For years I was at a loss as to why the Office of the Attorney General/ Charitable Trust Division was not aggressively pursuing the allegations brought forth to the Office over the years. I kept asking myself, are they even taking this case seriously? Am I wasting my time in submitting all the evidence I found?
Well, here are the answers to all my questions. Apparently in 2007, the WAO board of directors was given a “briefing” on how the Office was approaching the WAO case.
Now as you read the following, keep in mind the Texas Attorney General’s role is supposed to protect the public interest from predator scams.
From what I understand, Mr. James Anthony, Assistant Attorney General, met the WAO’s attorneys (which he was not obligated to do) and discussed his preliminary findings, issues being investigated, and how he planned to “resolve” the situation.
Mr. Anthony apparently told the WAO attorneys he wanted to “resolve” the issues quickly so he would not have to file a lawsuit against the WAO and have to take over the sanctuary. Mr. Anthony went as far as rescheduling an important meeting between himself and the WAO attorneys because, based on recent telephone conversations with the WAO attorneys, Mr. Anthony said the WAO appeared to be moving in the right direction and that rescheduling the meeting may even provide additional time for the WAO to demonstrate the changes to the WAO's operation were consistent with Mr. Anthony's discussions with the WAO attorneys! And this is called "investigative work?"
Oh, but it gets even better. In December 2006, the WAO attorney told the WAO directors that Mr. Anthony was "pleased" that everyone was working so well together, that the priority of this case was lowered. Mr. Anthony apparently went on to say that there were lots of other "fires" needing attention and the animal case was not on the top of his list!
Mr. Anthony also apparently confided to the WAO attorneys that there were some people in his office who believed he took far too “soft” approach in investigating this case, considering all the evidence in their possession.
The attorneys allegedly explained to the Board the three levels of “enforcement” Mr. Anthony could take against the WAO:
• Hardest: OAG files a lawsuit against the WAO’s board of directors for breach of fiduciary responsibility and deceptive trade practices; seeks interim court supervision; seeks damages, restitution, and payment to OAG for its investigation into the non-profit;
• Medium: OAG negotiates a settlement in the form of an Agreed Injunction, filed in Court, and serves as a legal instrument in pursing grounds of contempt of court if violated by the WAO board of directors, and seeks payment to OAG for its investigation into the non-profit;
• Softest: OAG negotiates a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which is not filed with the court, but is available by the public (Public Information Act) for review; and seeks payment to OAG for its investigation into the non-profit.
Gee, take a guess as to what “enforcement” action Mr. James Anthony decided to take against the WAO? Yep, you guess it - he's a softie. He made this decision BEFORE the investigation concluded. Mr. Anthony received the first batch of evidence from me in August 2006 and about five months later (January 2007) he was already negotiating a “settlement” with the WAO’s attorney. Mr. James Anthony also shared with the WAO attorneys that the fee to the OAG, for investigating this case, would be at least $25k but “hopefully” not much higher if the WAO adhered to the MOU or MOA. What investigation? I'm the one who did the investigation for them! They should pay ME the $25k for doing their job!
Let’s take a look at some of the WAO issues the OAG was “concerned” about:
1. Ron and Carol had control over the organization and its board of directors; simply put, there was no independent, informed board running the organization in accordance with the Non-Profit Corporations Act;
2. WAO assets were not used exclusively for the WAO—rather WAO assets were also used for the personal benefit for the Asvestas’ family;
3. The WAO website and newsletters violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
4. WAO lacked financial, corporate assets, and board activities records;
5. Ron and Carol Asvestas illegally and purposely misclassified workers as "contract employees" in order to avoid paying taxes (in violation of the FLSA and IRS regulations);
a. Ron had "contract" employees fill out WAO timesheets indicating times in/out and when they stopped for lunch;
b. "Contract" employees were given very specific instructions by Ron on specific tasks to be completed each day and the tasks were listed on the timesheets;
c. Some "contract" employees were paid end of years' Christmas bonuses;
d. Some "contact" employees were paid by the WAO to perform personal tasks for the Asvestas;
e. WAO management did not have "contact" employees complete I-9 sheets;
f. WAO only listed "contract" employees on the 2005 (revised) 990--no other 990 lists "contract" workers;
g. One of the contract employees may have been working illegally at the WAO;
h. Many of the "contract" employees had criminal records on file with the County.
6. Carol Asvestas falsified the organization’s tax returns (990s);
7. Ron and Carol Asvestas gave themselves end of year “Christmas bonuses” without the WAO board of directors' advance approval;
8. Ron and Carol Asvestas, both exempt employees, also paid themselves as “contract workers” for activities that fell within the purview of their duties and responsibilities – this violated the Fair Labor Standards Act;
9. Ron Asvestas allegedly accepted a $15k “loan” without the WAO Board of Director’s approval;
a. Ron Asvestas claimed the $15k was for unpaid salary due to him for supposedly working over 70 hours per week;
i. There was no documentation to prove his assertion that he was entitled to this “overtime pay” (again, he’s an exempt employee)
ii. There was no documentation (timesheets) proving the number of hours he worked or the projects he completed.
b. Apparently the $15k was to be used to pay the Asvestas’ IRS debt
i. Since Texas is a community possession state, both Ron AND Carol would benefit from accepting the $15k as the money was supposed to be used to pay off their IRS debt
ii. Board members cannot receive monies, not associated with WAO business, for personal gain.
