Welcome to the LSIS Investigative Journal

Welcome to the LSIS Investigative Journal

Friday, August 18, 2017

Convicted Rapist Found Working Security for a Rape Counseling Center in California

Convicted Rapist Found Working Security for a Rape Counseling Center in California

People - Crime
By Christine Pelisek
Posted on August 16, 2017

A convicted rapist in California was recently found to be working security at a rape counseling center, PEOPLE confirms.

Police in Fresno, California, say they discovered that 40-year-old Damon Rodgers was working as a guard at Fresno’s Rape Counseling Services center after he posted on a security guard networking forum on Facebook asking about a sidearm holster for a .45-caliber handgun.

“At first, the reporting party was trying to help him out,” Fresno police detective Josh Alexander tells PEOPLE. “That’s how they originally started talking. Initially he was trying to help [Rodgers] out to get holstered, and then another guy said he is a convicted sex offender. He found [Rodgers] on the [California] Megan’s Law website.”

Rodgers was convicted in 1998 of two rapes in Madera County, California. He was released from prison in 2011.

Alexander, who monitors Fresno’s sex registrants, says the other security guard tipped him off on July 27.

Later that day, police pulled over Rodgers’ car after his shift at the center and found he was allegedly in possession of a gun and a switchblade, which as a felon he is prohibited to carry.

“He had the gun in a holster,” Alexander claims. “He said he had the gun for two weeks.”

Alexander alleges Rodgers weapon was not registered and loaded with nine .45-caliber slugs. The serial number had also been shaved off, he says.

“It was surprising to me,” he says. “Anytime we have a convicted sex offender who has a gun working at a rape crisis center, I would hope it would be cause for alarm for any law enforcement agency.”

Alexander says the security company that employed Rodgers, reportedly identified as Stone Protection Services, didn’t do a background check on him. “You take for granted they have gone through a clearance check,” he says.

Alexander says the rape center had no idea that a convicted sex offender worked there.

“They just went along with the security company they hired to work there,” he says. “If they had known who he was, they would have put a stop to it.”

Alexander says it is unclear how long Rodgers may have been working at the center or with the security company. Both the security company and the center didn’t return calls to PEOPLE for comment.

According to local TV station KFSN, California issued Rodgers a guard card last year but he used a slightly different name.

Rodgers has entered a plea of not guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon. He is held in the Fresno County Jail on $386,000 bail.

A hearing is scheduled for Aug. 30. His lawyer could not be reached for comment.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Spokeo Ruling Deals Blow To Cos. But May Have Silver Lining

Spokeo Ruling Deals Blow To Cos. But May Have Silver Lining

By Allison Grande

Law360, New York (August 15, 2017, 11:38 PM EDT) -- The Ninth Circuit's decision Tuesday that the harm stemming from an allegedly inaccurate consumer report published by Spokeo Inc. was concrete enough to establish standing gives class action plaintiffs a boost in their bids to block defendants from making quick exits, but the panel's fact-specific analysis may limit the ruling's broader application and leave companies with a stronger defense down the line, attorneys say.

The question of what statutory harms are sufficient to meet Article III's injury-in-fact requirement has been the topic of heated debate among the circuit courts since the U.S. Supreme Court last May issued its decision in the instant case. In that ruling, the justices found that plaintiffs must allege concrete harm and cannot rely on mere statutory violations to establish Article III standing. The high court remanded the dispute to the Ninth Circuit to decide if plaintiff Thomas Robins' Fair Credit Reporting Act claims met this concreteness standard.

In the latest data point in the standing conundrum, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel ruled Tuesday that Robins' claims did meet this standing bar, since he had alleged FCRA violations that clearly implicated his “concrete interests in truthful credit reporting" that Congress had solidified in enacting the statute.

"The Ninth Circuit's decision makes it clear that when you have a statutory violation plus consequences, even if they're not monetary damages, you can have standing," said Kevin McGinty, a member at Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC. "In these modern economic times, defendants tend to want to reduce harm to dollars and cents, but injury doesn't have to be pecuniary losses."

