Hill vs. Allred et. al.

The headline in the March 6, 2003 Salt Lake Tribune reads:

"Polygamists Lose in Court."

By Kevin Cantera

Kevin’s opening statement couldn’t have been said better:

"Polygamous leader Owen Allred laundered thousands of dollars in cash, and his church – the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) – conspired to steal thousands more, a judge has ruled in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit."

The ruling handed down by Judge Donald Eyre awards plaintiff Virginia Hill $1.54 million plus 10 percent interest which amounts to approximately $1.8 million, or a total of about $3.34 million. Although plaintiff, Virginia Hill, was disappointed that it wasn’t millions more, 3.34 million is not a sum to sneeze at. AUB’s portion of the judgment, $250,000.00 plus10 percent interest per annum will approach a figure of about $830,000.00.

AUB is a money making institution. By their own figures, introduced during the trial, AUB consistently deposits annual tithes between $750,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 -- proving that merchandising plural wives and brokering celestial exaltations is a million dollar business.

With the exception of John Putvin, who defended himself, attorney Bel-Ami de Montreux, who defended Owen A. Allred and the other defendants, told the Tribune, Judge Eyre’s decision was a "tremendous victory." De Montreux went on to say, "Virginia Hill set out to bankrupt the church. She expected to win in excess of $30 million. My clients are still standing quite upright because [Hill} completely failed. She has been awarded [only] 10 percent of that amount."

After reading the Judge’s ruling it is hard to comprehend by Christian standards how the defendants in good conscience "are standing tall" in the face of their disreputable conduct. Are they proud of what they did to Virginia? Do they actually think that because they were not punished more harshly, it is a victory?

It is assumed that Mr.  Montreux is echoing Mr. Allred and Mr. Jenson’s sentiments when he implies that his clients are "standing tall with chin held high." If so, that bizarre, cogitative rationalization is analogous to the Islamic Egyptians who erected a two-story monument commemorating their victory in the 1973 War with Israel, a war by every other standard, except their own, they lost, big time. Saddam Hussein has also erected a colossal monument in honor of his victory in the Gulf War. If the AUB priesthood is pretending that a loss is a victory, then it is conducive to Islamic thinking, and therefore, metaphorically speaking, AUB ought to be referred to as the Islamic Mormons.

The following statements are taken from Judge Eyre’s decision which now stands as irrefutable history, unless abrogated by the final judgment prepared by Plaintiff’s Attorney, Don Redd [which is extremely unlikely] or an appellant court:

The Judge found "clear and convincing evidence" in his "Findings of Fact" that "the defendants engaged in a series of misrepresentations which served to mislead and prevent Hill from recovering her money." In other words, the defendants engaged in "civil conspiracy."

"..., the court cannot help but note that all of the people that Putvin approached to assist him with his money laundering schemes were members of AUB. Indeed, Putvin received assistance from Owen Allred, himself, and Lamoine (sic) Jenson, a member of AUB’s governing council.

"Owen Allred misrepresented his knowledge of Hill’s money at the May 1990 meeting he held with Shugart, Hill and Ogden Kraut."

"..., the Court finds that the defendants did in fact convert Hill’s money and made numerous fraudulent misrepresentations to Hill to thwart her attempts at recovery."

"After Putvin orchestrated a series of transactions with members of AUB that assisted him in laundering the money so it could be used in whatever manner he saw fit, all of the defendants thwarted every attempt made by Hill and Shugart to regain Hill’s ownership right in the money."

"Moreover, once Hill began making inquiry into the whereabouts of her money, all of the defendants took active measures to conceal the truth of the matter from Hill."

"Even after Shugart, Hill and her hired investigators confronted Allred, Jenson, Matthews, Sandmire and others with the undeniable truth of Hill’s ownership interest in the missing money, not one of the defendants came forward to assist her in recovering it."

"Based upon the evidence heard at trial, the Court is satisfied that Hill has met her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the conspiring defendants engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation to Hill’s detriment."

"These knowingly false statements were designed to conceal from Hill the nature of the relationship the other defendants had with Putvin and Hill’s money, thereby laying all the blame on the man [Putvin] Hill could not succeed in locating."

"...,the Court recognizes that Hill has brought forth evidence of many instances in which the defendants have engaged in unlawful activity. In its Findings of Fact, the Court has found that the defendants acquired control over Hill’s money and utilized it for their own purposes. When Hill inquired about her money after Putvin’s disappearance from Utah, the other defendants denied any knowledge of either Putvin’s whereabouts or Hill’s money. Similarly, the Court has found that Putvin and the other defendants engaged in a series of transactions to launder Hill’s money."

"The defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations, converted Hill’s money, received stolen property, and conspired to prevent Hill’s recovery..."

Hill had asked the court to hold the defendant’s "liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress." However, her cause of action in this case was denied for the following reasons:

"As the Court has indicated in its Findings of Fact, Hill has not brought forth evidence of any damages other than monetary damages."

"Clearly, the defendants are guilty of tortuous conduct, and for their actions, they must be held accountable to Hill. However, Hill has shown nothing that could justify a finding by the Court that the defendants’ actions were ‘outrageous,’ ‘atrocious,’ or "extraordinarily vile."