10. Ron and Carol Asvestas falsified their WAO W-2 earning statements;
a. Corrective W-2 statements were sent to the IRS for Ron and Carol Asvestas for 2005 (think tax evasion) as they claimed a lot less than what they actually "earned"
b. This begs the question – did the Asvestas’ falsify additional W-2 statements going back 10 or more years?
11. Ron and Carol Asvestas took a significant number of “draws” against the WAO account and there appears to be no records on file showing all the “draws” were paid back—resulting in a loss of thousands of dollars WAO donation dollars;
12. Carol Asvestas instructed numerous community service workers, volunteers, and employees to accept checks made in their name, cash them at the WAO’s bank, and then give the cash to Carol Asvestas;
a. These checks’ memos said the payment was for “petty cash”
b. Carol Asvestas accepted thousands of dollars of these so-called “petty cash” without allegedly reimbursing the WAO.
13. Numerous checks were made out to HEB (local grocery store) and Wal-mart (grocery store) each month (generally over $130 per visit);
a. Previous employees indicated the WAO paid for the Asvestas’ groceries
b. WAO also paid for the Asvestas’ meals during the day (pizza and various other local “take-out” restaurants in the area (cash transactions)
c. For years, the WAO paid for Carol Asvestas’ daily coffee and cigarettes (items purchased at the Diamond Shamrock and Shell stores--cash or check transactions).
14. The WAO, for many years without board approval, paid for Ron Asvestas' life insurance premiums.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg for I haven’t even covered the animal issues!
I wonder, what it would have taken for Mr. James Anthony to have bumped up the enforcement level against the WAO to say "medium" or "hardest?" Murder? Oh, that's right...animals don't count in the eyes of the OAG.
What is equally disturbing is the fact that Mr. Anthony in 2006 wanted to know from the WAO's attorney if he knew what "put the bee" in "Kristina Brunner's bonnet." From what I understand the WAO attorney told Mr. Anthony he did not know, but would discuss the question with Ron and Carol before providing an answer to the question! Bee...Bonnet?? You have got to be kidding me? How about the Asvestas' violated multiple laws, for a start?
With the WAO attorney painting me as a "mean-spirited fanatic" to the WAO board of directors, and possibly the OAG office, it's no wonder this case was put on the back burner, left alone to boil over.
Next, I’ll be covering what the USDA does not want you to know when they made their deal with the WAO last summer.
Well, here are the answers to all my questions. Apparently in 2007, the WAO board of directors was given a “briefing” on how the Office was approaching the WAO case.
Now as you read the following, keep in mind the Texas Attorney General’s role is supposed to protect the public interest from predator scams.
From what I understand, Mr. James Anthony, Assistant Attorney General, met the WAO’s attorneys (which he was not obligated to do) and discussed his preliminary findings, issues being investigated, and how he planned to “resolve” the situation.
Mr. Anthony apparently told the WAO attorneys he wanted to “resolve” the issues quickly so he would not have to file a lawsuit against the WAO and have to take over the sanctuary. Mr. Anthony went as far as rescheduling an important meeting between himself and the WAO attorneys because, based on recent telephone conversations with the WAO attorneys, Mr. Anthony said the WAO appeared to be moving in the right direction and that rescheduling the meeting may even provide additional time for the WAO to demonstrate the changes to the WAO's operation were consistent with Mr. Anthony's discussions with the WAO attorneys! And this is called "investigative work?"
Oh, but it gets even better. In December 2006, the WAO attorney told the WAO directors that Mr. Anthony was "pleased" that everyone was working so well together, that the priority of this case was lowered. Mr. Anthony apparently went on to say that there were lots of other "fires" needing attention and the animal case was not on the top of his list!
Mr. Anthony also apparently confided to the WAO attorneys that there were some people in his office who believed he took far too “soft” approach in investigating this case, considering all the evidence in their possession.
The attorneys allegedly explained to the Board the three levels of “enforcement” Mr. Anthony could take against the WAO:
• Hardest: OAG files a lawsuit against the WAO’s board of directors for breach of fiduciary responsibility and deceptive trade practices; seeks interim court supervision; seeks damages, restitution, and payment to OAG for its investigation into the non-profit;
• Medium: OAG negotiates a settlement in the form of an Agreed Injunction, filed in Court, and serves as a legal instrument in pursing grounds of contempt of court if violated by the WAO board of directors, and seeks payment to OAG for its investigation into the non-profit;
• Softest: OAG negotiates a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which is not filed with the court, but is available by the public (Public Information Act) for review; and seeks payment to OAG for its investigation into the non-profit.
