Skip to comments.Reply from the $100,000. fence-donor to Chris Simcox
Posted on 11/08/2009 4:42:37 AM PST by Jim Campbell
Draft Indictment naming those individuals who participated in the MCDC Fence Project
(Originally submitted November 23, 2008, and
thereafter amended October 25, 2009)
The following draft indictment is based solely on prosecution under: CHAPTER TWO - Offense Conduct, Part B- Basic Economic Offenses, §2B1.1. Fraud & Deceit and/or 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for fraud involving the deprivation of the intangible right of honest services. All of the necessary elements are included. Many of these elements were included in my Arizona state court civil complaint which I drafted and filed pro se back in May, 2007. If I were able to file a criminal complaint, this is how I would do it. I dont believe that I have left out anything nor would anyone responsible for the drafting of an indictment have to struggle to get through the myriads of documents which I have submitted thus far. I have done this persons work for them! Its just a matter of putting things in good order.
-Jim Campbell, $100K donor to MCDC Fence Project May, 2006.
At all times relevant hereto:
1. The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) was established in 2005, by Defendant CHRIS SIMCOX and its headquarters were located in Scottsdale, Arizona. Defendant SIMCOX became its self-appointed leader and has remained in that capacity up to the present, and had a fiduciary duty to provide honest services to not only the members of the MCDC, but to the General Public (from whom donations to the MCDC Border Fence Project were solicited), as well. The MCDC became a project of Declaration Alliance in or about, April, 2005.
2. Declaration Alliance, doing business out of Reston, VA, took over the control of the MCDC (i.e.: The MCDC became a project of Declaration Alliance.) and provided, among other things, oversight, public relations, the public solicitation and the receipt of donations, and the accounting thereof, etc. for the MCDC.
3. Defendant CARMEN MERCER was the Vice President of the MCDC and the President of a non-profit entity identified as the Minuteman Foundation, Inc. This entity was created by both Defendants MERCER and LEWIS in December, 2005. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant MERCER acted as President and Defendant LEWIS acted as Treasurer of said entity. In addition, Defendant MERCER took on the responsibility of helping to coordinate day-to-day fence- building efforts as well.
4. Defendant MARY PARKER LEWIS was President of Declaration Alliance, Secretary of Declaration Foundation and Treasurer of the Minuteman Foundation, Inc. Defendant LEWIS had responsibility for the oversight of the MCDC, Diener Consultants, and the border fence project.
5. Defendant PHILLIP SHELDON was President of Diener Consultants and worked out of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Diener Consultants contracted with Declaration Alliance to do public relations work for the MCDC.
6. Defendant PETER KUNZ, as an independent contractor, worked under the supervision of Defendant PHILLIP SHELDON out of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and has (at all times relevant here to) been the MCDC Fence Project Manager.
Between in or about December 30, 2005, and continuing to at least June, 2008, at Scottsdale, Arizona, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and Reston, Virginia in the District of Arizona, and elsewhere,
MARY PARKER LEWIS,
the defendants herein, together and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury (collectively the co-conspirators), knowingly devised, intended to devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud the General Public of money and property and of of the intangible right to the honest services of the General Public, and to obtain money and property from the General Public by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises and material omissions, which scheme is further described below.
It was part of the scheme that:
1.-On April 19, 2006, via electronic mail transmission from Minuteman Headquarters, Defendant SIMCOX publicly announced that the MCDC would begin construction of a border fence to be entitled: Minuteman Border Fence. There then began the solicitation of donations from the General Public. Defendant SIMCOX further stated that all fence-funds would be caged in a designated 571 account. Thereafter, as donations began to come in, the MCDC Media Director made frequent public announcements of the amounts brought in. This continued up until on, or about, May 27, 2006, when a donor identified as Mr. Jim Campbell formalized his previously-announced $100,000. donation at a ground breaking ceremony. Thereafter, despite numerous requests for a fence accounting there have never been any announcements, explanations, or accounting of donations received or their disposition, nor has there ever been any disclosure of the amounts serving to offset these donations.
2.-It has been determined that fence donations have been directed to at least two different entities: Declaration Foundation and the Minuteman Foundation, Inc. It was disclosed to the General Public that certain fence donations in this 571 account would be directed to Declaration Foundation. As to the Minuteman Foundation, Inc., the existence of that entity has remained a secret, thereby ruling out any public inquiry as to fence funds directed to that organization. All of the defendants identified herein have known about the existence of this entity, but have remained silent as to its existence.