"In denying Hill any of her requested relief under this cause of action, the Court in no way condones the actions of the defendants which served to deprive Hill of her money. Rather, the Court simply finds that Hill has not carried her burden of proof on this issue. For her failure to present the Court with any evidence of damages other than monetary damages, the Court must deny Hill any relief for intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Had Hill presented evidence of a nervous breakdown or medical reports to support emotional distress, she may have recovered under that cause of action. Although it does not apply to Hill’s emotional distress, decent, honest citizens might conclude that using religion to commit and justify a theft, and making God a co-conspirator by praying and allegedly receiving God’s approval to steal – law abiding people might find that behavior "atrocious," "outrageous" or "extraordinarily vile."

Damages

Before Judge Eyre outlined the damages in his ruling he apparently felt compelled to preface his decision with a statement about the "clean hands doctrine:"

"..., the Court also finds that Hill has not come before the Court with clean hands. The clean hands doctrine finds expression in the maxim that ‘he who seeks equity must do equity.’"

"Throughout the course of the trial, Hill was simply unable to show that she came into possession of the money legally. As the Court has noted in its Findings of Fact, Hill was never able to provide an accounting through her tax filings or otherwise that could account for her possession of such a large amount in currency. Yet, having completely failed to satisfactorily explain the source of her wealth, Hill requests that the Court impose punitive damages on the defendants for utilizing illegal means to acquire her money and deprive her of it. Hill’s request is inequitable under the circumstances because her tax filings did not account for such wealth, and her inability to credibly account for the source of her wealth raises questions as to the legality of her own acquisition of such a large amount of cash. Because Hill has come before the Court with unclean hands, the Court will not grant her an award of punitive damages."

Regarding Virginia’s source of money, Judge Eyre made the following statement in his "Findings of Fact:"

"19 Hill’s cash money had been transported from Michigan and/or Las Vegas, Nevada, via shipments made in cardboard boxes through U.P.S. An additional $2.2 million was ultimately turned over by Hill for safekeeping with Shugart. Some of the money in question had been dug up by Hill in her Michigan home, where it had been buried under concrete in Hill’s garage. Despite having turned over the additional $2.2 million to Shugart, Hill does not make any claim for any portion of the $2.2 million in this lawsuit."

"20 At trial, Hill testified that the source of the large amount of cash came from her past earnings in the entertainment industry and the proceeds from the sales of various businesses she owned. However, Hill also testified that the majority of her money came in the form of gifts from former friends and lovers, as well as gambling earnings. She was never able to produce money trails through her tax filings or otherwise that could account for her possession of such a large amount in currency."

In contemplating the above statements, they seem to imply that "crooks" were stealing from "crooks." During the trial, in order to distract from their own unlawful activity, the defendants attempted to inculcate the notion that Virginia had obtained her money through unlawful or immoral means. Apparently it worked.

The defendants were aware of Virginia’s "colorful past" and gambled that in some way the currency was tarnished and she would not pursue its recovery. But they were wrong.

As an investigator I made diligent research with the resources available to authenticate her money and its legality. I made numerous telephone calls to Miami, Detroit and Las Vegas and obtained affidavits by telephone from individuals who verified that Virginia had in her possession large amounts of money consisting of millions, just as she claimed. This currency did in fact come from the sources mentioned in Judge Eyre’s Finding of Fact." But I was unable to find any evidence that it was illegally obtained, and other than "inference," no evidence that Virginia’s money was illegally obtained was submitted as evidence.

For two years, Virginia was the mistress of Miami multimillionaire, Jim Bergen. She owned and managed Virginia Hill’s Boutique on the second floor of the Biscane Terrace Hotel. Ronald Larraz, a newspaperman from Las Vegas, gave me a convincing affidavit as to Virginia’s earning capabilities and net worth. While in Miami, Virginia earned $2 million dollars which is part of the money the Allred polygamists stole.

Pious Utah polygamist men and women wag their righteous fingers at Virginia because she was a mistress, but history is replete with examples of famous men and their equally famous mistresses: Surely she is not being punished for being a mistress?

Some of the most famous men in history had mistresses. Some of the most famous and powerful women in history were mistresses: Evita, Josephine, Cleopatra, Madame du Barry, Mata Hari, Clara Bow, Sarah Bernhardt, just to name a few. Famous, productive and creative men had mistresses: Scott Fitzgerald had Sheilah Graham, Thomas Jefferson had Sally Hemings, Wilber Mills had Fanne Foxe, Arthur Miller had Marilyn Monroe, John F. Kennedy had Mary Pinchot Meyer, William Randolph Hearst had Marion Davies, Peter Abelard had Heloise, John Barrymore had Mary Astor, Roberto Rossellini had Ingrid Bergman, Thomas Wolfe had Aline Bernstein, Warren G. Harding had Nan Britton, Charlie Chaplin had Joan Barry, Henry Ford had Evangeline Cote Dahlinger. (See Dawn B. Sova, Ph.D., Encyclopedia of Mistresses, Longmeadow Press, 1993.)

Virginia was raised in the "gaming industry" where cash was the norm. It is true that she deposited for safe keeping over a million dollars in cash under the cement floor of her garage. But there is no evidence that her money was ill-gained. Her husband was a licensed gambler. Attempts were made, and authorized by Virginia, to obtain her tax records during her Miami and Detroit years, but the IRS had destroyed them. She attempted to comply with every request from the defense but was unable to retrieve ten and fifteen year old records to the satisfaction of the defense.

