Misconduct Charges Part 1: Police, Prosecutors, and a Judge Accused

Damn, Joe, that’s pretty scary stuff. Investigative reporting may be your calling.

Keep us informed.

Joe it might be fair, if you wish to be fair and I’m honestly dubious if you do want to be fair given the slanted tone your article took, if you publish a bit more information about who exactly is suing. For instance, instead of just scanning a portion of the suit, scan the whole thing. Because I just went and asked and was just told who the suer is in some of the incidents you mention and that sheds all kinds of new light on this. Some of you might know Mr Zach Wall as he is a regular star in the police blotter in the Post Register with arrests ranging from drug use, to kidnapping, to battery, etc. Mr Credibility he is not. But hey, more believable than the police right?

Joe goes through a litany of “examples” here…however, they lack alot of substance by leaving out names of plaintiffs. I would like more details than to be left with the last paragraph, “I don’t know the details here, but that is what the courts are for, right? Let us hope our local justice system presents a fair environment for both sides to present evidence and witnesses, and let us hope the truth eventually comes out and justice is served. I am just really surprised none of this has been reported by our local media.”

If the media printed and broadcast all the inmate lawsuits and hurt feelings of criminals that is all the paper would be stuffed with. Zach Wall is a liar and he likes to carry guns and kidnap people. He also likes to shoot meth up as well. He is a real creep that causes nightmares for many of my friends kids that dealt with him. If this is the main basis of Joe’s story then this reporting is no better than the National Enquirer.

Joe, naming plaintiff’s names isn’t enough. Who are these people? Criminal records? Outstanding citizens or Zach Walls to a greater or lesser degree? These days, if some people get a call from a cop, they feel “harrassed” and want their mommies and file complaints just because the cop scowled, has a mustache, doesn’t have a mustache, is bald, has hair, et cetera. If you want this to be an investigative piece, tell the other side of the story. But you’ll just say you’re not a journalist. . .
These kinds of stories are notoriously difficult to report becuase of the he-said, she-said nature of the claims, the credibility of the witnesses and plaintiffs, not to mention the fact that cases actually evolve beyond the point of what is available in court documents, from which I’m sure you’re quoting. Check out any newspaper or local TV news across the nation and you’re not going to see a lot of this kind of stuff reported, for these very reasons.

I can see why Joe is not a journalist on this case. Check these facts out. If Joe looked up the case from the picture of the criminal filing above he would have known these tidbits that are facts:

There were two lawsuits filed here in Bonneville County: CV-07-3863. This suit was a result of a drug bust conducted by Bonneville County Sheriff’s Deputies on Harry Burke. Burke and some friends were selling drugs. They got busted. The case was filed 6/29/07. Motions were filed with Judge Gregory Anderson by both sides. A hearing on the motions was held 8/9/07. The Case was dismissed on 8/10/07. The defendant(s) attorney was Victor Bunitsky…keep this fact squirrled away for later.

The second case, CV-07-3687, was also filed 6/29/07 against Idaho Falls Police during another drug bust. Judge Richard St. Clair was presiding in this case. Interestingly, on 8/10/07, the Plaintiff’s…yes, the Plaintiff’s filed a voluntary motion to dismiss their own lawsuit on 8/10/07 as well (the date of the dismissal on the earlier case). The attorney of record here is also Bunitsky.

So, to sum these up–Bunitsky is the attorney of record in both cases. He has represented all these felons for years. (I will get into their lengthy individual criminal records momentarily). Bunitsky is known for filing frivilous lawsuits. He is also known for filing these suits to try and get leverage against the prosecutor and/or in exchange for lighter sentences to make the suits go away. Standard Procedure for this defense attorney? IMO yes.

Bunitsky gets a hearing before two different judges…results are both cases are dismissed. Why does Bunitsky file a voluntary motion to dismiss his second lawsuit? Probably because his bluff got called on the first case and he could see the writing on the wall.

So, how about the background of these “innocent defendants”:
Harry Jess Burke-Numerous criminal cases (16 total) in Bonneville County. Some are just No Insurance and Traffic. However, he is a convicted felon in 1994 for Possession of Controlled Substance (PCS) with Children Present and Intent To Deliver. He was arrested 9/06 for PCS, Drug Paraphernalia, and Possessing a Concealed Weapon. He didn’t learn his lesson. He was arrested again 6/07 for PCS.