3.-Upon discovery of the existence of the Minuteman Foundation, Inc. and the financial documents required to be submitted to the IRS by it and Declaration Foundation as well, it has been determined that these financial documents revealed that only a small portion of the donation amounts revealed in these financial documents went towards direct, fence-related construction expenses. This, despite the promotion of this fraudulent scheme through frequent public announcements which conveyed the false impression to the General Public of only gross donation figures while failing to mention the fact that these gross figures would be offset by excessive expenses directly benefiting the fraudulent scheme promoters. In large measure, these excessive expenses, plus the public controversy surrounding the lack of transparency of fence financials, led directly to the ultimate failure and abandonment of this border fence project in February, 2007.
4.-On April 24, 2006, Defendant KUNZ (with or without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the other named defendants) caused to be established a domain and an active, public website entitled Minuteman Border Fence Scheme. (This website included as its homepage the same colorful homepage of, as well as an active donation link to the donation page of, the designated MCDC Border Fence Project website.) By Defendant KUNZs decision to effectively characterize the just-announced border fence project as a scheme, the defendant effectively trivialized and brought into question the legitimacy of this border fence project. This creation represented a conscious, pre-meditated, contemplation of actual or foreseeable harm to, and a contempt for, his intended victims: members of the General Public from which donations were to be solicited. Defendant Kunzs decision to create a domain so entitled clearly and undeniably demonstrates a malice aforethought, a thought and intention to commit a crime well in advance of the crime, which goes to show criminal intent to expose his contemplated victims to reasonably foreseeable economic harm.
5. On April 23, 2006, Defendant KUNZ caused to be established an active, public website entitled Minuteman Fence Fund (use Minuteman Fence Fund to find the site.). The existence of this website has never before been revealed by any of the defendants named herein. The domain for #2 below (Minutemanborderfenceproject.com) was caused to be established by Diener Consultants, Inc. on April 24, 2006. The home page of this website contains a left-hand index column. By selecting each option below, the following individual page titles are revealed:
1. Home: Minuteman Border Fence Fund
2. Border Fence Project: Minuteman Border Fence Project
3. Security Donations: Minuteman Project Fence Donations
4. Contact Us: Minuteman Border Security Fence
5. Fax Blast Capitol Hill: Minuteman Security Fence Fund
6. Site Map: Minuteman Fence Fund Project
7. Site Map: Border Security Fence Project
On May 3, 2008, Defendant KUNZ, (disguised as MMTruth), via electronic media (i.e.: the MCDC Forum, which was owned and operated by Diener Consultants) publicly asserted that:
1) No one knows who MMTruth is. Many think they have some sort of clairvoyant ability to divine who I am however I think they should stick to looking for water with a forked stick. I am here to correct lies, innuendo and nutty conclusions. . .
2) minutemanfencefund.com is not owned by Diener Consultants or anyone associated with MCDC. It does not collect donations for MCDC or the Minuteman Border Fence.
These were false exculpatory statements as well as a breach of Defendant KUNZs fiduciary duty as the Fence Project Manager to acknowledge his true identity and provide truthful replies to those forum members who were asking legitimate questions of him in his capacity as the Fence Project Manager. Thereafter, Defendant KUNZ no longer attempted to respond to further questions/challenges posed by MCDC Forum members, and on May 5, 2008, Defendant KUNZ locked the thread, and immediately deleted every post on that thread which dealt with challenges to his personal integrity and/or the legitimacy of the border fence project. Defendant Kunzs last statement to all of the Forum members was: One final answer. MMTruth is not Peter Kunz.
6.-At sometime between April 24, 2006, and May 4, 2008, Defendant KUNZ caused the appearance of the Minuteman Fence Fund website to be altered. One of the purposes for so doing was to hide the fact that it once contained the following information excerpted from the website description: Donate to the Minuteman Fence Fund, it was established as a non-profit organization to help stop Mexican illegal immigration into the united states to help secure and protect U.S. Mexico border from criminals and terrorists. (aboutus.org/MinutemanFenceFund.com)Neither the existence of the Minuteman Fence Fund, nor its status as a non-profit organization, have ever been revealed or acknowledged by any of the defendants named herein.