Virginia testified before a Federal Grand Jury in Salt Lake City concerning her money and the money laundered by John Putvin and Jeff Norman. The IRS knew where $500,000.00 could be seized but they didn’t because there was no evidence that is was illegally obtained. According to Deputy Sheriff Kendra Herlin who investigated the money laundering, when it was determined that the money was not "drug money" and could not be seized, she was told to terminate her investigation.

Virginia’s handling of large sums of money was bizarre and unorthodox to put it mildly. But in the absence of evidence to show it was ill-gotten, why should the defendants, proven thieves, benefit from her unorthodoxy?

I must assume that had Virginia produced a written contract and tax records to show that she had paid taxes on the money, she would have received putative damages. As the ruling reads, I cannot determine if Virginia is being punished or the defendants rewarded? It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the money the defendants stole belonged to Virginia Hill and it was further shown that she had made diligent efforts to recover it. Why then, should her unorthodoxy mitigate the punishment of the defendants? What kind of a message does that send? Does it suggest that there is a gray area in the occupation of thievery to good of the thief when the victim does something stupid or is careless so as to invite theft? Would it be tantamount to say that if a thief should come across a stupid or careless victim, the punishment will be less severe? Should we conclude that because Virginia did not keep accurate records, dealt in cash and was careless with her money that the thieves should receive a lighter punishment? It is like the incongruous notion that a woman who is well built, pretty and dresses in a fashion that accentuates her beauty, deserves to be raped.

At the time of the theft, Virginia’s husband was being investigated by federal authorities for money laundering, illegal gambling, racketeering and other crimes. If her money was tainted as Judge Eyre suggests, why didn’t the IRS, who was aware of her husband’s criminal activities, seize the $500,000.00 that Putvin and Norman were caught laundering? These issues may be valid arguments in which to appeal.

Judge Eyre ruled on six causes of action:

1) Civil Conspiracy/Constructive Fraud

2) Fraudulent Conversion/Unjust Enrichment

3) Money Laundering

4) Fraudulent Misrepresentation

5) Racketeering

6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional harm

The Judge found clear and convincing evidence in the first four causes of action and ruled in favor of Virginia, but not the last two: Racketeering and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm. I have no dispute with the Judge over his finding concerning Emotional Harm, but I do have questions concerning his ruling over the issue of racketeering.

The burden of proof in a civil action alleging "racketeering" is clear and convincing evidence. The plaintiff must establish a pattern of unlawful activity."

"Pattern of unlawful activity" means engaging in conduct which constitutes the commission of at least three episodes of unlawful activity, which episodes are not isolated, but have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics. Taken together, the episodes shall demonstrate continuing unlawful conduct and be related either to each other or to the enterprise ... The most recent act constituting part of a pattern of unlawful activity as defined by this part shall have occurred within five years of the commission of the next preceding act alleged as part of the pattern.

In Cook v. Zion's First Nat’l Bank, 645 F.Supp. 423 (D. Utah 1986), the requirements of finding a "pattern" is as follows:

[A] pattern of racketeering activity under RICE requires more than the mere commission of two or more episodes of racketeering conduct within five years of each other. To form a "pattern" the commission of predicated acts or episodes of criminality must be sufficiently continuous and interrelated ... [A] RICO or RICE "pattern" requires planned, ongoing, continuing crime and the threat of continuing criminal conduct, as opposed to sporadic isolated criminal episodes or events.

"Continuing its discussion of an unlawful pattern, the court in Cook indicted:"

This court is of the opinion that the concept of "pattern" contemplates continuous, related episodes of criminal activity, not just multiple acts to promote the same isolated episode. Without such interrelated, ongoing episodes, there would be no "continuity plus relationship." The court notes that in this case plaintiffs have not alleged the existence of a pervasive, continuous fraudulent scheme and criminal activity; multiple fraudulent schemes or multiple victims; or the threat of continuing, related criminal activity by the defendants. Rather, plaintiffs have merely alleged acts in furtherance of a particular, isolated episode of criminality.

In reading the judgement there is some confusion on my part as to what constitutes racketeering. Judge Eyre mentions a criminal enterprise, criminal episodes and "acts in furtherance of a particular, isolated episode of criminality." I cannot tell an episode from an act. In my limited understanding I see where the defendants conspired to steal as much money as they could from Virginia Hill, which I would call a criminal enterprise. [Webster: enterprise - "an undertaking or experience that involves hazard and requires boldness"] The November 13, 1989 tape recording, the ecclesiastic blessings Allred gave Matthews and Putvin on Nov. 13, 1989, and the making of Matthews a bishop on Nov. 14, 1989, all tend to support the fact that Dennis Matthews, John Putvin and Owen Allred, acting for himself and Apostolic United Brethren, did meet and conspire to operate a criminal enterprise. The two "Assignment of Trust Deeds" recorded and executed with the intent of laundering $500,000.00 into Apostolic United Brethren, with the criminal assistance of J. LaMoine Jenson, is further proof of the criminal enterprise.

To accomplish that "criminal enterprise" the defendants committed several criminal episodes. To cover up the enterprise and episodes the defendants engaged in other unlawful acts [lying - misleading statements] to accomplish the episodes of stealing, receiving stolen property and conversion. In my limited understanding that is racketeering.

