on a screen under the heading “forgeries,” asserting that LPS’ former subsidiary, Docx, had produced phony documents to justify unlawful foreclosures.

The legal association later sent Clarkson a thank-you note, calling her tutorial “invaluable.” Word of her presentation reached New York, where a state Supreme Court judge cited it in a harshly-worded ruling that a bank lacked the right to foreclose on a Brooklyn home.

But the Jacksonville-based LPS was furious …

[HUFFINGTON POST]

Common sense, one would’ve recused themselves from even communicating with a high profile corp. that is under investigation from the AG’s office and in some states under criminal. Creates a “conflict” wouldn’t you think? Maybe unless you know for a fact that nothing will happen.

First thing comes to mind is why would one continue to pursue a job, knowing there might be a very good chance the company making headlines nationwide for fraud would even stay in business? Don’t many of the businesses the AG’s investigate get shut down when they find a mountain of fraud? Secondly why are other states and NOT Florida going after a criminal investigation when the company under investigation headquarters are indeed in Florida? Makes no sense.

We don’t see anyone from the New York AG’s office running to work for lets say Bank Of America…or in talks to find employment there.

Orlando Sentinel –

TALLAHASSEE — A former state government lawyer now working for a firm under investigation by the state in a foreclosure fraud case said Thursday that he had nothing to do with foreclosures while he worked in the attorney general’s office.

Three Democratic lawmakers said this week they want legislation passed to prevent lawyers for government agencies from leaving the state to go work for firms that are under investigation. The proposal is aimed, the lawmakers say, in part at Joe Jacquot, who left the attorney general’s office earlier this year and has come under scrutiny for going to work for a Jacksonville company, Lender Processing Services, that was under investigation by the office, while he was there.

Jacquot said in an interview with The News Service of Florida on Thursday that not only did he not have anything to do with the probe of foreclosure firms started under former Attorney General Bill McCollum, he formally notified McCollum when he began talking to LPS as a possible future employer, and asked to be kept completely out of the loop on any discussions related to the company. Jacquot was one of two deputy attorneys general in McCollum’s office, and was McCollum’s chief of staff.

[ORLANDO SENTINEL]

Doesn’t the last paragraph seem way off? Yes, what about those who did leave the AG’s office to go work at firms that were busted for Massive Fraud and currently under investigation today?

Exactly how, when and where did the discussions about employment come about? This is going to get extremely interesting.

Palm Beach Post –

Andrew Spark, an assistant state attorney general in the Tampa office of economic crimes, resigned Wednesday, a day after he released a 16-page memo discussing grievances he has with the Florida attorney general’s office.

Spark said his memo, which he emailed to media outlets, was motivated by the forced resignations of former state foreclosure investigators June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said today that Spark was the subject of an ongoing investigation for using the services of a business he was investigating.

[PALM BEACH POST]

Orlando Sentinel-

TALLAHASSEE — Two Democratic lawmakers said Wednesday they planned to file a reform proposal inspired by Attorney General Pam Bondi to place stronger revolving-door prohibitions into state law.

Reps. Darren Soto, D-Orlando, and Ron Saunders, D-Key West, said in a press release that the “Florida Investigation Integrity Act” they’re filing was inspired when “the Attorney General’s special counsel on foreclosure fraud “a special counsel in the Attorney General’s office esigned and then, reportedly, accepted employment with an organization he had been investigating. that has been under investigation for its foreclosure practices. Subsequently, two other attorneys in the office who were investigating the matter foreclosure fraud were terminated from their jobs.” (The updated statement was released late Wednesday afternoon.)

Background on the case, as well as Bondi, here.

[ORLANDO SENTINEL]

RELEASE:

From Andrew Bennett Spark, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa Economic Crimes

August 8, 2011
Cell: 941.321.5927

I. Introduction
By way of introduction, I have served as an Assistant Attorney General in the Economic Crimes Division of the Florida Attorney General’s Office since March of 2004, first in Orlando, and the last 6 ½ years in Tampa. I have been reading articles concerning the controversies swirling around the Attorney General’s Office with respect to the forcedresignations of June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards (from whom I took over day-to-day handling of the ProVest investigation), and the employment of Joe Jacquot with Lender Processing Services, one of the companies at the heart of the foreclosure robo-signing issues. While I have a significantly different philosophy concerning these cases than Clarkson, Edwards, and most other homeowner advocates, the people of the State of Florida are entitled to fair and honest government, independent of personal connections and powerful interests, and I have decided to speak out.

As an important caveat, please note that the below contains various factual statements, and asks questions. If I ask a question, it is because I truly do not know the answer, not because I am implying any particular answer to the question.