7.-In three separate, public pronouncements between 04/19/06, and 4/28/06, Defendant SIMCOX caused to be stated via electronic mail transmissions from Minuteman Headquarters (in effect) that six or a half-dozen landowners along the Arizona-Mexico border had said that they will allow fencing to be placed on their borderlands or that six private landowners had partnered with the Minutemen. Every donor thereafter would then have reason to place detrimental reliance on these various statements in their decisions to donate to the border fence project. (Until such date as it finally became apparent that Defendant SIMCOX had merely been lying to everyone in a effort to gain financial support for the fraudulent scheme.)
8.-On or about May 19, 2006, having seen the media announcements of a half-dozen landowners partnering with the MCDC and realizing the huge impetus that such a large group of partnering landowners would have towards the successful start to the border fence project, a donor previously identified herein as Jim Campbell stepped forward and offered to contribute financially to help this border fence project succeed. Mr. Campbell was directed to Defendant KUNZ, who was identified as the Fence Project Manager. Defendant KUNZ represented to Mr. Campbell during the first of a total of two interstate telephone calls, that the border frontage owned by a Mr. Jack and a Mr. John Ladd would be the site upon which the model of the Israeli-style fence would be constructed. The Ladds owned and/or leased a total of 10 miles of border frontage upon which it was also represented to Mr. Campbell by Defendant KUNZ that the Ladds had granted the MCDC permission to build ten miles of an Israeli-style fence. Mr. Campbell responded by donating $100,000. with the express condition that his donation would be used exclusively fabricate the heavy fence posts that would be then be placed along this 10-miles of border frontage. Mr. Campbell documented these conditions via an electronic mail transmission on May 21, 2006, directed to Defendants KUNZ, SIMCOX, and SHELDON. Both Defendants SIMCOX and SHELDON had a duty to instruct Defendant Kunz to immediately notify Mr. Campbell that his $100,000. donation would not be dedicated to the purchase of structural steel tubing from which steel posts would be fabricated and used along this ten miles of the Ladds border frontage, but -in part - would instead be used in the construction of ten miles of cattle fencing.
8.-On May 22, 2006, Defendant LEWIS initiated an interstate telephone call from her residence in Seal Beach, California to Mr. Campbell requesting that Mr. Campbell wire-transfer his announced $100,000. donation to Declaration Foundation. (Which Mr. Campbell did.) In that first and subsequent interstate telephone conversations and electronic mail transmissions, Defendant LEWIS acknowledged that this steel would be a linch-pin element of the upcoming fence project on Ladds property and talked frequently and knowledgeably with Mr. Campbell about subjects such as the ultimate design, fabrication, as well as the integration and the coordination of the steel posts into the construction activities that would already be going on on the Ladds property. At no time during these conversations did Defendant LEWIS disclose to Mr. Campbell that her attorney was then negotiating with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bureau of Charitable Organizations a Settlement Agreement relating to allegations (criminal) made by that Office of LEWIS having Made material False statements in applications and documents required to be submitted to that Office. These were the falsified returns of the same Declaration Foundation in whose care Defendant LEWIS had already successfully induced Mr. Campbell to direct his $100,000. donation to.
9.-On or about June 24, 2006, via electronic mail transmission from Minuteman Headquarters, Defendant SIMCOX announced that: We have a monumental challenge ahead to raise $55 million . . . (The $55 million figure was the build-out figure for 70 miles of contiguous border frontage and represents their envisioned, total, potential magnitude of the their fraudulent scheme.)
10.-Defendant SIMCOX - acting as a fiduciary - utilized his position of trust to obtain a benefit for himself and co-conspirators at the expense of the General Public - whose trust he thereby breached/abused. These breaches of duty were accompanied by misrepresentations and non disclosures that Defendant SIMCOX intended and contemplated would deprive the General Public (to whom the duty was owed) of some legally significant benefit: Specifically, the realization that (beginning with the model fence, of whatever length donations would permit) there would at least be sufficient cooperating landowners (6-9) with border frontage, to potentially allow this model to extend for considerable distances along their respective border frontages. . A potential continuation of what was falsely represented to this General Public as a viable, and credible length of Israeli-style fencing. Instead, precious financial resources were diverted to the construction of 10 miles of cattle fencing and away from what has only been the partial completion of only a nine-tenths of a mile section of an Israeli-style fence. This nine-tenths of a mile section represents the TOTAL border frontage belonging to just the ONE participating rancher out of a range of between 7 and 9 ranchers which Defendant SIMCOX had represented as having partnered.Defendant SIMCOX, as well as his co-conspirators, were aware even prior to the April 19, 2006, fence announcement date that the Ladds (the landowners upon whose land the MCDC was to have its groundbreaking) had rejected outright the MCDCs offer to build an Israeli-style fence, yet Defendants SIMCOX, LEWIS, and KUNZ persisted in promoting their fraudulent fence scheme to Mr. Campbell and the General Public, alike.
