Federal Crime Reporting Statute
The federal offense of failure to disclose a felony, if coupled with some act concealing the felony, such as suppression of evidence, harboring or protecting the person performing the felony, intimidation or harming a witness, or any other act designed to conceal from authorities the fact that a crime has been committed.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
A federal judge, or any other government official, is required as part of the judge’s mandatory administrative duties, to receive any offer of information of a federal crime. If that judge blocks such report, that block is a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes, and constitutes a serious offense.
Upon receiving such information, the judge is then required to make it known to a government law enforcement body that is not themselves involved in the federal crime.
Misprision of a Felony
Misprision of a felony is the offense of failure to inform government authorities of a felony that a person knows about. A person commits the crime of misprision of a felony if that person:
• Knows of a federal crime that the person has witnessed or that has come to the person’s attention, or failed to prevent.
• Fails to report it to a federal judge or other federal official (who is not themsselves involved in the crime).
Another Federal Statute for Forcing A
Federal Officer To Perform a Mandatory Duty
Another federal statute exists for reporting high-level corruption in government:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
This federal statute permits any citizen to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to obtain a court order requiring a federal official to perform a mandatory duty and to halt unlawful acts. This statute is Title 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
These two statutes are among the most powerful tools in the hands of the people, even a single person, to report corrupt and criminal activities by federal officials−including federal judges−and to circumvent the blocks by those in key positions in the three branches of government. That statute was also repeatedly blocked by federal judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Former Judge Gets Six-Month Prison Sentence
Former Knox County Criminal Court Judge Richard Baumgartner was sentenced today to six months in prison, reports the News Sentinel.
The Democrat and longtime jurist also was sentenced in Greeneville by U.S. District Judge Ronnie Greer to a year’s supervised release after the term is completed.
Baumgartner’s attorney, Donald A. Bosch of Knoxville, told the court he would apply for a stay of the sentence. Baumgartner will be allowed to self report to a federal prison.
Baumgartner stepped down in March 2011 and pleaded guilty in state court to official misconduct amid an investigation that showed he had abused drugs and used court defendants to secure them. He was spared prison and allowed to keep his pension.
In October, however, a federal jury convicted him of five counts of misprision of a felony, meaning he knew about and covered up a mistress’ involvement in a drug conspiracy centered around his drug usage.
” Powell was sentenced on November 4, 2011 to 18 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to misprision of a felony and accessory after the fact to conspiracy to commit income tax evasion, plus one year on supervised release and a $60,000 fine. [See: PLN, May 2012, p.28]. Mericle pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony; he has not yet been sentenced.”
Parker Pleads Guilty to Misprision of a Felony
U.S. Attorney’s Office January 17, 2012
Eastern District of Louisiana (504) 680-3000
NEW ORLEANS—KAREN PARKER a/k/a KAREN PARKER-BROUSSARD (“PARKER”), age 46, a resident of Jefferson Parish, pled guilty today in front of Senior U.S. District Judge Hayden Head to one count of misprision of a felony, announced U.S. Attorney Jim Letten.
On December 2, 2011, PARKER, former Jefferson Parish President AARON F. BROUSSARD and THOMAS G. WILKINSON were charged in a 33-count indictment by a federal grand jury with conspiracy, wire fraud, and theft concerning programs receiving federal funds. On January 13, 2012, PARKER was charged in a superseding bill of information with one count of misprision of a felony.
According to court documents, in October 2003, former Jefferson Parish President and co-defendant BROUSSARD met with co-defendant and former Jefferson Parish Attorney WILKINSON, along with two other high-ranking Jefferson Parish officials, to discuss PARKER’s anticipated employment in the BROUSSARD administration. According to the factual basis, BROUSSARD specifically wanted other Parish officials to hire PARKER because he knew that once he took over the position of Parish President he could not hire PARKER and there would be increased scrutiny as a result of the romantic relationship between BROUSSARD and PARKER. It was eventually decided that PARKER would be hired as a “paralegal supervisor” under the purview of the Parish Attorney’s Office, even though all parties to that decision, including co-defendants BROUSSARD and WILKINSON knew that PARKER was not qualified, trained, or certified as a paralegal supervisor.
According to the factual basis, from approximately 2003 through her dismissal in 2010, PARKER was paid a salary as a paralegal supervisor, even though she was not qualified, trained, or certified as a paralegal supervisor. Indeed, according to court records, PARKER did no work as a paralegal supervisor and, in fact, the little work she did perform was not paralegal work at all. According to court records, BROUSSARD and WILKINSON were aware that PARKER did no work as a paralegal supervisor. PARKER’s salary and her raises were approved and known by WILKINSON who, in turn, was retained by BROUSSARD as the Jefferson Parish Attorney. BROUSSARD also approved of substantial pay raises, from 2004 through 2009, for WILKINSON, the Parish Attorney. According to the factual basis, PARKER committed a misprision of a felony by stealing or committing theft from Jefferson Parish by continuing to accept her salary (because she did not perform any paralegal work) and not reporting such crime to the authorities.