Tamara Jo Wiscombe–Charges for PCS in Bingham County and charges for PCS in Bonneville County in 2006 and 2007.

Mecheal A. Andersen–24 criminal cases in Bonneville County. 2/07 Delivery of CS, 4/07 Drug Trafficking, and 2001 Deliver CS conviction.

Yvette Klingler–23 criminal cases and even one case of not paying child support. 2/07 Delivery, 2003 PCS, and 2001 Delivery Conviction.

Stephanie Jo Taylor–4/07 PCS with Intent to Distribute, 2003 Forgery (Amended to Abusing a Vulnerable Adult–probably stole an old persons checks while in a care giving role).

So, all in all this story is much ado about only one thing: a defense attorney trying to save his clients through use of frivilous lawsuits because none of them can seem to obey the law and cease selling drugs in our town. Joe, I really think you didn’t do your homework on this one and crashed badly.

Nope, I definitely did not do my homework. I don’t get paid for this, so I just throw it out there for folks to know about, and possibly add to the body of knowledge. You posted some great information Mike, great job.

I don’t know about the rest of it, regarding whether the attorney is filing nuisance claims or is truly finding corruption.

All allegations here.

One disturbing aspect is the cellphone part. Apparently there is evidence including the itemized phone bills showing the calls made on the night and time while the police had possession of the phone. One of the people called and threatened that night contacted their probation officer that night to report the incident, and the officer made a note of it.

When Moulton was presented on the stand with the cellphone bill, he changed his story from having personal possession of the evidence until it was checked in, to saying perhaps one of the other police officers had it that night. This was apparently when the Judge helped him out.

All allegations, but makes you go hmmmmm.

No, I don’t believe he’s way off here. Two years ago if anyone had said the same things about Kimball Mason nobody would have believed it either. I have personal knowledge of one of the officers named in the suit making harrassing phone calls so I believe it could be true.

I talked to a person in narcotics. When they arrest people who have been selling, they often look at the numbers recently called on the cell phone(s) and numbers received on the phone(s) to find out who they may have sold to or who else might be involved. Sometimes, they even call those numbers up to talk to that person and try and ascertain who it is. I guess some people might see this as harrassment….especially if they are trying to buy drugs or sell them…but I would think the police were negligent if they didn’t follow up on all available information.

One of the calls allegedly stated something to the effect that the caller was outside the contact’s home and were going to shoot their family.

Excuse me, I guess I didn’t realize that was an official investigation tactic.

All of this word “allegedly” is thrown around to make it okay to throw out statements like the above posts. It is getting old and raises my level of suspicion about your sources Joe.

Mike, I have a pretty good recollection of what some of the harrassing calls were. But I’ll tell you what, I will double check with the people who know and make a post when I have more accurate information. I wouldn’t want to give you any ammunition with which to attack me.

Joe, I totally agree with your comments on Mike’s M.O. when he disagrees with a person.

I think you start by supplying all the facts of the story. For example, that the suits were filed within weeks of these parties getting bust on drug raids. The fact that BOTH lawsuits were dismissed, one of which was dismissed by the parties filing the suit. This makes the ‘allegations’ go away and diminishes their credibility when the very source of the ‘allegations’ voluntarily sweeps away their own suit and other judges that are not tied to the original story agreed to dismiss the cases.

As for attacking the person, I could care less about whether you wrote this or if Slim or CR67 wrote them. It is about throwing out these allegations as still relevant when the very purveyors of these ‘allegations’ withdrew them under scrutiny. This makes them less than credible and frankly, they don’t even hold water as allegations. Yet, the way the article was worded, all the police, courts, and prosecutors in this town are corrupt and crooked. I take issue with that (even with Kimball Mason’s problems). This community has alot of honorable men and women that work hard every day to protect you and your family). Publishing allegations is all well and good; however, I think it is important to gather all the objective facts and put them in the story. Joe, I don’t think you put all the available facts in your story.

