Electronically Filed

5/30/2018 10:23 AM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

1 COM
Craig A. Mueller, Esq.
2 Nevada Bar No. 4703
600 South Eighth Street
3
Las Vegas, NV 89101
4 P: (702) 940-1234
F: (702) 940-1235
5
civil@muellerhinds.com
6 In Proper Person
DISTRICT COURT
7 CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
8 A-18-775255-C
Craig A. Mueller, individually and on ) Case No.:
9 behalf of the Committee to Elect Craig ) Dept. No: Department 16
10 Mueller, an unincorporated political )
association, ) COMPLAINT
11 Plaintiff )
12 ) Exempt from Arbitration
vs. )
13 ) Action Involving Public Election
14 Wes Duncan, an individual; Committee to )
Elect Wes Duncan, an unincorporated ) 1. Violation of Nevada Racketeer
15 political association; and DOES I through ) Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act:
X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through X ) Extortion
16
Defendants. )
17 ) 2. Request for Injunctive Relief
)
18
)
19 )
20
21 COMES NOW Plaintiff, Craig A. Mueller, individually and on behalf of the Committee to
22 Elect Craig Mueller, in proper person, for his causes of actions against Defendants Wes Duncan
23
individually and the Committee to Elect Wes Duncan, allege as follows:
24
25
///
26
27
///
28

Complaint – 1

Case Number: A-18-775255-C

 1 VENUE

2
1. That at all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff Craig Mueller is and was a resident of Clark
3
County, State of Nevada.
4
5
2. That at all times pertinent hereto, the Committee to Elect Craig Mueller is and was an
6
unincorporated political association, to wit: a personal campaign committee, created for
7
the purpose of assisting Plaintiff Craig A. Mueller in the 2018 Nevada statewide election
8
for Attorney General.
9
10
3. That at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Wes Duncan is and was a resident of Clark
11
County, State of Nevada.
12
13 4. That at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Committee to Elect Wes Duncan is and was
14 an unincorporated political association, to wit: a personal campaign committee, created
15 for the purpose of assisting Defendant Wes Duncan in the 2018 Nevada statewide
16 election for Attorney General.
17
5. That at all times pertinent hereto, the actions of Defendant Committee to Elect Wes
18
Duncan were undertaken with full and complete actual authority as an agent or
19
representative of Defendant Wes Duncan.
20
21 6. That at all times pertinent hereto, the actions of Defendant Wes Duncan was undertaken
22 in the capacity as owner/operator of Defendant Committee to Elect Wes Duncan.
23
24 7. That the following alleged incidents occurred in Clark County, Nevada.
25
26 8. The true names and capacities of Defendants DOES I through X and/or ROES I through X,
27 whether individual, company, associate, or otherwise, are unknown to the Plaintiff at the
28 time of filing of this Complaint, and Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such

Complaint – 2
 1 fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed, believes and therefore alleges that each of the
Defendants, designated as DOES I through X and/or ROES I through X are or may be,
2
legally responsible for the events referred to in this action, and caused damages to the
3
Plaintiff, as herein alleged, and Plaintiff will ask leave of this Court to amend the
4
Complaint to insert the true names and capacities of such Defendants, when the same
5
have been ascertained, and to join them in this action, together with the proper charges
6
and allegations.
7
8 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
9
10 9. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants pursuant to Nevada’s Racketeer Influenced
11 and Corrupt Organizations Act (“Nevada RICO”) as set forth in NRS 207.350-.520,
12 inclusive.
13
14 10. That Plaintiff is legislatively afforded a private right of action for Nevada RICO violations
15 committed by Defendants per NRS 207.470.
16
11. That Plaintiff is lawfully entitled to bring his action in the Eighth Judicial District Court of
17
Clark County, Nevada (see Paragraphs 1-8, supra).
18
19
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
20
21
12. From January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017, Defendant Wes Duncan was employed in the
22
Nevada Attorney General’s Office as “First Assistant Attorney General” (see Exhibit 1,
23
Candidate Biography published by Committee to Elect Wes Duncan).
24
25
13. As part of his official duties as First Assistant Attorney General, Defendant Wes Duncan
26
had supervisory and authoritative power over “400 personnel in five different offices
27
across the state,” to wit:
28

