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). 

Back to NSFfunding.com Home Page

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.