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). 

No comments:

Post a Comment