Thursday, April 8, 2010

A simple plan - the Second Posner Order authorized by NSF Inspector General Tina Boesz: Fischer's Public Letter Ensuing NSF's Report on the Francis K. Fong Conspiracy

Francis Kan Fong
The auther Francis K. Fong posts here a narrative introduction to Posner's simple plan authorized by NSF Inspector General Christine Boesz, AOUSC's account of its executives' withdrawal absent the Section 2042 order of the $48,903.81 .  This narrative relates the "Francis K. Fong conspiracy" first described, in some detail, in NSF's report of 6-21-79, later backed by NSF's letter of 11-6-89, to the indestructibility of the Calvin cycle.  It recounts the secret of the Blue-Book formula kept under wraps by the court's funneling of the $48,903.81 from Treasury, through the John Doe Trust to NSF Deputy George Pimentel, for PEFCU's redisbribution to NSF OIG lawyers and revenue officers in furtherance of the Calvin cycle.  

Purdue University President Steve Beering explained, on the PX 45 tape, the Francis K. Fong conspiracy in terms of the patterned activity for making the Calvin cycle: Purdue's joint venture with MIT to install the Blue-Book formula to enable PCDF's (Purdue-Calumet Development Foundation) promotion of PRF's (Purdue Research Foundation) sale of the Lawler tract to Purdue Trustees President Don Powers' Munster Medical Research Foundation (MMRF).  In response to the 1979 NSF report on the FKF conspiracy, members of that conspiracy re-distributed the $48,903.81 from Treasury to revenue officers and NSF OIG employees to procure Reviewer No.8's rejection of Fong's proposal pertaining to his discovery of the Calvin cycle.  With the $48,903.81 spent to keep under wraps the secret of the Blue-Book formula, the 7th Circuit directed Fong's lawyers Jerry Clousson and Peter Baugher not to file appellate brief in Fong's appeal from the court's memorandum order in Francis K. Fong v. Purdue University, U.S. District Court, N.D.Ind., Cause No. L-88, (Hammond Division), Shepard (1-25-94) at 33, to enter the Second Posner Order, 976 F.2d 735, affirm. 692 F.Supp. 930.

On 5-19-95, Beering wrote Fong a letter, which was authenticated by the U.S. Attorney for the N.D.Ind. by order of federal court: Posner accepted $250,000 from the bribe-conspiracy to set in motion a simple plan. In 1984, he entered the First Posner Order, Crumpacker v. Gettinger, U.S. District Court, N.D.Ind., No. H83-700 (7-12-84), to enjoin (then living) Woodmar successors-in-interest from petitioning for the $48,903.81.  In 1992 he entered 976 F.2d 735, the Second Posner Order, to bar Fong from claiming the $48,903.81 after all Woodmar successors-in-interest had died.
On 2-19-02, OIG published a public letter to solicit the BGM defense to negative Purdue's finding for Fong, Calvin and their co-workers' findings published in the "most important research journals." 

On 4-15-02 OIG Senior Counsel Monte Fisher wrote in response to Fong's charge in the 1996 report of OIG employees' unreported profits from 976 F.2d 735, the Second Posner Order for concealing the theft from Treasury of the $48,903.891. 

Christine Boesz
On 5-5-05, Boesz wrote Fong to paraphrase 976 F.2d 735: "You continue to press frivolous disputes and stoutly refuse to accept the ligitimacy of the decisions against you."

Boesz's reliance for disbursing the $48,903.81 was not an isolated act; it fit in the pattern of activity for making the Calvin cycle.  In 1978, the NSF, in a site visit to Fong's laboratories confirmed Fong and Galloway's demonstration of the chlorophyll water splitting.  On May 22, 1981, Andrew Benson, the first worker to use C-14 in carbon fixation experiments, wrote Fong a letter. Reminiscent of Calvin's warning at the Asilomar meeting, the letter read: “You are a brave man to stir such a big pot all at once. I will be interested to see where the bodies will lie.” Four months later, NSF in its September/October, 1981 issue of Mosaic published a statement:
  • "Francis K. Fong of Purdue University irradiated chlorophyll on a platinum electrode immersed in water. He generated a weak electric current along with hydrogen and oxygen in amounts too small to be easily measured. Others who have tried have been unable to produce the reaction Fong describes.” (Download Mosaic story.)
On 12-7-81, NSF’s Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences referred its story to Mosaic's Editor, who attributed his source to General Electric.

On 3-23-83, GE Vice-President Ron Schmitt and Fong published a joint statement, that GE workers observed small quantities of “oxidizing and reducing agents, possibly oxygen and hydrogen.”

On 12-31-96, Fong addressed the 1996 report to IR Commissioner Richardson on the court's theft from Treasury of the $48,903.81 to pay NSF OIG staff and revenue officers.  In March of 1998, upon the U.S. Attorney's authentication by order of federal court of Steve Beering's three letters and PX 45 tape to explain the origins of the Calvin cycle, IRS Execs. at Boesz's behest removed for more than 10 years the 1996 report from IRS's administrative file. 