Attorneys on both sides of the bar said that they weren't surprised by the Ninth Circuit's ruling, given that the high court had declined to overturn the appellate court's initial decision to find standing in 2014 and the traditional tilt of the Ninth Circuit, which since Spokeo has issued rulings in Syed v. M-1 LLC and Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group that found standing exists for claims issued under the FCRA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, respectively.

"Rather than laying out a meaningful defense for companies facing statutory-based class actions under the FCRA or TCPA, as many initially hoped, the Supreme Court’s decision in practice has only established boxes for plaintiffs to check in their complaints in order to anticipate a Spokeo motion-to-dismiss challenge," Robins Kaplan LLP principal Michael Reif said. "In other words, even after the Supreme Court’s reluctance to find an injury-in-fact based merely on a statutory violation, plaintiffs are having some success pleading around the court’s decision by asserting both the concreteness and particularized nature of the injury they allegedly suffered."

Still, attorneys flagged Tuesday’s ruling as significant, noting that it sets a fairly low standing bar for claims of failing to ensure maximum possible accuracy in credit reports and is likely to tip the balance toward plaintiffs at least when it comes to similar statutory claims.

"It's definitely going to be more difficult in terms of defendants trying to challenge standing for statutory injury cases in the Ninth Circuit," said Hanley Chew, of counsel at Fenwick & West LLP.

In reacting to the ruling, Edelson PC founder Jay Edelson, who represented Robins, told Law360 that his side believed the Ninth Circuit had issued “what will be seen as the definitive decision articulating Article III standing in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

“Congress is allowed to define what constitutes an injury and pass a law, the violation of which can give rise to standing,” Edelson said. “The court firmly rejected the ‘something more’ doctrine that Spokeo has been pushing for years. As the court explained, litigants need not show ‘additional injury’ beyond what Congress has articulated.”

Plaintiffs attorney Jim Francis of Francis & Mailman PC, who specializes in FCRA class actions but was not involved in the Spokeo case, agreed that the Ninth Circuit's ruling follows both what the Supreme Court has instructed and what FCRA practitioners "have known for years": namely, that in passing the FCRA, Congress identified the substantive rights to be free from the reporting of inaccurate information and the protection of one's privacy.

"Any thoughtful or linear analysis of the claims asserted in Spokeo yields the same result as the Ninth Circuit," Francis said. "This decision is simply the application of existing long-standing precedent. Perhaps that is why there is no dissent."

However, not all attorneys agreed that the Ninth Circuit's ruling would have sweeping consequences that favored the plaintiffs.

"The significant question is whether the ruling will have implications beyond FCRA cases that allege a material misrepresentation of personal facts concerning the named plaintiffs," Carlton Fields shareholder Kristin Ann Shepard said. "When the Ninth Circuit went to address the concreteness of the injury, it looked at two things: the FCRA itself and its legislative history, and the common law of libel. That rationale lends [itself] to a rather narrow reading of the case."

When it comes to broader questions of standing for claims that aren't couched in libel or don't stem from statutory violations, such as those under the TCPA or Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act or those that arise in the wake of data breaches, the Ninth Circuit's ruling that inaccuracies in credit reports are sufficiently concrete for standing may not be applicable, according to attorneys.

"The decision affirms the concept that plaintiffs cannot simply get by [in these cases] by pointing to statutory violations and indicates that courts will likely be a little bit more analytical in terms of the facts alleged in each particular case and place greater emphasis on each plaintiff's specific allegations of harm or wrongdoing," Seyfarth Shaw LLP attorney Robert Szyba said.

The decision may not even be broad enough to automatically confer standing to all plaintiffs who go to the Ninth Circuit with FCRA claims, attorneys said, noting the Ninth Circuit's insistence that some harm must be alleged and that not every "minor inaccuracy reported in violation of the FCRA" would give rise to standing.

"To be sure, there are still some instances where a violation of the FCRA alone will not meet the standing requirement," Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP data security and privacy group chair Al Saikali said, pointing specifically to instances where the inaccuracy is "trivial."