So, just because you said these were allegations doesn’t excuse that important details were left out. I have no idea whether it was by design or lack of research. However, when you are talking about spreading the word about allegations that impugn a person’s credibility and standing in the community this is important to note the whole picture that is known at the time. In part 2, you make a reference that media outlets report information known to them at the time and let it ride as the story builds. In this case, the media never rode the story because there was nothing there to begin with besides disgruntled drug dealers and an attorney that takes dope money to spin a good yarn of police and prosecutor corruption.

Let me bring an example home to you: If someone were writing allegations about Joe Vandel…let’s say someone was saying you were charged with dog fighting, wouldn’t it be fair for the person writing about the allegations to note that the ‘allegations’ were dismissed and furthermore, that the person(s) making the allegations voluntarily withdrew the allegations in a second case. Wouldn’t that make for a more balanced story and most importantly, wouldn’t that be fair to the accused? Or should the accused just be left hanging out to dry with no mention of what else has transpired? It probably isn’t as juicy as you would like for ratings on here but alas all I am saying is print all the story–not just a fraction of it that gets everyone worked up. If you suceed at doing that you can label them allegations all you want–if that is what fits. In this instance, to answer your earlier question: you could have said unsubstantiated allegations that have since been dismissed. After all, that is what happened. Why not report the truth?

“I think you start by supplying all the facts of the story.”

There you go, that’s where we differ. I can respect that point of view. Can you respect that this is a blog, not a newspaper, and I am not paid and do not have the time and resources to go chasing down every rumor and story I hear?

I admittedly only had some filings, not all the evidence and the officer interviews and witness statements and the whole 9 yards. Even reporters who go to all that trouble still have to say “allegedly” don’t they?

I see why you see it as throwing out defamatory information in a hateful attempt to ruin someone’s reputation and career. Can you see why I see this as broadcasting information that locals might have wanted to be informed about?

You go Joe!
After the KM mess I think we all need to listen more carefully to the other guy.
Thank you

I want you to know I did take a few hours to consider your points. I reread all of the article and comments again. I truly think you are making this a bigger deal than it is.

I put out the information I had, the facts of the materials I had. It was clearly not the whole story, and you had the chance to fill in another part of it. That’s how the site functions.

I still feel I presented the information fairly. It sounds harsh because the allegations are harsh. I never said “this is what happened”; I said this is what’s alleged and I know you haven’t heard it anywhere else. I’m sorry the word “alleged” upset you, but I will not claim something so serious as these allegations are true until it has been proven in a court of law.

You appear to have been upset from your first comment on that this was published at all.

I will not question your motives, but I have noticed you are often upset at this website, the information presented, and how it is run. I really do not know how to help you with that.

I do not feel bad about this article in the least. It was public information, significant for the public to know, and nobody else had reported it. I don’t feel I’ve done a “hatchet job” on anyone. I presented what I had and you presented what you had.

I also noticed also that for all the explanations, comment 20 was never explained. That appears to be a sticky point.

The lawsuits could have been dropped for many reasons, but that perjury and cellphone incident may have still happened. This is regarding an officer that has had questionable issues publicly raised before.

I think you both made excellent points and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts.

This is certainly an interesting article. I was shown this website only recently and have never read or written anything here before. The person who asked me to read this is involved in this case and it appears from many of the commentators here, that we are in the minority. It’s interesting how many people will express such a strong opinion on a subject they don’t know anything about.

I was in court that day and it was standing room only. It was clear from the beginning that the judge didn’t want this hearing held or the testimony given. Half the time he wasn’t even paying attention and the other half, he was hassling the defense lawyer. He agreed with everything the prosecutor said though. Since Moulton was going on trial the next morning in the case he ended up settling out of court for $50,000 of our money, I have no doubt the judge didn’t want any more ammunition handed to the lawyer in that case.

Again, I was there. Moulton did perjure himself and when Mr. Bunitsky caught him, he couldn’t lie his way out of it. He admitted to having the cell phone, which was proved by the evidence. He testified that he had only answered calls or returned calls that he had been cut off from. When the cell phone bill was shown to him, it showed the calls were outgoing. He was not returning calls. That’s perjury. That’s when he said some other officer must have done it. When Mr. Bunitsky began pushing him about the threatening phone calls, one as late as 3:30 in the morning, when Moulton was supposed to be off duty, he couldn’t answer the question. He was asked several times and when he couldn’t answer, the judge leaned over and told him what to say. You could have heard a pin drop. Even the most inexperienced of us knew he wasn’t supposed to do that.