By this removal was triggered the 10-year statute for DOJ's (Tax) Chief D. Patrick Mullarkey to institutd the Moody Action, United States v. Francis K. Fong, N.D.Ind. U.S. District Court, Cause No. 2:2008cv00082, Hammond Division, which culminated in the court's admission of its trading the PX 45 tape for a broken tape manufactured by Mullarkey, from which were deleted details of Purdue-Calumet Development Foundation's payback of its Illinois Continental Bank short-term notes used to pay off East Chicago's federal loan contracts up to $32m secured from the Federal Housing and Home Finance Agency.

Certainly, Boesz's reliance on Posner's Second Order, the simple plan which exploded in Posner's order of the MacLauchlan and Given murders, would account for the worldwide acceptance of something apparently as transparent a fruad as doing photosynthesis in the dark, contrary to Calvin's finding of the light reaction. 

It woul support, preliminarily at least, a conclusion that Beering's account on the PX 45 tape is correct.  By that account, now a central feature of Fong's inquiry, PCDF's short-term notes were paid off in an undetectable venue, whereby the Purdue trustees involved Penn State University Board of Trustees to arrange an international transfusion of moneys involving, among other international criminal elements dating back to the 1970's, the Vatican bankers Roberto Calvin and Michele Sindona.  

Back to

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Kelly Lee's Summary of AOUSC's Report to Francis K. Fong

Upon her review of AOUSC's report to the author Francis K. Fong, see, also, "Exploding the Simple Plan - AOUSC's Report on Its Management Ranks' Hand in Court's Transfer-Back of the $48,903.81," Kelly Lee of the accounting department of AOUSC issued a 4-point summary in support of's Synposis Site. See, Francis K. Fong's Index Blog.

A particular detail of Kelly Lee's summary, of interest in that it demonstrates the complexity into which Richard A. Posner's simple plan has grown, is his assignment of the highly specialized duties for performance by the Tippecanoe Superior Court 2 (Busch) and the photosynthesis research unit of Arizona State University.

Back to's Home Page.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

AOUSC's Report to Francis K. Fong: The Court's Use of the Second Posner Order, 976 F.2d 735

The author Francis K. Fong in collaboration with AOUSC (Administrative Office of U.S. Courts) investigated Purdue trustees' employment of 7th Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner to issue the two Posner Orders, of which 976 F.2d 735 was the second.

In July of 1984, Posner entered the First Posner Order, Crumpacker v. Gettinger, USDC, N.D.Ind., No. H83-700 (7-12-84), to bar Woodmar Realty Company successors-in-interest from petitioning for the $48,903.81.  For an overview of Roger Branigin's procedure for setting up the mucipal government of East Chicago to facilitate PCDF's promotion of PRF's sale of the Lawler tract, see, an analysis of the simple plan.  See, also, Fong's open communication on Mary Mortellaro for AOUSC's detailed explanation of its executives' withdrawal (embezzlement) from a Treasury account of the $48,903.81.

A decade earlier, reported AOUSC, Posner by PCDF's promotion of the Lawler tract, a bribery-conspiracy of unprecedented dimensions, enlisted the AOUSC executives in control of its voucher examination section to withdraw without the required Section 2042 order, i.e., steal, the $48,903.81 from a Treasury account.  The court then transferred it back from Washington to the Federal Regestry in South Bend.  There the $48,903.81 sat for an undetermined number of months, until Posner merged it with the John Doe Trust on deposit at Mercantile National Bank, see, state court's order issued pursuant to Fong's letter of 6-30-96 at 7, paragraph 3, before he and Dale Margerum, in 1978, transferred it to PEFCU for disbursement to the Woodmar recipients.  In the winter of 1995-96, the court (Sharp/Rodovich) used the First Posner Order, in a "Recommendation," caused to have the Indiana Supreme Court suspend the license of attorney Andrew D. Jackson for violating that order to petition for the $48,903.81 on behalf of Woodmar successor-in-interest Owen W. Crumpacker, formerly counsel for Woodmar successor-in-interest Helen Woods.  Crumpacker himself was disbarred in 1978 by the Indiana Supreme court for opposing Judge James T. Moody, see, the deposition (10-15-91) Owen Crumpacker at 26.  See, also, In re Crumpacker, 269 Ind. 630, 383 N.E.2d 36 ( 1978).  Moody accepted PCDF's $5,000 bribe to enable the court's action barring the claim (1978) for the $48,903.81 by Woods, who was represented by Crumpacker.

On 5-7-04, the court (Moody) used the Second Posner Order, 976 F.2d 735, to deny Fong's claim as finder of the $48,903.81; it “granted” the $48,903.81, which was disbursed through PEFCU to the Woodmar recipients in 1978, to Woodmar successors-in-interest, of whom the last was Owen W. Crumpacker, who died on 2-10-98.