Troutman Sanders LLP partners David Anthony and Cindy Hanson in a joint email noted the importance of the Ninth Circuit emphasizing that “in many instances, a plaintiff will not be able to show a concrete injury simply by alleging that a consumer-reporting agency failed to comply with one of the FCRA’s procedures," and that the consumer must rather show that the violation materially affected the consumer’s protected interests in accurate credit reporting.

"Courts will therefore have to analyze the 'nature of the specific alleged reporting inaccuracies' to ensure that the plaintiff has suffered a real risk of harm," they said.

Given the Ninth Circuit's fact-specific focus, courts will likely be tasked with deciding where the line is between FCRA injuries that constitute trivial inaccuracies that don't confer standing and more serious errors that do give rise to concrete harm, attorneys noted.

"The [Ninth Circuit] decision casts the test as whether the alleged procedural violation actually harms the concrete interest the procedural right is trying to protect," said Michael Rhodes, chair of Cooley’s privacy and data protection practice group. "But in practice that still leaves some discretion to the district courts facing the Article III standing inquiry since the Ninth Circuit doesn't offer much specific guidance on this point."

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP partner David Almeida added that while the Ninth Circuit concluded that not all reporting accuracies cause material harm, it "dropped the ball" by failing to explain how Robins' allegation that Spokeo published inaccurate information about him harmed his job prospects.

"This hypothetical harm would seem to fall well short of the Supreme Court’s Clapper analysis,” Almeida said, referring to the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Clapper v. Amnesty International that an injury must be “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent," and a future injury must be "certainly impending."

"Indeed,” Almeida said, “the Ninth Circuit disregarded Clapper entirely, which we think is clearly a mistake."

Ropes & Gray LLP counsel David T. Cohen agreed that the Ninth Circuit’s essential “end-run around Clapper” in holding that Congress can convert a material risk like a threat to Robins’ employment prospects into an actual injury to create standing without meeting the Clapper standard was “particularly remarkable and troubling.”

“This will make the decision very vulnerable at the Supreme Court,” Cohen said.

The Ninth Circuit's decision to find standing was likely "strongly colored" by the fact that Spokeo allegedly got a "number of important things" about Robins wrong, such as his age, marital status, wealth, education level and profession, as well as his photograph. But the panel's focus in its "very fact-dependent" decision on details such as the report being published, and its insistence that there must be “examination of the nature of the specific alleged reporting inaccuracies to ensure that they raise a real risk of harm," may give a boost to defendants, according to Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP partner Ezra D. Church.

"The emphasis on the need to examine the nature of the specific inaccuracies may be a silver lining for defendants, emphasizing that questions of standing may raise individualized issues that will be hard to adjudicate in a class action context," Church said.

Spokeo pointed to this potential side effect in its response to the ruling Tuesday, saying that the Ninth Circuit's endorsement of a fact-specific analysis of harm could "make it very difficult for the plaintiffs to meet the requirements for certifying a class action" since individualized inquiries would likely be necessary to make sure that every claimant met this standard.

In the meantime, attorneys expect the issue of standing to make its way back to the Supreme Court in the near future, especially given that the Ninth Circuit decision helps to deepen the divide with other circuits, most notably the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Groshek v. Time Warner Cable Inc., that have found standing for similar FCRA claims.

"We can expect this case to advance the debate [over standing], but not end it in any way," Wiley Rein LLP privacy practice chair Kirk Nahra said.

U.S. Circuit Judges Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Susan P. Graber and Carlos T. Bea decided the appeal.

Robins is represented by Jay Edelson, Rafey S. Balabanian, Ryan Andrews, Roger Perlstadt and J. Aaron Lawson of Edelson PC, and William Consovoy and Patrick Strawbridge of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC.

Spokeo is represented by Andrew J. Pincus, Donald M. Falk, John Nadolenco, Archis A. Parasharami, Stephen C.N. Lilley and Daniel E. Jones of Mayer Brown LLP.

The case is Thomas Robins v. Spokeo Inc., case number 11-56843, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

--Editing by Pamela Wilkinson and Breda Lund.


Lawsuit over false online data revived after U.S. top court review

Lawsuit over false online data revived after U.S. top court review

Jonathan Stempel
August 15, 2017 / 9:35 AM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a California man's lawsuit accusing Spokeo Inc of publishing an online profile about him that was filled with mistakes.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 in favor of Thomas Robins, 15 months after the U.S. Supreme Court asked it to more closely assess whether he suffered the "concrete and particularized" injury needed to justify a lawsuit.