11.The evidence shows that Defendants SIMCOXs, LEWIS, and KUNZs initial misrepresentations, false representations and omissions were material and demonstrated that these defendants never intended to be bound by any fiduciary duty to their victims; and these defendants had thus created an identifiable economic risk for their donors. (the prosecution must prove only that the defendant intended to breach his fiduciary duty, and reasonably should have foreseen that the breach would create an identifiable economic risk.)
12.These misrepresentations, half-truths, omissions were material. (At issue for an honest services fraud conviction must be material such that the misinformation or omission naturally tended to lead or was capable of leading a reasonable victim to change its conduct.)
13.Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER made deceitful statements of half-truths and/or concealed material facts and devised a scheme for obtaining money or property by such statements or concealment.
14.The evidence shows that the Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER concealed or failed to disclose material facts while also making partial or ambiguous statements that warranted additional disclosure to avoid having been misleading.
15.Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZs, and MERCERs failure to disclose can be regarded as intending to defraud or obtain money or property by deceit.
16.Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, LEWIS, and MERCER performed deceptive acts or contrivances such as the creation of, and subsequent failure to disclose the existence of: Minuteman Fence Fund, Minuteman Foundation, Inc., and Minuteman Border Fence Scheme. - which acts or contrivances were intended to hide information, mislead, avoid suspicion, or avert further inquiry into a material matter.
17.In May, 2007, Mr. Campbell filed a civil complaint against Defendants SIMCOX, LEWIS, KUNZ, and SHELDON alleging the fraudulent inducement of Mr. Campbells $100,000. donation. Defendant SIMCOX mal-appropriated $30,900. of the MCDC donors money to pay for the costs of these defendants collective defense. Mr. Campbell then realized the futility of attempting to obtain legal redress in the civil arena and thereafter dismissed his civil suit.
18.Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER made omissions and/or concealed material information which constituted fraud cognizable under the mail fraud statute, without proof of a duty to disclose the information pursuant to a specific statute or regulation.
19.Defendant SIMCOX, as a fiduciary, utilized his trusted position to obtain a benefit for himself and the other co-conspirators, but at the expense of the General Public whose trust he breached. The breach was accompanied by material non-disclosures and misrepresentations to the party owed the duty: the General Public.
20. -Throughout the course of this fraudulent scheme, Defendants SIMCOX and KUNZ have caused to be utilized mass-mailing/ mass-marketing at frequent intervals in the promotion of this fraudulent scheme.
21.- In the two and one half years since the February, 2007, failure and consequent abandonment of the border fence project, Defendant LEWIS (through Declaration Foundation and Declaration Alliance) and Defendants SIMCOX and MERCER (through the MCDC), have persisted in causing to be maintained viable donation links to the designated fence donation webpage; and in the case of the Minuteman Foundation, Inc., Defendants LEWIS and MERCER have caused to be solicited direct donations, thus bypassing the caging officer.
22.Between in or about December 30, 2005, and continuing to at least June, 2008, the defendants named herein have combined to engage on a continuing basis in conduct that violates the provisions of the felony statutes ARS 13-2310 and 13-2311. Under the provisions of ARS 13-2301, C., 7., these defendants meet the statutory definition of a Criminal Syndicate.
So, is this an actual indictment or the creation of a private citizen (and FWIW, I do think Simcox needs to account for the funds in question).
I tend to agree on the accountability but thinking you can retrieve funds donated to a failed cause is foolish. Sounds a little like trying to sue for money donated to a failed politician.
Can I get my money back from that stinking RINO McCain? ;-)
One of these people (Simcox) is challenging McCain in the primary, no?
I doubt he has a prayer.
Please welcome a new member to the Free Republic community.
I've just sent you a FReep mail (the private mail system on Free Republic) with a list of handy links which will help you become acquainted with posting guidelines, forum etiquette and some terminology unique to Free Republic. Please read them to avoid any misunderstanding. If you have any questions, please contact any member of the welcoming committee.
Again, welcome to Free Republic. May your time here be long and fruitful.
Welcome to Free Republic Jim Campbell :)
Thanks....very interesting, and good of Mr. Campbell to take time to share this.
