A prominent Breckenridge lawyer missing for more than a week may have fled to Brazil, and authorities are trying to account for money that he controlled, according to two sources close to the investigation into his disappearance.
One source said between $1 million and $1.5 million of money from several property sales is unaccounted for.

Breckenridge police are expected to issue an arrest warrant for Royal "Scoop" Daniel III as early as Wednesday, the sources said.

Daniel, 61, was last seen in his Breckenridge law office, located at 130 Ski Hill Road, early the morning of April 27. Later that day, after Daniel missed appointments, his office staff called police.

They found his glasses broken on the floor of his office, near one of his favorite pens, but no sign of the popular attorney. His beloved Golden Retriever, Ben — identified on his law firm's website as his "official greeter" — was also in the office, as were his keys. His car was parked outside.

The state Supreme Court's Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, which regulates lawyers in the state, has filed a petition for Daniel's immediate suspension today to protect the public, said John Gleason, the head of the regulation office.

Breckenridge Police Chief Rick Holman declined to comment on the status of the investigation this afternoon.

One source said investigators had many questions about how Daniel handled his clients' money. A forensic auditor was brought in to examine the accounts that Daniel controlled or to which he had access.

Another source said investigators were trying to locate between $1 million and $1.5 million that was generated by a series of real estate transactions known as "1031 exchanges" or "like-kind exchanges." Also known as "Starker exchanges," the sales are governed by section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Service code. They allow real estate investors to sell property and defer paying capital gains taxes by rolling the money into a new purchase within six months.

The exchanges are common, and the primary requirement is that the new piece of property cost as much, or more, as the one that was sold. But they do not have to be similar — and investor can sell a condominium complex and buy a warehouse, for example.

The law requires that the second purchase be made within 180 days of the sale.

Daniel acted as a fiduciary — the person who controlled the money between the transactions — in several recent sales, one of the sources said.

The website for Daniel's firm includes a section explaining his expertise in hanlding 1031 exchanges: "The Daniel Law Firm LLC is experienced and capable in acting as a Qualified Intermediary for taxpayers for so long as they are not already clients of the firm."

A divorced father of eight children, Daniel was well known in Breckenridge. He has been a memmber of Father Dyer United Methodist Church and sang in the choir. Friends said the lawyer often had financial problems because he didn't like to charge clients for work. He's also been known to help West Africans who work in the community obtain legal residency, and he has volunteered with a jail inmate ministry.

Daniel's disappearance sparked a massive search involving at least 100 volunteers who joined about 30 members of the Summit County Rescue Group. But neither they, nor bloodhounds, found any sign of him.

However, friends noted in the days after he vanished that he loved Brazil.

"He said many times that if he disappeared he'd go to Brazil," said Nancy Lovell, a former girlfriend, told the Summit Daily News.

Holman, the police chief, would not answer questions about Daniel, his whereabouts, or the status of the investigation.

"We are doing everything we can think of, and I think we owe that to the community, and we owe that to Mr. Daniel," Holman said. "Not for one minute do we think we have all the answers."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew L. Fish asked the judge to delay a prior court session because "the parties are very close to completing plea negotiations."

"The Government anticipates that both defendants will be ready to enter guilty pleas on May 10, 2007," Fish wrote.

The case is the largest yet in a renewed effort by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to root out fraud that puts average investors at a disadvantage in the stock market.

Securities enforcers are probing unusual trading patterns in many companies' stock and options shortly before merger and buyout offers. Dow Jones said last week that it had received inquiries from regulators interested in trades preceding News Corp.'s recent bid for the company.

The Collottas are among more than a dozen defendants nabbed in a widespread insider-trading ring in March. Law enforcement authorities singled out the Collottas because of their special role in protecting the integrity of investment banks and the market as a whole.

Randi Collotta once served as an associate in Morgan Stanley's global compliance division, where she had access to secret information about pending deals involving such clients as Macromedia, Catellus Development, and PacifiCare Health Systems, according to the grand jury indictment against her.

Rather than safeguard the information, however, Collotta passed it along to her husband, also a lawyer, who shared it with co-conspirators, prosecutors said.

Kenneth Breen, a lawyer for Randi Collotta, said yesterday that she would "address these charges in court." Brian Rafferty, a lawyer for Christopher Collotta, declined to comment.

Goodling has become a focus of congressional investigators because she played a central role in identifying eight U.S. attorneys who were fired last year. The latest disclosure that she also was involved in the hiring of assistant U.S. attorneys shed new light on her clout at the Justice Department and raised more questions about how the agency has operated under Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.

"This is a troubling assertion that, if true, suggests politics infected the most basic operations at the Justice Department," said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. "This only underscores our commitment to hear directly from Ms. Goodling about her role in this process, and at the Justice Department, to establish who should be held accountable."