Spokeo sells data aggregated from various databases to users including employers and people seeking romantic partners.

Robins sued after learning that his profile, which carried someone's else's photo, said he was married with children, affluent, in his 50s and employed, and had a graduate degree.

He said all of this was wrong, and accused Pasadena, California-based Spokeo of willfully violating the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, with potential damages of $1,000.

The case was significant because Robins tried to pursue a class action, which if successful could expose Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google and other online data providers to mass claims in similar lawsuits.

In a 6-2 decision in May 2016, the Supreme Court set aside an earlier 9th Circuit ruling favoring Robins, and asked the appeals court to review the severity of Robins' injury.

Justice Samuel Alito concluded that not all inaccuracies, such as a wrong postal code, could threaten real harm.

In Tuesday's decision, Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain said "it does not take much imagination" to surmise how Robins could have suffered real harm, given the importance of consumer reports to getting jobs, obtaining loans and buying homes.

The alleged errors "do not strike us as the sort of mere technical violations which are too insignificant to present a sincere risk of harm to the real-world interests that Congress chose to protect with FCRA," O'Scannlain wrote.

Spokeo said it will vigorously defend itself in court, and it believes the need to show individualized inaccuracies will make it "very difficult" to win class certification.

The Supreme Court decision has prompted some uncertainty, with lower courts dismissing some proposed class actions based only on technical violations, while letting other cases continue even when alleged harms were intangible.

"We're obviously very pleased," Jay Edelson, a lawyer for Robins, said in a phone interview. "This lays out exactly what the Supreme Court was getting at."

Robins' case drew support from the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which in a court brief said Spokeo fell short of seeking "maximum possible accuracy" in its reports.

The CFPB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Robins v Spokeo Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-56843.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York, additional reporting by Alison Frankel; editing by G Crosse


Tuesday, August 1, 2017

They trashed their wedding photographer over a $125 fee, so a jury told them to pay her $1 million

They trashed their wedding photographer over a $125 fee, so a jury told them to pay her $1 million

The Wasington Post
By Avi Selk
August 1 at 1:16 PM

An autumn affair at the Petroleum Club in downtown Dallas, the union of a full-time beauty blogger and the love of her life, appeared to be a gorgeous thing — marred by one misfortune.

Three months after the ceremony, in front of a local television crew, Andrew and Neely Moldovan showed off a box of empty picture frames.

Their photographer was withholding the images, they told NBC affiliate KXAS in January 2015, and was demanding an extra $150 when they’d already paid thousands.

“It’s heartbreaking, because, you know, these are our memories,” Neely Moldovan said.

And many agreed.

“Wedding photographer holds couple’s pictures hostage,” blared the Daily Mail a few days later.

The Moldovans’ sympathizers descended on photographer Andrea Polito’s review pages, calling her a scam artist, or worse.

Her reputation was ruined, her business dried up and she closed her studio.

And then the story changed.

Polito sued the Moldovans, claiming all they ever had to do to get their glossies was fill out a form, choose options for their wedding album and pay a small charge they had long known about.

The photographer showed the court emails in which she and her employees tried to appease the couple — even as the Moldovans were calling reporters, whipping up a furor on social media and plugging their newfound fame to fans of Neely Moldovan’s beauty blog, Polito said.

On Friday, a jury in Dallas decided that the tale of the ransomed wedding photos was not heartbreaking, and not even true.

In fact, the jurors concluded, the accusations amounted to malicious defamation, for which the Moldovans should pay the photographer more than $1 million in damages.

The Moldovans haven’t commented on the verdict, which they can still challenge. Neely Moldovan did not mention it to her thousands of followers in her latest blog post, which concerned post-pregnancy pore troubles.

But Polito, who hopes the jury’s decision will help her rebuild a ruined career, was happy to share her version of the saga with The Washington Post.

After more than a decade in the wedding photography business, she said, her studio was booked every weekend, months in advance, with couples from the poshest parts of Dallas and its suburbs.