In all due respect to Judge Eyre, it appears that he has interpreted the foregoing "legal citations" with the conclusion that only "one" episode occurred within the seven year period between the theft (May 1990) and the filing of the complaint in 1997, and that was the theft, which, according to him, was committed when Allred told Hill he knew nothing about her money, or when the option to purchase the DI Ranch expired. However, it is my contention that the criminal act occurred on November 13, 1989 when Allred, Putvin and Matthews conspired to deprive John Shugart of the million dollars.

The 1.54 million was stolen in two increments, each of which, I would think, should be a separate episode. The first episode occurred November 13, 1989. The second in December 1989 when Dennis Matthews, then the agent for Owen Allred, obtained from Shugart $500,000.00 knowing it came from Virginia Hill, and knowing that he was going to deprive both her and her agent, John Shugart of the money. That, in my opinion should constitute a second episode.

In addition to the two thefts, there were two separate criminal acts of laundering, all of which I would think constitutes a "criminal enterprise." A third episode would be the laundering of $500,000.00 into Last Resort Enterprises Inc., by Putvin and Norman, and a fourth episode would be the attempted laundering of $500,000.00 via the two Assignment of Trust Deeds into AUB by Putvin, Sandmire and Jenson.

The multiple events of lying and fraud perpetrated by Allred, Jenson, Sandmire and Matthews are all acts or events that went towards the furtherance of the "four criminal episodes" previously described, all of which in my eyes constitutes a criminal enterprise. All of the defendants acted in concert per Putvin’s instructions until Putvin double-crossed them and wound up with all the money. But then what do I know, I’m not an attorney, just an investigator, but I do know a criminal act when I see it. The defendants may not have defrauded or stolen from more than one person, but more than one criminal act or episode was committed in the course of stealing Virginia’s money, converting it to their own use, taking illegal steps to prevent her from discovering all the parties involved in the theft and conversion, and preventing her from recovering her money. The defendants conspired together and acted in every respect like organized criminals. Metaphorically, they might be described as a the Allred Family of the Mormon Mafia.

In an attempt to duplicate the satire of Nineteenth Century anti-Mormon writers like J.H. Beadle, the legacy of Mormon polygamy in the Twentieth Century, thanks to Owen A. Allred, might be labeled as the Islamic Mormons, or, the Mormon Mafia.

The Tribune quoted John Putvin as saying: "I thought I had defended my position very well ....Justice is a probability, not a certainty." Putvin went on to say that he was a "scapegoat" and that Judge Eyre "was under some considerable pressure ....to make a token punishment" of the Allred polygamists.

When Putvin said he thought he had defended his position very well, he was echoing Judge Eyre’s remark the last day of the trial when he, Putvin, pressed the court for more time to present his defense. Putvin had already extended the trial three days to the exasperation of all concerned. When it became obvious that Putvin had no new evidence to offer and kept "beating on the same old drum," the judge denied his request for more time and said that in his opinion Putvin "had defended his position quite well."

At the rate Putvin was proceeding, while obviously delighted with his ability to dominate and manipulate, he would have drug out the trial until June 2003. What Putvin didn’t understand, more than likely because of his narcissistically inflated ego, when Judge Eyre said he thought Putvin had defended his position well, it didn’t mean that the Judge believed the position he took.

Judge Eyre ruled that:

"Dennis Mathews and John Putvin are personally liable to Hill for the entire amount of the judgment stated in paragraph one (1) above. [1.54 million] The total amount recoverable from Matthews and Putvin will be reduced proportionate to the amounts recoverable from the other defendants as set forth below....."

Allred and Jenson, $30,000.00, representing the money they laundered for John Putvin. AUB $250,000.00. James Sandmire, $500,000.00, representing the amount he received to run the several Diamond enterprises. Jeff Norman was the only individual the Judge did not rule against, presumably because he had already been punished enough when he went to prison.

When Allred and Jenson got off with only $30,000.00, Matthews no doubt, thought he was persecuted, but he has no one to blame but himself.

Dennis Matthews is a "want-to-be" John Putvin. Dennis worships Putvin. On two different occasions, one of which was caught on tape, Dennis praised Putvin’s superior intelligence. With a sparkle in his eyes and awe crackling in his voice, he told me how Putvin was smarter than all the attorneys in Salt Lake City put together. Dennis said that if he were ever in trouble, even though Putvin was not an attorney, he would want Putvin to defend him – and that’s exactly how it turned out.

John Putvin represented himself, pro se, at trial. Even though Matthews, Owen Allred and LaMoine Jenson were adequately represented by Mr. de Montreux, Putvin did all he could to provide a defense for Matthews, Allred, Jenson and AUB. Putvin and Matthews, working together like Edger Bergen and Charlie McCarthy, Putvin acting as the attorney and Matthews testifying from the witness stand, put together an eleventh-hour defense that contradicted their previous defense over the preceding three years.

When Dennis was first approached at the inception of the investigation in 1994, he took the position that he had turned Virginia’s money over to Putvin to be invested as agreed upon, and Putvin, acting alone, took off with all the money. According to the agreement with John Shugart, Virginia’s agent, Matthews was entrusted with the money. Because the seller of the DI Ranch, Herb Fletcher, would not accept currency, Putvin talked Shugart into letting him invest the money into reliable businesses in order to create bank drafts that would be acceptable to Fletcher. Matthews, surreptitiously acting as agent for Shugart, was to keep an accounting [facts and figures] of the investment. At the time, Shugart and Matthews were the best of friends, "soul mates," a bond more precious than a written contract.