Gee, take a guess as to what “enforcement” action Mr. James Anthony decided to take against the WAO? Yep, you guess it - he's a softie. He made this decision BEFORE the investigation concluded. Mr. Anthony received the first batch of evidence from me in August 2006 and about five months later (January 2007) he was already negotiating a “settlement” with the WAO’s attorney. Mr. James Anthony also shared with the WAO attorneys that the fee to the OAG, for investigating this case, would be at least $25k but “hopefully” not much higher if the WAO adhered to the MOU or MOA. What investigation? I'm the one who did the investigation for them! They should pay ME the $25k for doing their job!
Let’s take a look at some of the WAO issues the OAG was “concerned” about:
1. Ron and Carol had control over the organization and its board of directors; simply put, there was no independent, informed board running the organization in accordance with the Non-Profit Corporations Act;
2. WAO assets were not used exclusively for the WAO—rather WAO assets were also used for the personal benefit for the Asvestas’ family;
3. The WAO website and newsletters violated the Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
4. WAO lacked financial, corporate assets, and board activities records;
5. Ron and Carol Asvestas illegally and purposely misclassified workers as "contract employees" in order to avoid paying taxes (in violation of the FLSA and IRS regulations);
a. Ron had "contract" employees fill out WAO timesheets indicating times in/out and when they stopped for lunch;
b. "Contract" employees were given very specific instructions by Ron on specific tasks to be completed each day and the tasks were listed on the timesheets;
c. Some "contract" employees were paid end of years' Christmas bonuses;
d. Some "contact" employees were paid by the WAO to perform personal tasks for the Asvestas;
e. WAO management did not have "contact" employees complete I-9 sheets;
f. WAO only listed "contract" employees on the 2005 (revised) 990--no other 990 lists "contract" workers;
g. One of the contract employees may have been working illegally at the WAO;
h. Many of the "contract" employees had criminal records on file with the County.
6. Carol Asvestas falsified the organization’s tax returns (990s);
7. Ron and Carol Asvestas gave themselves end of year “Christmas bonuses” without the WAO board of directors' advance approval;
8. Ron and Carol Asvestas, both exempt employees, also paid themselves as “contract workers” for activities that fell within the purview of their duties and responsibilities – this violated the Fair Labor Standards Act;
9. Ron Asvestas allegedly accepted a $15k “loan” without the WAO Board of Director’s approval;
a. Ron Asvestas claimed the $15k was for unpaid salary due to him for supposedly working over 70 hours per week;
i. There was no documentation to prove his assertion that he was entitled to this “overtime pay” (again, he’s an exempt employee)
ii. There was no documentation (timesheets) proving the number of hours he worked or the projects he completed.
b. Apparently the $15k was to be used to pay the Asvestas’ IRS debt
i. Since Texas is a community possession state, both Ron AND Carol would benefit from accepting the $15k as the money was supposed to be used to pay off their IRS debt
ii. Board members cannot receive monies, not associated with WAO business, for personal gain.
10. Ron and Carol Asvestas falsified their WAO W-2 earning statements;
a. Corrective W-2 statements were sent to the IRS for Ron and Carol Asvestas for 2005 (think tax evasion) as they claimed a lot less than what they actually "earned"
b. This begs the question – did the Asvestas’ falsify additional W-2 statements going back 10 or more years?
11. Ron and Carol Asvestas took a significant number of “draws” against the WAO account and there appears to be no records on file showing all the “draws” were paid back—resulting in a loss of thousands of dollars WAO donation dollars;
12. Carol Asvestas instructed numerous community service workers, volunteers, and employees to accept checks made in their name, cash them at the WAO’s bank, and then give the cash to Carol Asvestas;
a. These checks’ memos said the payment was for “petty cash”
b. Carol Asvestas accepted thousands of dollars of these so-called “petty cash” without allegedly reimbursing the WAO.
13. Numerous checks were made out to HEB (local grocery store) and Wal-mart (grocery store) each month (generally over $130 per visit);
a. Previous employees indicated the WAO paid for the Asvestas’ groceries
b. WAO also paid for the Asvestas’ meals during the day (pizza and various other local “take-out” restaurants in the area (cash transactions)
c. For years, the WAO paid for Carol Asvestas’ daily coffee and cigarettes (items purchased at the Diamond Shamrock and Shell stores--cash or check transactions).
14. The WAO, for many years without board approval, paid for Ron Asvestas' life insurance premiums.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg for I haven’t even covered the animal issues!
I wonder, what it would have taken for Mr. James Anthony to have bumped up the enforcement level against the WAO to say "medium" or "hardest?" Murder? Oh, that's right...animals don't count in the eyes of the OAG.
What is equally disturbing is the fact that Mr. Anthony in 2006 wanted to know from the WAO's attorney if he knew what "put the bee" in "Kristina Brunner's bonnet." From what I understand the WAO attorney told Mr. Anthony he did not know, but would discuss the question with Ron and Carol before providing an answer to the question! Bee...Bonnet?? You have got to be kidding me? How about the Asvestas' violated multiple laws, for a start?
With the WAO attorney painting me as a "mean-spirited fanatic" to the WAO board of directors, and possibly the OAG office, it's no wonder this case was put on the back burner, left alone to boil over.
Next, I’ll be covering what the USDA does not want you to know when they made their deal with the WAO last summer.
No comments:
Post a Comment