When the future Mrs. Moldovan opened an order in early 2014, she struck Polito as a friendly, fairly typical client — “A 30 Something Dallas Lifestyle and Beauty Blogger,” as Moldovan describes herself on her website.

She and Polito worked out a schedule for engagement, rehearsal and wedding shoots in the months ahead.

Afterward, Polito said, she warned her studio manager: “She’s a blogger. Make sure everything looks perfect.”

Photographers from the studio shot the wedding ceremony that October, and the studio sent the couple proofs the next month, according to court records.

“She posted those all over social media,” Polito said.

And then Neely Moldovan began asking when she could have high-resolution versions of the photos.

Polito said her studio, like many, withholds high-res images until the entire wedding package is completed, culminating in the delivery of a custom wedding album, usually months after the wedding.

Otherwise, Polito said, “photographers will hand over the images and the bride disappears.”

Her studio explained as much to Neely Moldovan, she said, and asked her to fill out a form with her album options.

But November and December went by. Then New Year’s.

One week into 2015, the newlywed told her Twitter followers about the travails of choosing her photos.

“I’m finally getting around to filling this out,” she wrote to the studio the same day. “Do we pay extra for a cover?”

Yes, she did. Having already paid the studio thousands, Moldovan was not happy about this.

“She basically didn’t read her paperwork or contract,” Polito said. “She just couldn’t understand why she couldn’t have her high-res images. It’s in bold in our contract.”

A string of explanatory emails between the couple and the studio unfolded over the following days.

In the midst of this, Polito’s lawyers argued in court, Andrew and Neely Moldovan began emailing reporters across Dallas and beyond — promoting a looming news story to their friends and fans.

“I’m going apes‑‑‑ on our photographer,” Andrew Moldovan texted a friend on Jan. 12, 2015, according to transcripts Polito’s lawyer shared with The Post. “We want our f‑‑‑ing wedding album, which we already paid for.”

“We are hoping that our story makes the news and completely ruins her business,” Neely Moldovan wrote to someone the same day, according to court records.

Polito knew nothing about this, she said, until her studio manager texted her a screenshot of Neely Moldovan’s latest Instagram post: “No big deal NBC in our apt.”

Although she declined to appear on camera, Polito sent the local NBC reporter a page-long email: about albums and album covers, contracts, schedules and “a-la-carte items” the Moldovans had yet to pay for.

Almost none of that email appeared in the station’s first January broadcast, which focused on the Moldovans, their empty picture frames and memories held “hostage,” as the reporter put it, over a $150 album cover fee, which he said “the contract doesn’t mention anything about.”

Then, the station released a follow-up report a few days later, with many more details and a story not nearly so simple.

The NBC affiliate described months of conversation between the Moldovans and the studio. The minimum cost of an album cover was actually $125, and a wedding expert who had blasted Polito in the station’s first segment was now defending her after learning more about the case.

But it didn’t make much difference. “The damage had already been done,” Polito told The Post.

The Moldovans’ story was picked up across the United States and overseas.

Meanwhile, court records show, Neely and Andrew Moldovan were busy on social media, advancing the “hostage” narrative.

“Blatantly steals money from you all while holding your pictures ransom,” a user named Andrew wrote in a review of the Moldovans’ wedding shoot. The couple told the NBC station that people were impersonating them online, although Polito’s lawyers would argue otherwise in court.

“She’s done this to over 22 brides that have come forward,” Neely Moldovan wrote, according to a screenshot shared by Polito’s lawyer.

And in another message: “Pretty sure her business is done.”

So it was, Polito said.

The photographer had built her business — including a studio in downtown Dallas, with employees and contractors — largely on word of mouth, she told The Post.

“They can’t refer a bride when this is going on,” she said.

She told the court that only two clients were willing to sign with her after news stories ran, and she had to shut her studio down and start living off savings.

Her lawyers hired an analyst who estimated that she had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit by the time her 2015 lawsuit went to trial last week in Dallas County district court.

The trial had been long delayed. Accused of conspiracy, defamation and disparagement, the Moldovans tried to have the suit tossed and argued that Polito could not cite a single case of lost business, let alone prove that the couple had lied.