Finally, according to court records, BROUSSARD, the former Jefferson Parish President, used his public office for private gain by receiving monies, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars from various vendors, all of whom were simultaneously doing business with Jefferson Parish.
PARKER faces a maximum penalty of not more than three years in prison, followed by one year of supervised release, and a $250,000.00 fine. Sentencing has been scheduled for July 27, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
The case was investigated by agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Brian Klebba and Matt Chester.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, January 17, 2014
For Information Contact:
Former District of Columbia Government Official
Indicted on Charges Involving $110,000 Grant
That Funded an Inaugural Ball
Former Council Member Harry L. Thomas Jr. and Five Others Earlier Pled Guilty to Charges
WASHINGTON – Neil S. Rodgers, a former District of Columbia government official, was indicted today on federal charges stemming from his role in channeling $110,000 in youth and drug prevention grant funds used to pay for an inaugural ball.
The indictment, returned by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was announced by U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr., Valerie Parlave, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, and Thomas J. Kelly, Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation.
Rodgers, 61, of Washington, D.C., served as the Committee Director of the Council of the District of Columbia’s Committee on Libraries, Parks, Recreation and Planning. He was indicted on three felony charges, including one count each of theft concerning programs receiving federal funds, wire fraud, and first-degree fraud. Rodgers faces a maximum sentence of 20 years of incarceration if convicted of all charges.
Six others have pled guilty to charges in the overall investigation into activities involving former Council Member Harry L. Thomas, Jr. Thomas pled guilty in January 2012 to charges stemming from a scheme in which he used more than $350,000 in taxpayers’ money that was earmarked for the arts, youth recreation, and summer programs for his own personal benefit, including paying for vehicles, clothing and trips. He resigned in January 2012 as a condition of his plea agreement and is now serving a 38-month prison sentence.
The others who have pled guilty include James Garvin and Marshall D. Banks, leaders of one of the non-profits used in the scheme. Both men, from the Langston in the 21st Century Foundation, pled guilty to misprision of a felony, a charge holding them accountable for failing to report and concealing the misappropriation of $392,000 in government grants. Additionally, Danita C. Doleman, the president of Youth Technology Institute, pled guilty to filing a false tax return in connection with her assistance in funneling public money to pay for the 51st State Inaugural Ball. Millicent D. West, the former director and chief executive officer of a non-profit organization that promotes youth opportunities, pled guilty to a criminal tax charge for her role in channeling the youth grant funds to pay for the ball. Finally, Ayawna Webster, an aide who also worked as a chief of staff for Thomas, pled guilty to attempting to interfere with the administration of the Internal Revenue Service laws.
Garvin and Banks were sentenced to three years of supervised probation, 80 hours of community service, and ordered to pay full restitution. Doleman, West, and Webster are awaiting sentencing.
“Today’s indictment charges Neil Rodgers with stealing tax dollars meant for children to throw a $100,000 black-tie party for adults,” said U.S. Attorney Machen. “This prosecution is the final step in our investigation of the criminal activities of former D.C. Council member Harry Thomas, Jr., which has resulted in six guilty pleas. The results of this investigation are a reminder of the grave consequences for government employees and others who knowingly facilitate the illegal actions of corrupt elected officials.”
“Today’s indictment is an example of what happens when a public servant becomes complicit in corrupt behavior rather than standing up to it,” said Assistant Director in Charge Parlave. “Knowingly submitting false and misleading documents to support a larger scheme at the direction of a public official is illegal. The FBI will investigate allegations of corruption at all levels and hold those who allow it accountable for their actions.”
Before becoming Committee Director, Rodgers worked for many years at the District of Columbia Department of Parks and Recreation, serving as Chief of Staff and Acting Director.
Thomas, who took office in January 2007 as the Ward 5 representative, served during his first term as Chair of the Council’s Committee on Libraries, Parks, Recreation and Planning, which involved oversight responsibility for the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation. In that role, he worked with a non-profit public-private partnership that provided resources and developed programs to benefit children and youth in the District of Columbia.
The partnership was primarily funded by the District of Columbia government through funds designated by the Mayor and Council for particular youth-related purposes. The partnership provided grants to organizations for programs tailored for children and youth.
The charges against Rodgers deal with his role in securing funds for the 51st State Inaugural Ball, held on Jan. 20, 2009 in the Wilson Building. Thomas was closely involved in the planning the event. In addition to her work duties, Ayawna Webster was the president of a local chapter of a political organization. She and her political organization served as the host of the ball, and she then organized the event, at Thomas’s direction.