Complaint – 3
 1 a. Bureau of Consumer Protection;
b. Bureau of Criminal Justice;
2
c. Bureau of Litigation;
3
d. Boards and Commissions; and
4
e. Bureau of Government Affairs.
5
6
14. As part of his official duties as First Assistant Attorney General, Defendant Wes Duncan
7
held regulatory power and authority over various departments within the Attorney
8
General Bureau of Government Affairs, to wit:
9
a. Government and Natural Resources;
10
b. Gaming Division;
11
c. Business and Taxation;
12
d. Boards and Licensing;
13
e. Health and Human Services; and
14
f. Transportation Division.
15
16
15. As part of his official duties as First Assistant Attorney General, Defendant Wes Duncan
17
held regulatory, supervisory and/or disciplinary authority over a multitude of businesses
18
and entities in the State of Nevada, including (but not limited to):
19
a. Prosecuting disciplinary cases against business licensees through the Business
20 and Taxation Division of the Nevada Attorney General’s Office;
21 b. Assisting the “regulatory rule-making process” through the Business and Taxation
22 Division of the Nevada Attorney General’s Office;
23 c. Regulating “Energy,” “Natural Resources” and “Environmental Protection”
24 through the Government and Natural Resources Division of the Nevada Attorney
25 General’s Office;
26 d. Representing the Nevada Gaming Commission through the Gaming Division of the
27 Nevada Attorney General’s Office;
28

Complaint – 4
 1 e. Representing the State Gaming Control board through the Gaming Division of the
Nevada Attorney General’s Office;
2
f. Representing the Nevada Gaming Policy Committee through the Gaming Division
3
of the Nevada Attorney General’s Office;
4
g. Prosecuting and overseeing disciplinary actions brought against gaming licensees
5
for violations of gaming regulations and statutes through the Gaming Division of
6
the Nevada Attorney General’s Office;
7
h. Litigating disputes regarding payment of taxes and fees of gaming licensees
8
through the Gaming Division of the Nevada Attorney General’s Office.
9
10
16. From January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017, Defendant Wes Duncan exercised actual
11
regulatory and/or disciplinary authority over Nevada businesses, public utility
12
companies, and gaming licensees as outlined above.
13
14
17. From January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017, Defendant Wes Duncan had not yet officially
15
declared his candidacy for the 2018 statewide Attorney General election.
16
17 18. From January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017, Defendant Wes Duncan solicited campaign
18 contributions from the very businesses which he held regulatory and/or disciplinary
19 authority over by virtue of his position as First Assistant Attorney General, as outlined
20 above (see Exhibit 2, Wesley Karl Duncan Contributions and Expenses Report).
21
19. Despite actual knowledge that he held regulatory and/or disciplinary authority over
22
Nevada businesses, public utility companies, and gaming licensees as outlined above,
23
Defendant Wes Duncan solicited campaign contributions from these businesses and
24
entities during the time he held said position of authority from January 1, 2017 to August
25
31, 2017, including (non-exhaustive list):
26
a. Marnell Gaming LLC Nugget Sparks ($5,000 contribution, 02/16/2017);
27
b. Comcast Corporation ($1,000 contribution, 03/15/2017);
28
c. Station Casinos Green Valley Ranch ($2,000 contribution, 03/27/2017);
Complaint – 5
 1 d. Station Casinos Sunset Station ($2,000 contribution, 03/27/2017);
e. Station Casino Red Rock Resort and Spa ($2,000 contribution, 03/27/2017);
2
f. Station Casino Palace Station ($2,000 contribution, 03/27/2017);
3
g. Station Casino Texas Station ($2,000 contribution, 03/27/2017);
4
h. Nevada Power Company d/b/a NV Energy ($1,000 contribution, 04/17/2017);
5
i. Resort World Las Vegas ($5,000 contribution, 04/27/2017);
6
j. Southwest Gas ($5,000 contribution, 05/04/2017);
7
k. Cooper Roofing and Solar ($5,000 contribution, 05/09/2017);
8
l. Eye and Cosmetic Surgery Center ($10,000 contribution, 05/22/2017);
9
m. AT&T Services ($2,500 contribution, 06/28/2017);
10
n. Pacific Dental Services ($2,500 contribution, 07/19/2017);
11
o. Palace Station Hotel and Casino ($2,000 contribution, 08/14/2017);
12
p. Station Casinos Green Valley Ranch ($2,000 contribution, 08/15/17); and
13
q. Station Casino Sunset Station ($2,000 contribution, 08/15/2017).
14
15
20. Defendant Wes Duncan solicited campaign contributions from business and entities over
16
which he had direct disciplinary and regulatory authority, including the potential for
17
adverse action against said business and entities, by virtue of his position as First
18
Assistant Attorney General.
19
20 21. Defendant Wes Duncan solicited campaign contributions from business and entities over
21 which he had direct disciplinary and regulatory authority during a period that he was
22 actively capable of exercising such authority in an adverse manner against said
23 businesses and entities.
24
25 22. Upon information and belief, the campaign contributions described above as well as the
26 additional contributions set forth in Exhibit 2 were received by Defendant Committee to
27 Elect Wes Duncan;
28