A man took the stand and testified that he had received a threatening phone call after midnight from this cell phone. This man worked for the owner of the cell phone so he recognized the number but not the voice. The caller said he was outside his home and was going to shoot him and his family. The circumstances scared him so he called his probation officer to ask permission to leave his home for the rest of the night. His probation officer was supposed to testify but he left so he couldn’t be called to the stand. At the end of the hearing, the judge actually said that this kind of use of the cell phone was not outside the norm. I found that particularly unbelievable so I did some checking. What I was told was that if an officer takes something like a cell phone or computer when they arrest someone, they’re supposed to get a search warrant from a judge before trying to take information out of it. And it should be handled by a detective, not a patrol officer. The police could subpoena the names of the cell phone numbers and check their criminal records before making any contact. My mother’s phone number is in my cell phone and it would piss me off if someone had my cell phone and called her in the middle of the night like that. This seems so obvious to me. These two officers aren’t teenagers making prank calls to a random number to ask if they have Prince Albert in a can or if their refrigerator is running. They were calling people they didn’t know in the middle of the night and threatening to kill them! The woman who received the call at 3:30 in the morning was there but there wasn’t time for her to testify. She was terrified, but determined to do the right thing. She has no police record, by the way. She is a middle-aged single woman who had hired the owner of the cell phone to do some contracting work. That’s why her number was in the cell phone. Talk about an innocent bystander. And since I know the people charged, I have seen the cell phone bill and the probation officer’s report, both of which prove the phone calls and what was said.

Since the hearing was about Moulton mishandling the evidence, testimony was given about the stuff that had been taken. Neither officer could explain why they didn’t have the same evidence at the end of the night as they did when they took it. Again, the judge said that’s not a big deal. I think it’s a big deal. If there is stuff missing, who took it? The cops were the only ones who had it. The judge refused to let Mr. Bunitsky go into the police department procedures for handling evidence and neither officer would answer questions about it. You don’t have to be Albert Einstein to know evidence is supposed to be locked up as soon as possible. The officers admitted they were passing it back and forth for hours while they were out on patrol in separate cars even though they went back to the police station, and the amount of evidence taken did not match up to what was turned in. How can the judge think this is no big deal?

Afterwards, Chief Livesey was waiting outside the courtroom for Moulton. He patted him on the back and they walked away together and he was obviously very supportive of his officer. I find that a bit scary. I think a boss should be supportive of his people, but in this case, Livesey’s support for Moulton was wrong. Up to that point, since I have never been charged with a crime, I had no opinion of Chief Livesey. I lost all respect for him that day.

Also after the hearing, I learned that when the judge called the lawyers back to his chambers before the hearing started, he was trying to prevent the man who got the threatening call from testifying. I wasn’t there so I don’t know how Mr. Bunitsky got past the judge on that one, but it says a lot to me about the judge that he was trying to keep this testimony off the record.

I also know that one of these people was arrested and charged in another case which took four months to get dismissed even though he hadn’t done anything illegal. I think that’s called false arrest. So at least one of these lawsuits is coming back now because they weren’t dismissed because they were wrong. They were dismissed and withdrawn because the criminal cases had to be finished first. The only reason they were filed before the criminal cases were over was because after this hearing the judge took all Mr. Bunitsky’s cases off the court calendar and refused to put them back on until he was ordered to by a higher ranking judge - because of the lawsuits. I think he was ticked off at Mr. Bunitsky for pointing out his bad behavior in court. And from what I saw, the judge was trying to protect Moulton. I understand the whole point of this article was whether or not the press should have reported these lawsuits. They were in court, and at least one of the reporters picked up on how wrong it was for the judge to be testifying. I heard her talking to the lawyer after court and she asked him about it but never reported it. Why not?

“Mike” said that Mr. Bunitsky files a lot of frivolous lawsuits. I guess that brings us back to the point again. What lawsuits? I haven’t heard of a single lawsuit he has filed before these. Is this just another example of the press not telling the public about it or is this a lie? It sounds to me like “Mike” is so determined to defend the police, no matter what, that he’s willing to lie. But I could be wrong. I will happily take back that statement if “Mike” can give us an example of another lawsuit Mr. Bunitsky has filed before these, frivolous or not. “Mike” appears to be in the know, and seems to have access to information that mere citizens don’t. Is there a way to look this up in the court computers? Can you answer, “Mike?”