Ticket sales and other contributions failed to raise enough money to pay the expenses associated with the 51st State Inaugural Ball. Following the ball, Webster’s political organization owed vendors approximately $100,000. According to the indictment, Rodgers participated in a scheme to channel money through a grant from the public-private partnership, meant for youths, to Webster’s political organization so that these expenses would be paid.
The plan hit an obstacle, however, when questions were raised about the legality of granting money to a political organization. The grant recipient was changed to the Youth Technology Institute, another non-profit organization. Even though Rodgers knew that this organization had no involvement with the ball, according to the indictment, he requested $120,000 in grant funds on its behalf. On Feb. 5, 2009, based on the false grant paperwork submitted by Rodgers, the public-private partnership issued a check in the amount of $110,000 to the Youth Technology Institute, the indictment alleges.
In truth, after the grant was issued, the Youth Technology Institute immediately forwarded nearly the entire amount to Webster’s political organization, which paid expenses from the 51st State Inaugural Ball.
An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed a violation of criminal laws and every defendant is presumed innocent until, and unless, proven guilty.
This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office and IRS-CI. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys James E. Smith and David Johnson, of the Fraud and Public Corruption Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Today, March 19, 2014, Scheidler filed his answer to defendants‘ — who are all lawyers — claims of “immunity”. Scheidler says lawyers MUST be held to the law! Scheidler says lawyers who serve as judges, must be held to the law. Scheidler says lawyers who serve in government office must be held to the law. And, Scheidler says a lawyer cannot sit as judge on a case against a lawyer due to conflict of interest.
Lawyers Kirsten Schimpff, WSBA #31299, Mary Tennyson, WSBA #11197, and Dionne Padilla-Huddleston, WSBA #38356 who represent lawyers Felice Congalton, WSBA #6412 and J. Reiko Callner, WSBA #16546, claim that their clients, Congalton and Callner, are immune from all civil or criminal actions, that Scheidler has no right to sue these lawyers, that the Superior Court is without jurisdiction to hear Scheidler’s complaint against these lawyers, and that the law, RCW 7.56, doesn’t mean what the words say …. Scheidler says NO to each and every absurd and utterly and blatantly false claim!
From Scheidler’s Answer, he rebuts each and every lie these “lawyers” tell.
Ms Schimpff’s factual and legal version of Scheidler’s case is another gross distortion of the truth.In truth, when Scheidler has ‘official’ dealings with a lawyer either in the lawyers “judicial capacity,” or as an “officer of the court,” or with lawyers who serve in any other public office responsible for “individual protections,” these lawyers must deal with Scheidler lawfully, truthfully, ethically and specifically for Scheidler’s protection. When these lawyers fail to abide by their lawful, ethical and public duties and Scheidler is harmed specifically, he has a due process right to a fair and speedy remedy.
When a cadre of lawyers, i.e., named and non-named defendants, in their various official roles violate the law, cause Scheidler harm and then obstruct Scheidler’s due process right to a speedy remedy under ranging claims of civil and criminal immunities there can be no rational reason other than anabuse of power for the benefit of the legal establishment.
It is a fact Scheidler has a right of action, including an action filed underRCW 7.56, against all those who cause and are complicit in each and every harm suffered and crime committed. See RCW 9A.08, Principles of Liability. This includes an action against the ‘office, franchise or corporation’ – i.e., the WA State Bar and the Commission on Judicial Conduct – who intentionally neglect their duty to hold lawyers/judges to their ethical andlegal obligations to “protect Scheidler’s rights”.
Court Presently Lacks Authority/JurisdictionThis Court does not have authority/jurisdiction to hear defendants’ motion to strike due to the following:
1. A WA State lawyer cannot sit as judge on this case due to being disqualified under law, RCW 2.28.030(1); RCW 4.12.050 (see affidavit of prejudice Dkt 2, page 1, and Dkt 42, page 2 incorporated by reference); and disqualified under CJC 2.11(A) because all lawyers are directly interested in their duties mandated by law that are the subject of Scheidler’s case.
a) All defendants, witnesses, judges are lawyers and all are members of the WSBA and all subscribe to the same oath of office – which is to obey the constitutions of the US and state of Washington. A lawyer cannot sit as judge when they are of the same “class” as defendants; bound by the same oath being violated by defendants; and susceptible to the same cause of action – RCW 7.56 – as defendants.
b) Defendants’ arguments to ‘strike’ are based in Court Rules of the Superior Courts. A Superior court judge is disqualified under RCW 2.28.030(1) in hearing this matter as all Superior Court judges have a direct interest and inherent prejudice in how Superior Court Rules are applied with respect to the subject matter of this case in which they are directly interested.
c) All WA State Judges are at professional and personal risk from defendant J. Reiko Callner, Executive Director, Commission on Judicial Conduct. Callner claims absolute immunity from ‘civil or criminal’ conduct. Ms. Callner has the absolute power to criminally set-up any judge without consequence and that judge would have no legal recourse.