Back on December 29, 2007, on Patriot’s Corner Forum, I posted a letter entitled: “Jim Campbell’s Letter to His Attorney”.
Here is the final paragraph of that letter:
. . . . In closing, as a consequence of the media’s exposure of criminal acts by Declaration Foundation, together with the the on-going “lack of candor”, the misrepresentations, the twisting of the facts and percentages, exaggerations, Simcox’s needless “name-calling” of his adversaries, the failure/refusal to disclose pertinent information and to answer legitimate questions have, cummulatively, had the effect of “turning off” potential donors - thus making it more and more likely that my donation (in what I anticipated would be a monument to the financial and personal sacrifice of thousands of like-minded patriots), will have been squandered in a seemingly, well-intentioned, but short-lived “monument to deceit” on the border. It is clear to me now that this fence project was conceived as a grand facade - a scheme - to attract endless streams of donations from the public who placed blind faith (as I did) in both the sincerity and trustworthiness of its promoters. A project that was intially represented to me personally by Kunz (and to the public via website and media announcements, etc.) to be of a viable, credible, “Israeli-style” fence - and of a sufficient 10-mile length - thus enabling it to stand up to public and media scrutiny -has turned out to be a .9 of a mile of fractionally completed “demonstration fence”and 10 miles of barbed wire cattle fence, which Simcox has described as “Phase One” of the fence project. The .9 of a mile of fence has languished in an on-going state of distress and/or inactivity since mid-February. I am reminded of this every month when I make an $850 interest payment on a loan that is consuming my equity in my home.
Back on December 29, 2007, on Patriots Corner Forum, I posted a letter entitled: Jim Campbells Letter to His Attorney.
Here is the final paragraph of that letter:
. . . . In closing, as a consequence of the medias exposure of criminal acts by Declaration Foundation, together with the the on-going lack of candor, the misrepresentations, the twisting of the facts and percentages, exaggerations, Simcoxs needless name-calling of his adversaries, the failure/refusal to disclose pertinent information and to answer legitimate questions have, cummulatively, had the effect of turning off potential donors - thus making it more and more likely that my donation (in what I anticipated would be a monument to the financial and personal sacrifice of thousands of like-minded patriots), will have been squandered in a seemingly, well-intentioned, but short-lived monument to deceit on the border. It is clear to me now that this fence project was conceived as a grand facade - a scheme - to attract endless streams of donations from the public who placed blind faith (as I did) in both the sincerity and trustworthiness of its promoters. A project that was intially represented to me personally by Kunz (and to the public via website and media announcements, etc.) to be of a viable, credible, Israeli-style fence - and of a sufficient 10-mile length - thus enabling it to stand up to public and media scrutiny -has turned out to be a .9 of a mile of fractionally completed demonstration fenceand 10 miles of barbed wire cattle fence, which Simcox has described as Phase One of the fence project. The .9 of a mile of fence has languished in an on-going state of distress and/or inactivity since mid-February. I am reminded of this every month when I make an $850 interest payment on a loan that is consuming my equity in my home.
There could well be NO Statute of Limitions concern given the following:
“In the U.S., when a lawyer or law firm fraudulently presents facts to court in a matter, the act is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.”
I have amended paragraph #18 of my Draft Indictment so as to put this “legal technicality” in to play:
18.-——In May, 2007, Mr. Campbell filed a civil complaint against Defendants SIMCOX, LEWIS, KUNZ, and SHELDON alleging the fraudulent inducement of Mr. Campbell’s $100,000. donation. Defendant SIMCOX mal-appropriated $30,900. of the MCDC donors’ money to pay for the costs of these defendants collective defense. Additionally, Defendant Simcox, “being first duly sworn upon my oath”, fraudulently presented unconditional statements fact to the court in his attorney’s “ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT. Likewise, Defendant Kunz (representing himself) fraudulently presented statements of fact to the court in his MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS. Mr. Campbell then realized the futility of attempting to obtain legal redress in the civil arena and thereafter dismissed his civil suit.
21.-——Both Defendant SIMCOX (as the leader of the MCDC as well as the individual who took credit for being the impetus behind this border fence project) together with Defendant KUNZ (as the manager of this border fence project) abused a position of public or private trust and used a special skill in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the fraudulent scheme.
22.-——Both Defendant SIMCOX and Defendant KUNZ created particular social harm through their use of false pretenses designed to take advantage of, and to exploit their victims generosity, as well as their victims patriotic and charitable motives and impulses.