A lawyer for the Moldovans declined to comment on the case.

But a judge let the case go forward. And on Friday, the jury sided with Polito, whose complaint described the couple as “dead set in their pursuit of publicity and public shaming.”

After an afternoon of deliberation, a majority of jurors agreed that the Moldovans had defamed and disparaged Polito and her studio, and conspired to do so. The total price to make good was just over $1 million.

It’s not certain that Polito will ever see the money. Her lawyer, Dave Wishnew, said he expects the couple to challenge the verdict before a judge orders them to pay.

But for Polito, who said she hasn’t shot an event in years and has drained her savings and retirement accounts since the Moldovans took their complaints international, the verdict is vindication enough.

“For two and a half years I walked around my daughter’s school feeling ashamed and embarrassed,” she said. “They know I’ve won now.”


Sentence upheld for ex-celebrity private investigator Pellicano in wiretapping and racketeering case

Sentence upheld for ex-celebrity private investigator Pellicano in wiretapping and racketeering case
LA Times
By: Meg Bernhard
July 31, 2017

A U.S. district judge Monday upheld the 15-year prison sentence of former celebrity private investigator Anthony Pellicano, who was charged with illegal wiretapping and running a criminal enterprise.

Pellicano faced resentencing because of a technical error during his original 2008 trial, when the judge gave erroneous jury instructions for charges of aiding and abetting computer fraud and unauthorized computer access.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated those two charges in 2015 and ordered a resentencing. But the appellate court upheld more serious charges against Pellicano for running a criminal enterprise that illegally obtained police records and wiretapped celebrities so his clients could outmaneuver them in litigation.

At Monday’s hearing, U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer called the 15-year punishment “reasonable and sufficient,” ruling that the vacated counts had a marginal impact on the original sentence.

Pellicano appeared at the hearing via a video conference from the Terminal Island correctional facility in San Pedro, where he is incarcerated, because he feared losing his jail cell. He is expected to be released in March 2019. Pellicano must also undergo three years of supervision following his release.

Sitting at a table with a guard seated behind him, Pellicano, who did not request his own attorney, was quiet during the hearing, speaking only to address the judge with affirmative “yes, Ma'ams” when asked procedural questions.

After receiving his sentence, Pellicano said he would take no further action in court.

“I have no intention of appealing anything,” Pellicano said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Lally said the sentence was what prosecutors had sought. During his remarks, Lally accused Pellicano of subverting public institutions by obtaining confidential information through his racketeering enterprise.

Pellicano was originally convicted in 2008, after a widely watched trial gave a glimpse into the inner workings of Hollywood feuds.

Prosecutors said Pellicano bribed police officers to search law enforcement databases and phone companies to wiretap his clients’ opponents and listen to their most intimate conversations. According to prosecutors, Pellicano’s rates for the confidential information were expensive.

His clients included big-name celebrities and businessmen.

At the hearing, two of Pellicano’s victims, Jude Green and former Los Angeles Times reporter Anita Busch, implored the judge to uphold his 15-year sentence.

The investigation into Pellicano began in 2002, when Busch’s car was vandalized in an alleged attempt to intimidate her into not pursuing stories about former Hollywood super agent Michael Ovitz. Her windshield was broken and a dead fish and a rose were discovered inside the car, along with a sign that read “STOP.”

“He needs to stay in prison,” said Green, whom Pellicano’s agency spied on and threatened during a bitter divorce with her multi-millionaire husband, Leonard Green, in 2001, according to prosecutors.

When she spoke, Pellicano lifted his sunglasses and leaned forward, then raised his arms and turned to the guard behind him to ask her identity.

After the hearing, Green said she still feared Pellicano could retaliate and had taken a risk in coming to the federal courthouse in Los Angeles despite her sons urging that she stay away.

But Busch, whom Green had not met before Monday, said she convinced her to attend, and the two drove to court together sharing stories of their experience with Pellicano and how the private investigator had reshaped their lives.

In an interview, Busch said she lives in constant fear that Pellicano still could retaliate against her.

“It’s hard to live like this,” she said.