Matthews told me that he had possession of the money for six months. We have on tape, John Putvin telling Rod Williams that Matthews was in charge clear up to September or October of 1990. At trial Matthews denied ever having possession of the money.

Had Matthews stuck to his original story he might have gotten off as lightly as Allred and Jenson. Until the trial, the only evidence we had to show how Matthews profited from Virginia’s money was a 1989 Acura, a fence around his house and IRS debt that was paid off.

Hindsight is always less myopic than foresight. Dennis’ hero, John Putvin, talked him into going along with a concocted eleventh-hour defense. Poor, pathetic Dennis, who had already been scammed by Putvin, like a battered wife that keeps going back to her abusive husband, went along with the eleventh-hour scheme.

It was shown during the trial that a large portion of Virginia’s money went into the various Diamond entities managed by James Sandmire and underwritten by Putvin with Virginia’s money. At court, Putvin took the position that he was merely investing the money per Shugart’s instructions and that Shugart lost interest in the money. Putvin claimed he was unaware of Virginia Hill, that all he knew is that some woman who wanted to remain anonymous, using the alias, "Millie," donated the money to Shugart. [The alias, Millie, was an invention of John Putvin to discredit Virginia.]

Putvin went on to allege that when the "feds" started their investigation into the money laundering of Jeff and Sarah Norman, "the rats abandoned the ship" and he was left holding the bag." He argued, "what was I to do, but to continue with my fiduciary agreement to invest the money." He claimed that when the "feds entered the picture, Shugart told him to "drop everything."

Of course Shugart was not present to impeach Putvin’s statement. Shugart’s whereabouts were unknown. Consequently he was not served with a subpoena. In his absence, Putvin felt free to put words in Shugart’s mouth even though it conflicted with Shugart’s deposition that was entered into evidence over the objections of Putvin and de Montreux.

During the last days of the trial, Putvin finally admitted that he received Virginia’s money but because Virginia and her agent, Shugart, had allegedly lost interest in the money he went about his fiduciary duties and continued to invest the money. [Judge Eyre asked him if there was any money left, he said no, it was all lost on bad investments."]

To corroborate this elaborate eleventh-hour scenario Putvin obtained the willing cooperation of Dennis Matthews. Throughout the trial Dennis stuck to Putvin like and obedient puppy. Dennis drove Putvin back and forth to court. He wheeled around Putvin’s boxes of document in a handcart.

After the infamous November 13, 1989, tape recorded meeting between Putvin, Matthews and Allred, when they conspired to steal from John Shugart $1 million dollars, Dennis Matthews was ordained a bishop by Owen Allred the following day, November 14, 1989. Putvin attempted to convince the court that Owen Allred had ordained Matthews a bishop for John Shugart and not AUB, an absolutely absurd scenario.

Shugart and Allred were arch enemies. Why would Owen Allred, without the knowledge of Shugart, ordain Matthews a bishop, to benefit Shugart, and Shurart’s organization, which at the time consisted of about four people? The fact of the matter is that Allred ordained Matthews a bishop to preside over the disbursement of Virginia’s money and the DI Ranch, which they soon afterwards decided not to purchase.

Nevertheless, acting as John Shugart’s bishop, Matthews testified that he oversaw the investment into the three Diamond entities: Diamond Automotive Specialties, Inc., Diamond Recreational Rentals Inc., Diamond Auto Body and Paint Inc., and the dba, Brison Motors. That testimony made Matthews equally culpable with Putvin, and impeached his previous statements in his deposition.

Matthews had told Virginia, John Shugart, investigator Roy Potter and myself, that Putvin acted alone in the theft and conversion of the money. After repeated attempts on the part of Virginia and John Shugart, Matthews never at any time informed Virginia or Shugart after he took possession of the money about Putvin’s whereabouts or the Diamond entities. He told me that he had nothing to do with Sandmire, Putvin and the Diamond entities. Then suddenly, the next to last day of the trial, he knew all about the Diamond entities and confirmed Putvin’s contention that Shugart had lost interest in $1.54 million dollars.

Due to Putvin’s persuasive hold over Matthews, Matthews made himself equally guilty with Putvin. This change of story also impeaches Putvin’s claim that he did not know Virginia Hill. There was ample evidence that Matthews knew full well that the money belonged to Virginia because he took her to inspect the DI Ranch before the money was released into his custody.

Even though it was obvious to all who followed the trial that Putvin was the instigator, the brains and master-manipulator, and profited far more than any other defendant, the ruling appeared as if Sandmire was being punished the most severely with a $500,000.00 judgement.

Sandmire testified that when he was first approached by Putvin with money to invest he was not made aware that it was stolen money. However, when Sandmire was contacted by investigator, Roy Potter, in the Spring of 1990, he should have known the money was tainted. Sandmire’s mother, Dauna Sandmire, Owen Allred’s secretary and confidante, was present during the November 13, 1989, conspiracy and it was she who suggested the tape recording ought to be destroyed. Furthermore, Duana was an officer in two of the Diamond entities. With all those connections it is difficult to believe that James Sandmire did not know the truth about Virginia’s money. When I interviewed Jim in 1997 he did not deny that the money used to finance the Diamond entities came from Virginia Hill.