Complaint – 6
 1 23. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wes Duncan was acting as an operator or
manager, or otherwise with direct representative capacity, of Defendant Committee to
2
Elect Wes Duncan.
3
4
24. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wes Duncan was successful in soliciting
5
$190,000 from businesses or entities over which he had direct disciplinary and
6 regulatory authority during a period that he was actively capable of exercising such
7 authority in an adverse manner against said businesses and entities (see Exhibit 3, Las
8 Vegas Review Journal Exposé).
9
10 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
11 Violation of NRS 207.360
12 Nevada Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act: Extortion
13
14 25. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 as though fully set
15 forth herein.
16
17 26. That Defendants committed a Racketeering Offense, to wit: Extortion, in violation of NRS
18 207.360(10):
19 a. Defendant Wes Duncan is a “Public Officer” within the meaning ascribed by NRS
20 281A.160(1)(a);
21 b. NRS 197.170, titled “Extortion by Public Officer or Employee,” punishes “A public
22 officer or employee who: (1) Asks, receives or agrees to receive a fee or other
23 compensation for official service or employment either: (a) In excess of the fee or

24 compensation allowed by statute therefor; or (b) Where a fee or compensation is

25 not allowed by statute therefor; or (2) Requests money, property or anything of

26 value which is not authorized by law, from any person regulated by the public

27 officer or employee, and in a manner which would cause a reasonable person to

28

Complaint – 7
 1 be intimidated into complying with the request to avoid the risk of adverse action
by the public officer or employee.”
2
c. A person who violates the prohibition set forth in NRS 197.170 is guilty of a
3
Category D Felony;
4
d. In soliciting campaign contributions from business and entities over which he had
5
direct disciplinary and regulatory authority during a period that he was actively
6
capable of exercising such authority in an adverse manner against said businesses
7
and entities, Defendants requested “money, property or anything of value which is
8
not authorized by law” from a person directly “regulated by the public officer
9
[Defendant Wes Duncan]” in a manner “which would cause a reasonable person to
10
be intimidated into comply with the request to avoid adverse action” by
11
Defendants;
12
e. Defendants therefore violated the prohibition set forth in NRS 197.170 each and
13
every time Defendant solicited a campaign contribution from said businesses and
14
entities while holding the position of First Assistant Attorney General, with each
15
transaction constituting a separate offense.
16
17
27. NRS 207.360(10) defines “Extortion” as a “Crime Related to Racketeering.”
18
19
28. Pursuant to NRS 207.360(10), Defendants’ numerous violations of NRS 197.170
20 constitutes Racketeering Activity within the meaning ascribed in NRS 207.390.
21
22 29. That said violations of NRS 207.360(10) was undertaken willfully or with actual
23 knowledge by Defendants.