II. Former Director of Economic Crimes Mary Leontakianakos now works for foreclosure law firm Marshall Watson
Joe Jacquot is not the only high-ranking recent member of the Attorney General’s Office to now be working with a company which has been the subject of one of our foreclosure investigations. Mary Leontakianakos, who was Director of Economic Crimes until approximately January 3 of this year has, according to The Florida Bar, taken a job at foreclosure firm Marshall Watson.
http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/C1D818F4CF8FA1EE85256A8400081E2D?Open

Document Leontakianakos was centrally involved in the foreclosure investigations while leading our Division, including the investigation of Marshall Watson:
http://www.abc-7.com/Global/story.asp?S=12968488

It appears that Watson and/or Leontakianakos have been secreting her employment from the public. By using a personal email address as her contact email address rather than the Marshall Watson email address suffix MarshallWatson.com, Leontakianakos has been able to avoid search functions which would reveal her affiliation. It is through the use of email suffixes that one may search the Florida Bar’s database for former employees of the foreclosure firms under investigation. In addition, Watson has taken down the portion of his website showing the attorneys in the firm; it appears to be the only portion of his website that is inaccessible from elsewhere on the firm’s website (interestingly enough, Watson’s own attorney profile on that portion of the website is easily found directly from a Google search, and so does Caryn Graham’s, but there’s none for Leontakianakos)..

As has been widely reported, the Attorney General’s Office entered into a settlement with Marshall Watson in March of this year. A copy of the settlement agreement with Marshall Watson is found here:

http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/SKNS-8FAHED/$file/WatsonAVC.pdf

Note that Paragraph 4.1 of the agreement requires Marshall Watson to name a liaison to the Attorney General’s Office. Is Mary Leontakianakos that liaison? I do not know. However, Leontakianakos’ address on The Florida Bar website is listed as Fort Lauderdale, and yet a search of the website of the Broward County Clerk of Court reveals that she has not appeared as an attorney in a lawsuit in Broward County – ever.

If Leontakianakos is that liaison, would she have been switching sides during the course of a controversy, Rule 4-1.9 of The Florida Bar states, “[a] lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent;”

Of course, the Economic Crimes Division acts in a parens patriae role as a representative of the people of the State of Florida. Consent of the people of the state cannot meaningfully be given in such a situation – and judging by the reaction of so many of people in the state the past few weeks since the Clarkson/Edwards/Jacquot story broke, it is safe to say such consent by the people would not be given even if it meaningfully could be given.

The Case Report for the investigation indicates that attorney Caryn Graham is the “point person” to contact at Watson for concerns about the AVC. According to The Florida Bar website, Graham is still with the Watson firm. Watson recently hired former Broward Chief Judge Tobin in a supervisory capacity. Indeed, the Miami Herald reported that Tobin said he would not spend much time in the courtroom.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/18/2222892/browards-chief-judge-resigns.html

If Leontakianakos is not actually the liaison, despite the entry about Graham in the Case Report, this begs a few questions, one of which is what, if anything, Leontakianakos is doing there?

The other question that arises is whether Leontakianakos’ hiring by Watson is connected to the settlement. The  settlement agreement does not specify as such; however, I have been told by someone in my office that in another case some years back, another highranking individual with Economic Crimes received a job with a subsequent employer out of settlement proceeds from a case – and the connection between the settlement and the job was not disclosed.

Perhaps tellingly, the Attorney Geneal’s press release concerning the Watson settlement states, “The Marshall Watson firm fully cooperated with theinvestigation since its inception.”
http://myfloridalegal.com/__852562220065EE67.nsf/0/478149A91AA0E2528525785E0
06C1EED?Open&Highlight=0,marshall,watson

During her tenure as Director of Economic Crimes, Leontakianakos encouraged side agreements that werecontemporaneous with but not memorialized in the formal settlement documents (“AVC”s). Perhaps as some sort of Freudian-like slip reflective of what may be in effect a golden parachute, on the Bar website Leontakianakos still describes her practice in the “Occupation” field as “Government attorney.” The Marshall Watson settlement contains an unusual provision, paragraph 6.1, requiring the Attorney General to close the investigation upon the execution by all parties. It is typical for our office to close investigations following execution, and parties do typically want the public to know that the investigation is closed; what it is unusual, however, at least in my experience, is for the settlement agreement to explicitly state as such memorializing the closing as a priority. Why the extra concern? (Interestingly enough, despite that provision, I should note that the investigation is now open – I don’t know whether it remained opened or was reopened).

[…]

THIS IS MINDBLOWING…continue below!!

[ipaper docId=61985571 access_key=key-1tqrvtjuwe5lp5zzmcb6 height=600 width=600 /]

Palm Beach Post- Kimberly Miller

West Palm Beach resident Liz Mills learned she was a robo-signer when a friend suggested she search her own name online.

On foreclosure blogs and in at least one newspaper article, the 51-year-old process server was singled out for the numerous and varying styles of her signatures on summons paperwork used to prove her efforts in locating home­owners in foreclosure.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

PROVEST, LLC

The case file cited below relates to a civil — not a criminal — investigation. The existence of an investigation does not constitute proof of any violation of law.

GISSEN & ZAWYER PROCESS SERVICES, INC.