Sandmire testified that Putvin compartmentalized "the criminal enterprise." In other words, each defendant took part in one or more criminal episode. According to Sandmire, Putvin told him it was better that he not know where the money came from – the right hand shouldn’t know what the left hand was doing.

At trial it was all too obvious that Putvin and Sandmire had become bitter enemies. Putvin spent considerable time attempting to convince the court that if any one of the defendants were culpable, it was Sandmire, and that Sandmire was by far the most culpable.

Putvin was able to manipulate a "trial within a trial." For nearly two days, while Putvin had Sandmire on the witness stand, he accused Sandmire of embezzlement and fraud while managing the Diamond entities, which had nothing to do with stealing Virginia’s money. In essence, Putvin was using the court’s time to prosecute Sandmire for his [Putvin’s] own personal satisfaction and reasons.

Putvin put Heidi Sandmire, Jim’s wife, on the stand and accused her of falsifying documents, which had nothing to do with stealing Virginia’s money. His animus towards Heidi was ruthless, relentless and embarrassing. Finally, de Montreux and Don Redd jumped to their feet and objected - the Judge sustained the objections and Putvin wisely retreated and ended his abusive questioning.

Putvin’s despicable treatment of Heidi Sandmire confirmed that his Svengali-like reputation among the Allred faithful for being an unconscionable, ruthless, manipulating reprobate was indeed true.

One other criminal act, or episode that appears to have been treated disproportionately in the judgement is the matter of the Assignment of Trust Deeds.

I found two Assignment of Trust Deeds, each with its on docket number, [5001564 & 5001565] each made reference to trust deeds, one was "recorded on 12 December 1989, as Entry No. 4859137, in Book 6183, Page(s) 744 of the records of the County Recorder of Salt Lake County, Utah, (docket #5001564) and the other (#5001565) "was recorded on 5 March 1990, as Entry No. 4888237, in Book 6202 Page(s) 1329 of the records of the County Recorder of Salt Lake County, Utah and covers real property ......"

The names, figures and intent were the same on both Assignment of Trust Deeds, but in every other respect appeared to be two separate deeds. Putvin testified that the two deeds were actually only one deed, the second, a reflection of the first, and the Judge evidently bought it, for the ruling against AUB reflected only $250,000.00.

In essence, John C. Putvin, president of Last Resort Enterprises, Inc., a shell corporation, assigned to "J. LaMoine Jenson, Sole and Exclusive Trustee for Apostolic United Brethren, A Non-profit Religious Organization, a debt owed by James Sandmire to Last Resort Enterprises, Inc. The debt on each deed was $250,000.00 to be paid in $2500.00 increments in 100 payments. The two deeds total $500,000.00 which coincidently is the same amount Deputy Kendra Herlin testified Jeff and Sarah Norman laundered into Last Resort Enterprises Inc.

Sandmire testified that he was instructed by Putvin [living in New Zealand] to take the deeds to LaMoine Jenson [Sandmire’s father–in-law by a plural marriage] for his signature. Jenson is the second most powerful man in the AUB organization as he has been selected to succeed 92 year old Owen Allred when he dies. Sandmire claimed not to know what the deeds were all about. [More compartmentalization]

After I had found the deeds, LaMoine Jenson claimed the deeds represented a gift from Putvin to offset the loss AUB sustained in the failed, 1982 Purchase of the DI Ranch. AUB’s actual loss was $100,000.00. The failed purchase resulted in Shugart and Allred becoming bitter enemies.

John Putvin testified that it was only one deed and that he had taken it upon himself, without consulting anyone, and without Owen Allred or John Shugart’s knowledge, to cement relations between the two organizations by making a $250,000.00 gift, this of course was Virginia’s money. This explanation was about as plausible as Putvin’s contention that Allred made Matthews a bishop for Shugart’s organization. How stupid did he think the court was?

There were only six payment made by Sandmire and these payments were deposited in an AUB account by LaMoine Jenson. The payments ended, coincidently, at the same time the "feds" started their investigation, and when Putvin said the "rats abandoned the ship." This also coincides with the remark that Putvin made to Rod Williams that Dennis Matthews was in charge up to September or October 1990. It also coincides with the remark Putvin made to Rod Williams: "When the feds entered the picture Dennis and Owen couldn’t get rid of the money fast enough, they dumped it in my lap. When the danger had passed they asked for it back."

Virginia’s money sat in the closet of Owen’s wife, Vera, for an undetermined period of time. I testified that Owen told me about the money in Vera’s closet on three separate occasions. At first he claimed he couldn’t remember the identity of the two men that brought him the box full of money. But on the morning of December 7, 1994, he remembered it was Matthews and Putvin. In the afternoon of December 7^th when I played the Nov. 13^th tape recording for Allred and Matthews, Owen once again discussed the money in the box in Vera’s closet. But when Mathews politely chided Allred, by saying he wasn’t aware of any box of money, Allred had a lapse of memory. It is all on the tape recording, exhibit #3, that was entered as evidence.