2. A judge’s sole authority in dealing with Scheidler is derived from law, not a court rule. See RCW 2.08.080; RCW 2.28..050-060 (Judge distinguished from court and Judicial powers respectively); RCW 2.28.080, (Powers of Superior court judges). Court rules extend only to the ‘government of the superior courts’, NOT the government of the people of this state. See Article 1, Sec 1; Article 4, Sec 24; RCW 2.08.230
3. A judge may only issue a “lawful order.” See RCW 2.28.060(2). Judge Forbes’ orders, which are the only foundation of defendants’ motion, are VOID as they are unlawful. This is a matter for a ‘trial’ not a basis for another improper order. See RCW 4.36.070; See also RCW 4.72..020-030. See amended complaint Section III et seq.
4. A jury is not yet convened as demanded to decided issues of fact (SeeRCW 4.44.090). Therefore there is no due process at this point in the proceeding;
5. For argument sake, without waiving any substantive right or matters of jurisdiction, the “Complaint” was properly amended per court rules:
a) CR 10(a)(2). It names additional defendants that were originally noted as Jane Does. And notes additional factual matters of judicial and attorney misconduct occurring during the course of this case – including violations of law and civil rights – which are clearly violations of CR 11, RCW 2.48.210 and RPC 8.4.
b) Court Rule 15(a). This rule allows for an amended complaint as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Defendants’ never entered a “responsive pleading” as required by RCW 7.56.050 and therefore an amended complaint can be filed as a matter of course.
6. Defendants’ claim the Supreme Court, not Superior Court, has ‘exclusive responsibility for lawyer discipline’ … This statement by defendants’, regardless of its merit or implication in a ‘third party claim’, is completely irrelevant and constitutes yet another unlawful deceptive tactic. Scheidler’s case is against lawyers Felice Congalton and J. Reiko Callner concerning their unlawful conduct to conceal from the Supreme Court, by dismissing sua sponte, Scheidler’s grievances noting the perjury, false reporting, subornation of perjury, violations of privacy … committed by lawyers and lawyers serving as judicial officers as described in the Complaint (Dkt 2)and exhibits referenced therein and attached thereto. There is NO immunity from the unlawful conduct noted by an “information”, amended or otherwise, filed per RCW 7.56.010. See Art. 2, Sec 28(12, 17)
7. Defendants’ claimed remedies available to Scheidler as justification to strike the Amended Complaint are not “due process” remedies for the following reasons:
a) An “appeal” to the Court of Appeals is not a remedy as a “jury” is not available at the appellate level to apply law to fact. , Due process will be denied in such circumstance.
b) The appellate justices, particularly Joel Penoyar, Jill Johanson, of the COA are witnesses and “disqualified” under the same laws and circumstances that disqualify lawyers sitting as judge at the trial level. The Justices of the Supreme Court, as noted by lawyer Kristen Schimpff, Dkt 45, page 2, ln 19, are potential witnesses or ‘third parties’ and are therefore disqualified to make any ruling about this case.
c) Substantive Due Process Violation – When Harm Occurs. A plaintiff claiming a violation of substantive due process may commence suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without first waiting for the State to deny an adequate post deprivation remedy; substantive due process is violated, and the applicable limitation period begins to run, the moment harm occurs.
d) The premise underlying defendants motion, a claim of authority provided by a court rule, would eviscerate Article 1, Sec 1, Sec 4, Sec. 10, Sec 12, Sec 21, Sec 29; Article 4, Sec 28… and would require an “unlawful” act by a judge (already disqualified under law) who takes an oath to uphold WA constitution and not eviscerate it.
Defendants’ want the court to issue an unlawful order to close a case, direct the clerk not to file or accept pleadings unless by leave of the court. This is contrary to Article 1, Sec 1, Sec 4, Sec 10, and in conflict with the duties imposed upon the Clerk by RCW 2.32.050(4) “To file all papers delivered to him or her for that purpose in any action or proceeding in the court as directed by court rule or statute.”
ConclusionA fair and impartial court has not been convened; there can be no due process at this point in the proceedings. Defendants’, by their unlawful conduct, WAIVE any defense that would exempt them or prolong the case due to their unlawful tactical choices. (Akin to the ‘invited error doctrine’ which bars a party from benefiting by their misconduct.)
Defendants’ motion must be denied and sanctions imposed upon defendants for ‘seeking to delay and mislead a judge by any of their false statements of fact and law.’
Any order by a WA state judge, under the present circumstances would be void to the same extent as the orders by Judge Forbes similarly complicit in defendants’ crimes as Judge Forbes.