24
30. That Defendant Committee to Elect Wes Duncan is an “enterprise” within the meaning
25
ascribed in NRS 207.380(2) as an “association or other group of persons associated in
26
fact.”
27
28

Complaint – 8
 1 31. That Wes Duncan is a person who manages the operations and affairs of Defendant
Committee to Elect Wes Duncan.
2
3
32. That in the alternative, Defendant Wes Duncan is also an “enterprise” within the meaning
4
ascribed in NRS 207.380(1) as a “natural person.”
5
6
33. That Defendants agreed to and did in fact conduct and participate in the conduct of the
7
enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of continuous and related Racketeering Activity in a
8
closed-ended scheme from January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017, to wit:
9
a. Each violation of NRS 207.360(10), which occurred each and every time
10
Defendants unlawfully solicited campaign contributions from businesses and
11
entities while in a position of adverse authority over said businesses and entities,
12
was undertaken with the same or similar purpose, results, participants, and
13
methods of commission;
14
b. Each violation of NRS 207.360(10) was continuous from the period of January 1,
15
2017 to August 31, 2017;
16
c. Each violation of NRS 207.360(10) was ordered and arranged as part of a
17
common plan or scheme.
18
19
34. That Defendants individually and collectively directly and indirectly participated in the
20
conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through the pattern of Racketeering Activity as
21 described above.
22
23 35. That the Racketeering Activity of Defendants constitutes an unlawful act punishable
24 pursuant to NRS 207.400(1)(a)-(c), 207.400(1)(i) and 207.400(1)(j).
25
26 36. That Plaintiff has suffered an injury to his business or property, including the deprivation
27 of a legal entitlement to business relations unhampered by schemes prohibited by the
28 Nevada RICO predicate statute.

Complaint – 9
 1
37. That Plaintiff has suffered an injury to his business or property, including interference
2
with prospective business relations.
3
4 38. That Plaintiff has suffered an injury to his business or property, including interference
5 with prospective employment.
6
39. That Plaintiff’s injuries were directly and proximately caused by Defendant’s
7
Racketeering Activity in violation of Nevada law, to wit:
8
a. Plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred but for the illegal conduct of
9
Defendants;
10
b. Plaintiff’s injury is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the illegal conduct of
11
Defendants.
12
c. Plaintiff’s injury is incurred by reason of the illegal conduct of Defendants.
13
14
40. That Defendants have intentionally conspired and agreed to use income that was derived
15
from a pattern of Racketeering Activity; that Defendants, and each of them, knew that
16
their predicate acts were part of a pattern of Racketeering Activity and agreed to the
17
commission of those acts to further the schemes described above.
18
19
41. That Defendants, and each of them, have enjoyed and continue to enjoy the benefits of
20 financial contributions unlawfully obtained in violation of NRS 207.360(10) and NRS
21 207.400.
22
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24 Request for Injunctive Relief
25
26 42. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 as though fully set forth
27 herein.
28

Complaint – 10
 1 43. That a justifiable controversy exists between Defendants, who continue to enjoy the
benefits of their unlawful conduct, and Plaintiff, who continues to be injured by
2
Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
3
4
44. That Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction prohibiting Defendants from expending the
5
financial gains unlawfully obtained as a result of the extortion described above.
6
7
45. That Defendants’ use of financial gains unlawfully obtained as a result of extortion
8
threatens to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff.
9
10
46. That Defendants are, or are about to, expend the financial gains unlawfully obtained as a
11
result of the extortion described above in violation of the Plaintiff’s rights respecting the
12
subject of the instant action, and thereby tending to render a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor
13
ineffectual.
14
///
15
16
17
///
18
19
20
///
21
22
23
///
24
25
26
///
27
28

Complaint – 11