The department's investigation, however, could delay the date when lawmakers hear from Goodling. Conyers' panel is trying to win a grant of immunity from prosecution for Goodling, who has said through her lawyer that she would assert her right against self-incrimination if called to testify.

But the Justice Department is unlikely to support immunity while its own probe is pending. The issue of immunity is ultimately decided by a federal judge. Justice Department officials are supposed to weigh in with a recommendation next week.

Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined to provide details about the investigation of Goodling, beyond a three-paragraph statement.

Goodling, the department said, is being investigated in connection with helping review candidates for career positions in certain U.S. attorneys' offices around the country.

The agency declined to say what "prohibited considerations" Goodling might have taken into account, but said that it is against policy and possibly federal law to consider "party affiliation" in deciding whether to hire a career lawyer.

According to people familiar with the investigation, who requested anonymity because the probe is ongoing, Goodling allegedly sought information about party affiliation while vetting applicants for assistant U.S. attorney positions.

Goodling has become a focus of the scandal because she was part of a group of young White House and Justice Department politicos with little or no prosecutorial experience who acted as gatekeepers for U.S. attorney positions. She had also worked in the department's public affairs office, and the office that oversees U.S. attorneys.

Her lawyer, John Dowd, declined to comment Wednesday.

Goodling's activities, the department said, were confined to offices that were headed by interim or acting U.S. attorneys.

The Justice Department has been criticized for using a little-known federal law to appoint interim U.S. attorneys, who do not require Senate confirmation. The practice has triggered allegations from Democrats that the administration is trying to circumvent long-standing checks and balances.

Interim and acting U.S. attorneys do not usually have the authority to hire personnel, the theory being that career prosecutors often outlast their political bosses, and should be selected only when the U.S. attorneys have been Senate-confirmed.

The Justice Department statement Wednesday indicated that the department had granted waivers to a number of those offices so they could hire personnel. But it declined to provide specifics.

Also Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued new subpoenas to Gonzales, seeking e-mails in the possession of the department involving presidential advisor Karl Rove.

White House officials said little about the subpoena except to reiterate their previous offer that Rove answer questions behind closed doors without a transcript.

"I know they like to get headlines more than they like to get the facts," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "But if there's still any interest in the facts up there, the easiest way is to simply accept our offer to have Karl and others in for interviews."

Though most claims were dismissed by the judge, the families still intend to pursue claims left standing.

Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton on Wednesday pledged to conduct an internal investigation to determine if police violated policy by using force to quell pro-immigration protesters.

Bratton said he had seen news footage showing a number of officers in riot gear striking protesters and some members of the media to the ground with batons, and others firing foam bullets into the crowd.

The incidents happened during a Tuesday rally in downtown Los Angeles.

"I regret and am, as are all of you, disturbed by the events so vividly depicted in the various news videos," Bratton told a press conference at the city hall.

"Police use of force in any context is always visibly and emotionally upsetting, even when necessary and lawful," the chief said.

"Our challenge in reviewing and investigating the actions of the police department ... and that of the public is to determine if that use of force was an appropriate response to the level of threat, disturbance and danger that they are encountering."

However, he is determined to meet the challenges, Bratton said.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) will create an "after-action report" to evaluate its handling of the event, and conduct a use-of-force investigation to determine if officers responded appropriately, he added.

Tuesday's rally by thousands of people calling for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants was peaceful until about about 6 p.m., when police tried to disperse some demonstrators who had moved off the sidewalk into Alvarado Street in the downtown area.

Some demonstrators responded by throwing plastic bottles and rocks at officers, police said. Several dozen riot police, wearing helmets and carrying batons, fired a few dozen volleys of foam bullets into the crowd.

The clashes injured 15 police officers and at least 10 demonstrators.

The Radio and Television News Association (RTNA) said earlier that "there is evidence that officers knocked reporters to the ground, used batons on photographers and damaged cameras, possibly motivated by anger over journalists photographing efforts by officers to control the movements of marchers."

An early version of the March order had authorized the officials to act without even having to consult the Attorney General, but the wording of the instrument was later revised at the urging of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, which was concerned about the constitutionality of such broad-brush delegation of power. An unnamed "senior executive branch official" quoted by the National Journal said of the order that it was "an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed similar concern over the root strategy apparently reflected in the order, saying in a statement Monday:

This development is highly troubling in what it seems to reveal about White House politicization of key appointees in the Department of Justice. The mass firing of U.S. attorneys appeared to be part of a systematic scheme to inject political influence into the hiring and firing decisions of key justice employees. This secret order would seem to be evidence of an effort to hardwire control over law enforcement by White House political operatives.

Leahy called for the order and its supporting materials to be formally turned over to the Senate and House Judiciary committees looking into the US Attorney firings.