I testified that Dennis Matthews told me that it was six months before Putvin got hold of all the money. I also testified that Matthews told me he had given Putvin $80,000.00 [of Virginia’s money] to purchase the used car lot at 4659 South State. Matthews said that Putvin came back later and got an additional $10,000.00 for repairs to the building and asphalt. This of course all occurred before the "feds" entered the picture.

When I told Matthews that I had interviewed the seller of the used car lot and he said a man named, John Galt, negotiating the purchase for Jim Sandmire, who he never met, only put $10,000.00 down on the property, Matthews went speechless. When I asked Matthews what he supposed Putvin did with the other $80,000.00, he didn’t respond.

By the time we came to trial, October 28, 2002, none of the defendants could remember anything about a box of money in Vera’s closet. It was obvious that Putvin and Matthews had conspired to protect Owen Allred. [After the trial had concluded, there were dozens of people who suddenly remembered that Owen had also told them about the box of money.]

The legal name of AUB is: The Corporation of the Presiding Elder of Apostolic United Brethren. In other words, as it has been explained to me, Owen Allred, as the Presiding Elder, owns all the assets of AUB. When he deposited the $30,000.00 he was doing so as the Presiding Elder. It was deposited in an AUB account. I testified that Owen told me the money was Putvin’s tithing and Putvin wanted it back and instructed Owen to make the cashier’s check out to John Galt, Putvin’s alias. I would think that AUB should be as much culpable in the $30,000.00 Allred episode as Owen Allred, the individual. During the entire criminal enterprise, Owen A. Allred was not only acting for himself but as the presiding elder of Apostolic United Brethren. Therefore, Allred and AUB should be equally culpable.

Each criminal episode that occurred after Owen Allred gave Matthews and Putvin blessings on Nov. 13^th, and especially after Owen Allred ordained Matthews a bishop on Nov. 14^th, was committed under the auspices of AUB. The fact that the $500,000.00 was designated by Putvin to be laundered into AUB [Assignment of Trust Deeds], through J. LaMoine Jenson, is collateral evidence that AUB should be equally culpable along with the criminal acts of the individuals.

Further evidence that the object of the criminal enterprise was to enrich AUB is the fact that money was stored in the Presiding Elder’s, wife’s closet. While the money was in the closet, money was dispersed by bishop Matthews, to Putvin, to Sandmire, to LaMoine Jenson, all of which was intended to eventually go to AUB or benefit AUB, until the "feds" entered the picture and spoiled the plan.

Matthews and Owen were not the only ones who panicked. LaMoine Jenson had his name removed as an officer of the Diamond enterprises. And from his actions, it is a safe bet that it was he, and not Putvin, who terminated the payments dedicated to the two Assignment of Trust Deeds. AUB, in my opinion should be held equally liable for the entire 1.54 million, plus punitive damages, because, until the "feds" entered the picture, the intent of the criminal enterprise was to enrich Apostolic United Brethren.

Virginia’s money was used to finance the Diamond entities. J. LaMoine Jenson was one of the incorporators and officers in two of the Diamond entities: Diamond Automotive Specialties, Inc., and Diamond Recreational Rentals, Inc.

Further evidence that AUB should be held more culpable is the affidavit of John C. Putvin dated July 11, 1991 [John Carl Putvin vs. Karen Larie Thompson, Third District Court, Case No. 910903188CC] In the affidavit Putvin claims to be accountable to his supervisor/liaison [Dennis Matthews], while Matthews is accountable to his religious leader [Owen Allred]. Putvin tried to convince the court that his affidavit meant that Matthews was accountable to John Shugart and not Allred. I cannot tell from the ruling if Judge Eyre believed Putvin’s absurd fabrication.

Matthews was in charge of the money until the "feds" entered the picture. After the danger had passed, according to Putvin, they wanted the money back but he refused. This was Putvin’s opportunity to cheat AUB, Allred and Matthews out of the money, but that doesn’t make AUB, Allred and Matthews less culpable. During the investigation, Owen asked me several times why he should be held responsible when Putvin wound up with all of the money. His loyal followers rationalized the same way. The loyal followers apparently expected that when Putvin cheated Owen out of the money, Owen and LaMoine Jenson should be exonerated. This is typical Mormon fundamentalist thinking.

Following is a summery pertaining to the Racketeering allegations:

First - The criminal enterprise was a conspiracy to steal as much of Virginia Hill’s money as possible. [Putvin tried to get Shugart to give him and Matthews more money over and above the 1.54, promising him interest on the money.]

In order to accomplish the criminal enterprise the following criminal episodes were committed:

(1) The acquisition of $40,000.00 as Putvin’s fee for negotiating the purchase of the DI Ranch.

(2) The acquisition of $1,000,000.00 on Nov. 13, 1989.

(3) The acquisition of $500,000.00 on about Dec. 12, 1989.

(4) The laundering of $500,000.00 by Putvin, Jeff and Sarah Norman.

(5) The receiving of stolen money by Sandmire (All-Inclusive Trust Deed, dated December 5, 1989, that was entered as part of exhibit #55) This was money used to purchase the used car lot.

(6) Sandmire received additional monies from Putvin in the form of silver coins to be used in the used car business. (Putvin called Sandmire’s attention to that transaction while Sandmire was on the witness stand.) The coins were purchased with Virginia’s money.