EXCERPTS:
5 I do know we have to bill the clients in advance. It
6 wouldn’t be after the fact. From what I recall it would
7 be at least four people that were being served. That’s
8 the person being served, their unknown spouse, Mary Jane
9 and John Doe. So it’s forty-five dollars times four.
10 That’s the amount that we would do before they got
11 served or not, regardless if John Doe was served or the
12 unknown spouse was served.
13 Q It would still be a hundred and eighty
14 dollars?
15 A Right. That’s what I remember.
16 Q What did you think about that?
17 A I thought that was a little unfair. I felt
18 like I wanted to question why. I kind of got the
19 impression from my trainers that we don’t ask questions,
20 we just do what we are told. There was really no
21 handbook during my training as to which clients are
22 billed. I would sit with each training and — I’m
23 trying to remember. It’s been a year.
24 Q That’s okay.
25 A We didn’t have a manual so I was trying to

1 understand why they bill clients differently. I never
2 really got an explanation. I just typed really fast and
3 that’s why I was hired.
4 Q Were you ever aware that Stern had an
5 ownership interest in G&Z?
6 A No.
7 Q Besides process serving did G&Z offer any
8 other services? Were there skip tracers in there?
9 A There were skip tracers, yes.
10 Q Were there investigators?
11 A Private investigators.
12 Q Did David Stern utilize them as well to the
13 best of your knowledge?
14 A Yes. They had an office right next to the
15 input department of about three or four individuals that
16 were skip tracers. I think they had one private
17 investigator. He was an older man. I don’t recall his
18 name.
19 Q How did you become aware that Stern was using
20 them as well?
21 A Because when I was introduced during my
22 interview and after I got hired they said this is our
23 skip trace department and these are private
24 investigator/skip tracers. That’s how I was introduced,
25 by title.

<SNIP>

9 Q So how come you were there only for two
10 months?
11 A I was there only two months because I had to
12 sign a paper that said — I wish I had that paper. They
13 gave out a paper to all employees saying if you don’t
14 sign this paper you’re pretty much considered fired.
15 Don’t even bother coming back to work if you don’t sign
16 it.
17 Q Was it a confidentiality agreement?
18 A Something like that, yeah.
19 Q What was in it that made you not want to sign
20 it?
21 A I wish I had a copy of it.
22 Q I wish you did too.
23 A It’s in my email somewhere. I didn’t have
24 internet at work the past couple of days.
25 Q You have a copy of it?

1 A I have a copy somewhere in my email, yeah.
2 Q Would you send it to me?
3 A Yes, I can send it.

13 Q Okay. That makes sense. So you basically
14 only worked with the night people and didn’t have that
15 much contact with the day people?
16 A I didn’t have that much contact other than
17 when I was training and in that thirty minute gap when
18 everyone is pretty much wrapping it up.
19 Q Did you ever hear anything or did you ever
20 notice anything that was to you made you feel
21 uncomfortable about doing work over there, specifically
22 with Stern’s office besides the four names on every
23 complaint?
24 A Well, not with Stern but the way G&Z was
25 handling. For instance, before I got hired I looked at

1 G&Z’s website and the part where they said they use
2 private investigators and skip tracers, it said that we
3 have fully licensed private investigators. There was
4 one guy Michael Gold and I mentioned him in that letter,
5 that was a skip tracer but he wasn’t licensed. He was
6 still going to school. The only licensed private
7 investigator that I recall was Ira and Michelle.
8 He was talking to a lady that I think only
9 spoke Spanish. There was a language barrier. He was
10 kind of bullying her. His tone of voice was well we
11 need to serve these papers. He was acting as if he was
12 a private investigator. He’s even announced himself as
13 a private investigator. He’s right next to me in the
14 other office and I just felt a little uncomfortable that
15 he’s claiming to be that and he’s not. He was asking
16 for her address and saying we have to do this and saying
17 we’ll serve it at your place of work if we need to. He
18 was really —
19 Q Bullying her?
20 A Bullying her into getting information. I just
21 kind of felt bad for the lady that he was talking to.
22 Q Nothing else about Stern?
23 A No. It was more about G&Z.
24 MS. CLARKSON: This is a two-page memo. It
25 looks like it was sent to Duane. Enter that as

1 Exhibit B. There was a letter dated September 9,
2 2009 that we’ll enter as exhibit C.
3 BY MR. BRIESMEISTER:
4 Q Mary, are those copies that we can keep?
5 A You can keep those. Actually, I have copies
6 on my little hard drive.
7 Q Mary, you indicated you were there
8 approximately two months at G&Z. Can you tell us why
9 you left, under what circumstances did you leave?
10 A Because I did not agree to sign that paper
11 that everyone had to sign.
12 Q That’s the only reason?
13 A That was it.
14 Q Did somebody come to you and say you must sign
15 it or else you have to leave?
16 A It was a group meeting. It was said that
17 everyone has to sign it. Don’t even bother working here
18 if you don’t. They told everyone that they had to sign.
19 Q Did others leave?
20 A No.
21 Q At that point in time?
22 A No.
23 Q You were the only one?
24 A I was the only one to my knowledge. I think
25 the environment from the impression I got at G&Z was

[ipaper docId=39605403 access_key=key-28tnns3a1fjg1hyp76jg height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED LINK:

Lender Processing Services LPS and ProVest: Resemblance is uncanny