Fong's duty under the Section 7623 contract, see, Rev. Agt. Hunt Jr.'s Submissions, is to detect and bring to trial members of the bribery-conspiracy for PCDF's promotion of the Lawler tract, who come from different walks of life.  The criminal tax statutes in Title 26 of the United States Code do not include a statute for the crime of conspiracy.  Tax-related conspiracies are generally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general conspiracy statute.  Section 371 sets out two types of conspiracies.  United States v. Helmsley, 941 F.2d 71, 90 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1162 (1992); United States v. Arch Trading Co., 987 F.2d 1087, 1091 (4th Cir. 1993).  Conspiring or agreeing to engage in conduct, which is prohibited by a substantive Title 26 offense, is a prosecutable offense under Section 371.  Also, 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(4) contains a provision prohibiting conspiracy to defraud the United States.  This statute only applies to officers and employees of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States. See, United States v. Eisenmann, 396 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1968). 

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Photoelectrolytic apparatus for water splitting, US Patent 4140591, and Richard A. Posner: A Simple Plan--Making of the Calvin Cycle

AOUSC Accounting Division's finding - Richard A. Posner's (7th Circuit Judge) $250,000 bribe-taking made possible by the $5,000 bribe paid to James T. Moody (Judge, USDC, N.D.Ind.): Proof of the court's theft (1974 transfer-back) of the $48,903.81 from U.S. Treasury involved management ranks of AOUSC in control of its voucher examination section  

In the summer of 1998, the author Francis K. Fong began an investigation specialized to a written report by Steven C. Beering, Chair, National Science Board, as follows:

Richard A. Posner, 7th Circuit Judge, took a bribe in excess of $250,000 to launch a simple plan.  Over a peiod of nearly 20 years, Posner devised a structure of the Two Posner Orders, first, to involve, in the court's theft of the $48,903.81, the management ranks of AOUSC in control of its voucher examination section, and, then, bar a claim against the $48,903.81 transferred back 1974 from Treasury with which to pay (1978) the Woodmar recipients.   The First Posner Order was executed in 1984, Crumpacker v. Gettinger, USDC., N.D.Ind., No. H83-700 (7-12-84), to bar a claim by surviving Woodmar successors-in-interest to cover up PCDF Director Jay Given's gangland slaying for the $5,000 bribe he paid Moody.  The Second Posner Order, 976 F.2d 735, was perfected in 1992 for Moody to bar (2004) Fong as finder from claiming the Woodmar's cash assets--after the last of the Woodmar successionrs-in-interest had died (1998)--and "grant" the dead petitioners the $48,903.81 disbursed 1978 to the Woodmar recipients in further of NSF's Dark Photosynthesis Funding Standard (DPFS).     

The simple plan protected from exposure the Calvin cycle, or the DPFS.  But its shrouds ran afoul of the conclusion that the $48,l903.81 used by Posner in furtherance of the DPFS is an impediment to this country's development of a hydrogen economy from photosynthesis.  Photoelectrolytic apparatus for water splitting - US Patent 4140591, Fong's Second Patent with Lory Galloway, shows that the photogalvanic generation of electricity in the First Patent, US 4022950, posted below arises from the splitting of water into molecular hydrogen and oxygen, upon photoexcitation of the chlorophyll by sunlight.  Fong, F.K. and Galloway, L. (1978) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 100, 3694-3696.  Even more important, US 4022950 underscores Fong et al's further discovery of the reduction of carbon dioxide to organic fuels.  Fruge, D.R., Fong, G.D., and Fong, F.K. (1979) J. Am. Chem. Soc. 101, 3694-3697.

U.S. Patent on Capturing Sunlight: Photogalvanic Converstion to Electricity

Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #7257672

This is Francis K. Fong's first U.S. patent with Nick Winograd, US 4022950, F.K. Fong and N. Winograd, on the capture of sunlight to generate electricity (photogalvanic conversion) now listed on the Energy Citations Database (ECD). It describes a device to convert solar energy into electricity making use of the reversible photogalvanic principle. This principle is based on the spontaneous light and dark reactions between two electrochemical half cells constructed from a reversible electrochemical reaction. The device uses photosensitizers that operate in a broad band infrared spectral region. The specific photosensitizer used is chlorophyll a dihydrate polycrystals coated on a platinum electrode suspended in an ionic salt solution on one side of the cell. A platinum electrode is also suspended on the other side of the half cell in a hydroquinone solution, and the electrodes are electricallyconnected. These solutions are interconnected by a salt bridge which permits the flow of cation charge reversibly between said first and second half cells upon on-off light irradiation of the chlorophyll coated electrode. 14 claims, 2 figs. See, also, Fong, F.K. and Winograd, N. (1976) J. Am. Chem. Soc., 98, 2287.

Nick Winograd is Evan Pugh Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Penn State.