I would put pressure on the Post Register and the tv stations to do a better job of reporting these lawsuits, if they exist, or I’m sure people would like to know that if they hire this lawyer, he’s a fraud, if what “Mike” says is true. And when did Mr. Bunitsky share offices with John Stosich? I heard Mr. Bunitsky worked alone. And what has that got to do with this article? I also know for a fact that Mr. Bunitsky has not represented these individuals for years, but rather for only a few months, as if that mattered somehow. “Mike” is so worried about someone’s reputation being sullied, but it appears he has no problem attacking Mr. Bunitsky’s reputation with what appears to be outright lies or did I miss “Mike” saying his comments about Mr. Bunitsky were “allegations?”

But I’d also put pressure on the new chief to do something about this kind of thing. This has been testified to and proved by the cell phone company and the probation officer. Even if I committed a crime, I have certain rights. It appeared to me that the officers tampered with the evidence, harassed and threatened innocent people, and stole something (cell phones are billed by the minute so the owner had to pay for the officer’s phone calls). I wouldn’t want that happening to me. And I would also not like to be one of the people who got a phone call like this at 3:30 in the morning from someone I didn’t know. And I would be doubly unhappy to find out later it was two police officers who called me and that a judge said it was okay. I think this should have been reported on and when the lawsuits come back, they should be reported on.

I don’t think someone like O.J. should get off, but cops shouldn’t be allowed to tamper with evidence or to perjure themselves or commit any other crimes either and when they do, there should be consequences, not cover-ups and denials. At least in O.J.’s case the judge didn’t try to participate in the cover-up but stood up like a man and held their feet to the fire. From my limited experience, that’s the only way I can see to keep it from happening again. I honestly don’t know whether these people are guilty or innocent of a crime, but because of what Moulton and Poulter did that night, we don’t have any way of knowing for sure now and we all get to pay for that in more ways than one. Just like they’re paying in North Carolina for the Duke fiasco. Not every prosecutor, judge and police officer was corrupt in that case either, and I didn’t hear Joe saying they’re all crooked here, as “Mike” has “alleged” Joe is saying. But as we’ve seen, the man in this case was also falsely charged and it took four months to get the charges against him dismissed. It happens. Not everyone arrested is guilty.

Sorry this is so long. I just wanted to put in my two cents worth since I was there and have information that isn’t available to everyone.

Idaho Vet,
Do you have a court case number or something to verify these accusations? If it happened in a court room it was recorded and is public record.

Idaho Veteran,
I haven’t read the comments in this section for a while but these case numbers will have to be looked up at the Law Library. I’ll check it out and get back to you.

ID VET, There are criminal records and there are CRIMINAL RECORDS but these people you speak of, ID Vet, take the cake. I looked up the case numbers you provided, at the Law Library in the Courthouse, and it looks like these people deal / use drugs, and have been charged and convicted of it.
Everybody knows and this is true in IF as well…if you hire an attorney worth his or her salt you will get off of the original charge or have it reduced / dismissed. DUI and Drug offenses are a great example. Just because someone is charged with a crime doesn’t make them guilty but just because it was reduced / dismissed doesn’t make them innocent. It’s also common knowledge that Methamphetamine makes people paranoid, maybe your friend(s) need to change their lifestyle and stop selling / using drugs.
The Courthouse Law Library is open to the public and is free unless you want to print something off.

I think Joe made the whole thing up…however I am way to lazy to look anything up to prove this.

If you are so concerned go get the transcript and publish it here. The defendants in all this mess are dope dealers and users. They are not credible. It is amazing that just because an officer actually does his job that he is somehow a crook. I know alot of cops that really do sit around and eat donuts and do nothing. Moulton isn’t one of them…because he is agressive against the dope dealers in this town and takes action he gets thrown under the bus by the poster above based on innuendo. We have a track record with these other defendants. They are convicted felons. It’s nice to know some citizens of Idaho Falls actually still believe the police over felons that deal dope.