Sanctions sought against Del Papa

Tuesday, Sept. 14, 1999 | 11:24 a.m.

A District Court discovery commissioner has recommended sanctions against the Nevada attorney general's office for stonewalling efforts to uncover the office's secret intelligence gathering activities.

Thomas Biggar, who oversees the sharing of evidence in civil cases, recommended Monday that the attorney general pay the $3,500 in sanctions for lodging "frivolous objections" to requests for documents in a lawsuit filed by former investigator Mike Anzalone.

If Biggar's recommendation stands, the money ultimately would be paid by the taxpayers.

In a 31-page decision, Biggar also formally recommended turning over to Anzalone about 900 pages of documents and eight hours of videotapes of a convicted slot cheat that confirm the existence of the intelligence probe.

Chief Deputy Attorney General Richard Linstrom said today his office plans to lodge objections to Biggar's findings with District Judge James Mahan, who has the final decision on the sanctions and the release of the documents.

Biggar had announced his desire to recommend the release of the records following an Aug. 6 hearing, suggesting there was evidence the attorney general's office may have abused its power.

Anzalone filed suit against Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa and several of her deputies in February 1998 for forcing him to quit because he refused to participate in the intelligence investigation, which targeted former state Gaming Control Board Chairman Bill Bible and other top regulators.

Bible, now chairman of the Nevada Ethics Commission, was locked in a political feud with Del Papa when the probe was launched. He has called for the release of the tapes and records, which he believes will show he was wrongly targeted by Del Papa, who last week bowed out of the race for U.S Senate in 2000.

Anzalone, who no longer lives in Nevada, also became a target of the attorney general's investigation after he had resigned in February 1996.

During last month's hearing before Biggar, a top Del Papa deputy acknowledged in court for the first time that intelligence was indeed gathered on regulators under the guise of the criminal slot cheating investigation of Ron Harris, a former Control Board electronics expert.

Biggar uncovered records that show the probe expanded after Harris pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with Deputy Attorney General David Thompson, a close Del Papa friend hired to lead the secret intelligence inquiry.

"All of this mass snooping into lives, including that of plaintiff Anzalone, gaming board members, industry representatives and others was all done under the aegis of the Harris investigation," Biggar said in his decision.

In June Biggar reported that he had seen records in the attorney general's 50,000-document Harris file that show secret background checks were done on Bible and some of his top administrators. Checks also were done on Bible friend, Frank Schreck, a prominent gaming lawyer and political fund-raiser for Gov. Kenny Guinn.

On Monday, Biggar wrote:

"If relevant documents concerning a long past criminal investigation ... cannot see the light of day, then the investigatory power of government shall be confirmed as secret and therefore unchecked.

Worse, bureaucratic actions taken by public officials may remain un-examined ..."

Biggar chided the attorney general for conducting the secret probe of the Control Board and then later claiming it could not release the records because of its attorney-client privilege with the board.

He accused the attorney general of making a "mockery" of the privilege.

Linstrom, meanwhile, criticized Biggar's recommendations.

"It is particularly disheartening that the discovery commissioner continues to recommend disclosures that are calculated to publicize unfounded allegations concerning persons who have never been charged with crimes or misconduct, but whose names were in some way associated with the investigation of convicted slot cheat Ron Harris," Linstrom said.

"The commissioner's handling of this matter and the recommendations issued are fraught with errors, which will be appealed. Among the recommendations that will be definitely challenged is the commissioner's legally unfounded recommendation that attorneys' fees be paid to a disgruntled ex-employee who is attempting to obtain money from the state without legal basis."