Posted on 11/17/2009 9:07:55 AM PST by Jim Campbell
In an "ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT BY DEFENDANT MINUTEMAN CIVIL DEFENSE CORPS, INC." dated July 6, 2007, the MCDC's attorney responded to Campbell's May 22nd AMENDED COMPLAINT by asserting a "qualified denial" of virtually every general allegation (numbers 13 through 45) and an "unqualified denial" of every allegation contained in the three Counts (numbers 47 through 72).
The last page of this document was entitled "VERIFICATION", and in it Simcox acknowledged that he:
". . . is President of the MCDC, and being first duly sworn upon my oath, depose and say that I am an officer of Defendant Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Inc. named in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, I have reviewed the Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, I have read same and know the contents to be true, except to those matters stated therein on information and belief, and as to those, I believe them to be true."
What were of far greater significance, were the Affirmative Defenses numbered 6., 7., and 8. as follows:
"6. Campbell knew prior to making the donation that the Ladd property would have a five (5) wire fence and would not be the reinforced steel fence.
7. Campbell made the donation knowing that the steel fence would be built on the Hodges property.
8. Campbell offered to make another $100,000.00 donation after the public event on May 23, 2006."
The allegations which I have asserted in my "draft-indictment" represent to any prosecutor, etc. what my "anticipated" testimony would be on a witness stand. Any false allegations on my part would carry with them serious implications of having submitted false information to criminal investigators, etc. (When Simcox was asked by a Federal Park Ranger if he were armed, Simcox lied, was prosecuted, and was sentenced to two-years of supervised probation.)
How was it that I was willing to ignore all of the public media statements, etc. about the six "partnering landowners", etc; and how was I "privy" to the fact that only I knew about Mr. Hodges? Why wasn't Mr. Hodges there at the May 27, 2006,(not "May 23, 2006") ground breaking? He and I would have shared "center stage". Why was it that only after I went "ballistic" after the ceremony and threatened by e-mail to demand a refund of my $100,000. donation*, did Connie Hair (the MCDC Media Director) then announce Mr. Hodge's participation?
* "----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Campbell To: Media ; Peter Kunz ; Stacey O'Connell State Director Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:28 PM
As you are all aware by now, I left this project a very bitter man today. I realized at the end that this project (as started today) is destined to fail. I gave this project artificial respiration this last Monday with my $100,000.00 donation. In my decision to make this donation, I placed detrimental reliance on the architectural drawings of the fence as presented on the website. This particular design comes with engineering ("pipe sizing") that has been accepted by Israel and is used in other areas of our border with Mexico. . . .. . . . . .I do know one thing for certain. If we continue the construction started today (with it's "embarrassingly"flimsy, substandard, "Home Depot" construction), then I will be out of this project; and I will then be discussing how I get a full refund. I am not going to jeopardize my reputation, credentials, credibility, and trust that others have placed in me as a fiduciary to represent their interests (i.e.: their donations.) Nor will I see my retirement nest egg squandered."
Additionally, the GENERAL ALLEGATIONS" established what I believed to be the factual basis behind my claims. I (and not some attorney) signed the AMENDED COMPLAINT. Simcox, based on "information and belief", categorically disputed Campbell's General Allegations. Upon reading through these forty-five general allegations, anyone would wonder what "information" did Simcox rely upon that would prompt him to categorically deny - under oath - each and every one of these forty-five general allegations (#'s 45-72)? On what did he "found" his beliefs?
How could this possibly have bolstered Simcox's credibility? To the contrary, it served to further SQUANDER it. These fraudsters had my donation, and their false statements, etc. continued in their collective efforts to placate me and the other disgruntled donors in what was ultimately a futile attempt to "keep me on board" so that their scheme wouldn't "unravel".
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Finally, as to how Peter Kunz dealt with his service of process, here is what my process server attested to:
Server Rang Door bell - Man Opened Window and Said "May I Help You."
Server Said "Yes", Are You Peter Kunz?", and the Man Said "Yes I Am"
Server Said "I Have Some Legal Documents to Serve on You and Your Wife"
Then the Man Answered "I Don't Think So!", And Closed the Window.
Then the Man came to the Front Door Window and Looked Out but Refused to Open Door after Repeated Requests.
Server Left Documents for Peter Kunz and His Wife on the Door Step in Plain View of Peter Kunz.
In Kunz's MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS, Kunz stated:
"On June 2, 2007, at approximately 1:00 p.m., PETER KUNZ was home alone when two individuals on motorcycles stopped in front of his house. MR. KUNZ looked out of the second story window to see who it was, one asked if he was PETER KUNZ, and suspecting that the individuals were taking a survey or trying to sell him something, MR. KUNZ answered that he did not want any and to go away. Both men got on their motorcycles and immediately left. Sometime later, MR. KUNZ went outside and saw documents lying on his doorstep, which turned out to be the AMENDED COMPLAINT herein . . ." Kunz argued that: "Leaving pleadings on a doorstep is not proper service." Judge Jones denied Kunz's motion.
Well, this is interesting.
Connie Hair was a very regular poster to Free Republic during the early years (Clinton’s a liar) until she became prominent in the Alan Keyes campaign in 2000.
LOL
ping
As I recall that case the border agents targeted Simcox and followed him just waiting for a chance to charge him with something. Unless I am misremembering, the Rangers even did some work to get Simcox on their own time.
When Simcox and a friend took a walk in a wooded area, on a Sunday afternoon I believe, one of his pursuers jumped at the chance to confront him on federal land.
To wit, the World Net Daily report contained this, "Next thing I know, there's somebody waiting in the bushes for us," Simcox said. It was a park ranger, who said she had been watching the pair, knew who they were and what they were up to, Simcox said.
The real issue is: When confronted, or merely approached, by any law enforcement officer, any one who is carrying a concealed weapon has an implied, if not an affirmative, duty to immediately disclose this information. Simcox was lucky he didn’t get shot! Who would be foolish enough to leave themselves open to such a possibly? If Simcox did, indeed, lie to her, she would have had justification to draw her weapon once she learned about it. The issue of whether, or not, he was being “set up” is red herring. Simcox has used it to divert the public’s and media’s attention away from his own arrogance and stupidity.
Did Simcox lie about being armed while on Federal land? Yes.
Sorry, Simcox was not set up, he was stupid!
My error to say border agents. I knew better. It was forest service employees who IMO condemned and targeted groups of citizens such as Simcox's and Glenn Spencer's American Patrol.
Yes Mr. Simcox had a firearm; and yes the best thing would be to tell the park service employee. He didn't and by now he's served out the sentence.
The referenced articles ends with this: "Border Patrol spokesman Charles Griffin said he welcomes the watchful presence of ranchers and civilian patrol groups. 'Every law enforcement agency appreciates a neighborhood watch,' he said."
The good news is groups of citizens are no longer condemned as vigilantes "hunting for Mexicans." Most Americans now agree with Border Patrol spokesman Charles Griffin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.