(7) The attempted laundering into AUB $500,000.00 via Assignment of Trust Deeds.

The criminal acts that went towards the furtherance of the criminal enterprise and criminal episodes are as follows:

(1) The intentional deception made by Owen Allred to Virginia Hill, John Shugart, Roy Potter and John Llewellyn, in an attempt to cover up the theft and protect his own criminal activity as well as John Putvin whereabouts.

(2) The intentional deception made by Jim Sandmire to investigator, Roy Potter.

(3) The intentional deception made my Dennis Matthews towards Hill, Shugart and Potter, concealing his own involvement and the whereabouts of John Putvin.

(4) Matthews and Allred did all possible to mislead Hill, Shugart, Potter and Llewellyn, and make it appear that John Putvin acted alone in the theft, until we received possession of the Nov. 13, 1989 tape recording which exposed the conspiracy.

(5) LaMoine Jenson’s attempt to mislead Williams and Llewellyn by claiming the Assignment of Trust Deeds were a gift to reimburse AUB for the money lost on the 1982 purchase of the DI Ranch.

The following is a summery of the "unclean hands doctrine."

Judge Eyre used the "unclean hands doctrine" to deny Hill of Punitive Damages. There was absolutely no evidence that Virginia’s money was ill-gotten or that she had not paid taxes on her money, all of which seems immaterial to the theft. Yes, she was sloppy in her record keeping and handling of currency, but there is no law against accumulating large amounts of currency. Dealing in cash, even large amounts, I learned, is not unusual in the gaming industry.

The criminal conduct of the defendants is not like an accident liability case where contributory negligence is a defense. Her unorthodoxy or carelessness should not mitigate the punishment, or "criminally contribute" to the criminal acts of the defendants. A crime is a crime. There are no half-crimes or partial crimes. It is either a crime or it isn’t.

Virginia’s carelessness helped make it easier for the defendants to commit the crime. She thought she could trust religious men and unwittingly made herself vulnerable. Virginia knew how to take care of herself among gamblers and mobsters, but in her distraught state, she was no match for religious charlatans. She had hoped to change her life, a major change for the better, but she was taken in by pious Mormons in sheep’s clothing.

After further ruminating, I still can’t tell if Hill is being punished or the defendants rewarded.

The Hill vs. Allred et. al., civil suit was a complicated, convoluted task with 144 exhibits, nine tenths of which were submitted by Putvin, and he would have offered that many times more exhibits if the Judge would have accepted them. Taking into consideration the exhibits and the testimony, Judge Eyre had a monumental task. As an investigator I had eight years to put it all together. The Judge only had a few weeks.

Putvin tried to cloud the issues as best he could, an undertaking that he is exceptionally good at. In all my career as a deputy sheriff and investigator, John C. Putvin has been my most worthy and challenging opponent.

The defendants would have gotten away with the theft except for the "illusion of invulnerability," and their self importance. Owen Allred and LaMoine Jenson thought that by virtue of their high calling they could talk their way out of the mess. They were use to being believed by the gullible AUB members and couldn’t keep their mouths shut. They concocted an implausible story and recklessly volunteered information that was incriminating.

John Putvin, the most brilliant of the defendants, also suffered from "hoof and mouth," ego problems. It was his hatred for Owen Allred and over confidence in his ability to manipulate that was his "Watergate."

During the trial Putvin sent me e-mails under the alias, Larry Joseph, using the address: Llewellynass. We had a pleasant exchange of wit and jabs. Putvin predicted he would win, citing Karma, but if he didn’t, he said he would be "judgment proof."

[Although Karma implies predestination, "the law of karma, says only this: ‘for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.’ A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions;"]

I formally disassociated myself from AUB in 1994 because of the criminal conduct of Owen A. Allred and his priesthood hierarchy. I was therefore curious how the faithful would holdup when a court of law ruled that there was "clear and convincing evidence" that their prophet, Owen Allred, had helped steal money from a gentile lady. However the feedback has been sketchy.

One AUB acolyte who attended nearly every day of the trial felt that Owen, AUB and LaMoine Jenson should not have been named as defendants. He rationalized that both Owen and LaMoine gave the money back and in doing so, repented. He did not think that accepting cash, running it through bank accounts, and then returning the money in the form of cashier’s checks in a fictitious name, was criminal conduct. This same individual said that the "spirit" told him that Virginia Hill had stolen her money from her husband. I wonder if the same spirit whispered in the Judge’s ear.

Another AUB insider stated that many faithful members were coming forward offering to dip into their savings and donate money to help Brother Owen and Brother LaMoine pay their fines.

Its their money, they can do with it what they wish. They can burn it, stick it in their ear or flush it down the toilet.

Another confidential source predicted that whatever money is paid to Virginia by Allred or Jenson will come out of tithing funds. "You can bet your life," the informant said, "that the money won’t come out of Owen or LaMoine’s pocket."

Attorney Don Redd, Counsel for the Plaintiff, has been directed by the court to "prepare an order and judgment consistent with the decision." Once the judgment has been prepared for the approval of the court, and the court has ruled on the judgment, I will submit the next update.

Once the court is satisfied with the judgment, there may be appeals. If the defendants appeal they will be required to post bonds. From my vantage point, I hope the defendants appeal. If they lose, with the bonds in place, then Virginia will have some assurance of collecting.