To Thine own self be true, and true to my mission to lead a citizen reform movement in the most socially divisive of issues, we laid down a marker at our borders, stood in defense of our sovereignty and demanded respect for our citizenship and rule of law - I have never wavered and never will. The people of Arizona are responding. I would not be wasting your time or mine if I was not absolutely committed to winning this Senate seat for the people of Arizona. As a federalist senator I'll stand strong on a no-nonsense Constitutional approach to protecting our rights as free people. I will defend our states' ability to allow people to work and live free of federal regulation. And I will protect America's freedom from Internal treaties that cede our sovereignty or are ability to defend our nation.
Thank you to the Kingmen Republican Women's Club, The London Bridge Women's Republican Club and the Lake Havasu Men's Republican Club
The following article by Lee Cary sums it up perfectly - please support my campaign tomorrow with a $25-$50 contribution to send a message to the establishment that we the people are ready to get the job done the RIGHT way. Remember the 5th of November! Chris Simcox www.simcoxforsenate.com
The Genie's people speak at the polls http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_genies_people_speak_at_the.html
And for those who were caught up in being led down the rabbit hole of conspiracy and allegations of financial problems with MCDC. The following statement is true, accurate and to the point. It cannot get any clearer than this.
In 1985, Chris Simcox began a career in early childhood education at a West Los Angeles private school. For the next 10 years he taught in a multi-age K-1-2 classroom.
The terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001 profoundly affected Chris. He became acutely aware of the security issues along our northern and southern borders. Chris believed he could help make Americans aware of the grave risk our open borders pose to our national security.
He left his teaching position and moved to Tombstone, Arizona. There he began working for the Tombstone Tumbleweed, a weekly newspaper. Eventually, Chris founded the first citizen border watch activist group – the Civil Homeland Defense. Over time, it evolved into the historic Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) – a citizen activist group dedicated to securing U.S. borders and coastal boundaries. MCDC efforts brought national attention to the lawless state of our borders. Chris Simcox and Carmen Mercer incorporated the MCDC in Delaware in May 2005. The bylaws of the non-profit 501(c)(4) required three board members: a president, a vice president and an independent third-party secretary. MCDC became a partner project of the Declaration Alliance in May of 2005, and began an educational campaign that eventually alerted millions of Americans to the national security crisis along our border with Mexico.
The MCDC had two goals: 1. Train, equip and organize border-watch Search and Rescue Humanitarian operations along the entire border with Mexico, and in specific locations along the northern border with Canada.
2. Use the experiences and reports from citizen border watch activities to expose the government’s inability to gain operational control of our borders. Our activities ensured media cov¬erage. That coverage enabled us to educate millions of voters. Millions of pieces of direct mail also help bring the porous nature of the southern border to the nation’s attention.
In 2006, MCDC volunteers began helping build small sections of private fencing along the border in Cochise County. This new project was a direct challenge to the Bush administration’s failure to fund, and Senator McCain’s ¬failure to support, the federal project to erect effective barriers along our southern border.
After groundbreaking began on the MCDC fence project in May 2006, the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Guard moved into that same area and began erecting vehicle barriers just yards in front of our physical fence construction. Our plan was to build a three-layer defense system including:
1. vehicle barriers; 2. a small sensor barrier fence; 3. then a large anti-climb fence. A few weeks later, the Border Patrol and the federal government announced they would construct fencing along the exact same area where the MCDC project was building a one-mile section of the "model fence." That MCDC effort was assisted by Jim Campbell, a contractor from the Phoenix area. Campbell personally invested $100,000 in the fence project. He spent $68,000 for the initial steel fence posts, personally acquired the materials, came to the construction site, and oversaw construction of the initial foundational of the MCDC fence project.
In May 2007, five state-level MCDC directors called for the Board of Director to meet with state directors to discuss a proposal to restructure the organization. A series of state and regional workshops were already scheduled to address that issue in August. The five state level directors challenged the Board of Directors to convene a meeting within two weeks. The Board of Directors voted to ask the five state directors to drop their demands for an immediate meeting and to attend the National Conference in August. When the five refused, they were removed from their positions by the Board of Directors. Chris Simcox did not dictate the firing of the five state-level directors. In fact, as the corporation’s official minutes demonstrate, he voted against firing the five and, instead, preferred to negotiate with them to resolve their differences within the organization. Throughout this episode, there were no financial problems within the MCDC. Any claim to the contrary is unsubstantiated. The MCDC filed all its necessary 990 reports, as well as all other documents required from a non-profit educational organization. The MCDC complied with all federal regulations and requirements for 503(c)(4) status. Furthermore, it has demonstrated complete fiduciary responsibility by hiring competent and reputable accounting and auditing firms that have prepared the requisite fiduciary reports on behalf of the organization.
Consequently, with all documentation and audits in order, and after two successive inquiries by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), both the Declaration Alliance and the MCDC have been judged to have appropriately accounted for all funds. Any and all accusations to the contrary are unfounded and motivated by efforts to besmirch the reputation of both organizations. These efforts likely represent fundamental disagreements with the MCDC goals stated above.
As a candidate for the U.S. Senate, Chris Simcox will bring his tenacity to achieve, his strong work ethic, and his varied life experiences to his work on behalf of the people of Arizona. He will ensure that, through his voice, their voices are heard in Washington.
Oh, I forgot 1 important thing.... Welcome to FreeRepublic :D
Bikk
Conservatism is the soul of our nation
I agree that what is called "conservatism" is the core of American identity. But although I may be accused of nitpicking, I think that language is crucial and that "conservatism" - like "liberalsim" and "progressive" - is actually, in America, a Newspeak rather than an English term.Granted that American "conservatives" do have something they want to conserve - the Constitution, our language, our traditions - but the Constitution and our traditions are liberal and progressive. Not "liberal" in the American Newspeak language of the socialist, but actually liberal, as the term referred to advocacy of freedom everywhere before 1920, and continued to do so outside the US long afterward. Not "progressive" in the American Newspeak language of the socialist, but actually progressive, in the sense of advocating progress of, by, and for the people rather than the government.
Essentially my point is that our opponents have controlled the labels, and that has marginalized us. Before the socialists distorted the language, moderation was a classical virtue and liberalism and progressivism were distinctly American virtues. And conservatism was actually a vice in America - which you can readily confirm by considering how eager an American PR man is to splash the word "NEW!" on whatever product he's selling.
Draft Indictment naming those individuals who
participated in the MCDC Fence Project
(Originally submitted November 23, 2008, and
thereafter amended October 25, 2009)
****************************************************************************************************
The following draft indictment is based solely on prosecution under: CHAPTER TWO - Offense Conduct, Part B- Basic Economic Offenses, §2B1.1. Fraud & Deceit and/or 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for fraud involving the deprivation of the intangible right of honest services. All of the necessary elements are included. Many of these elements were included in my Arizona state court civil complaint which I drafted and filed pro se back in May, 2007. If I were able to file a criminal complaint, this is how I would do it. I don’t believe that I have left out anything nor would anyone responsible for the drafting of an indictment have to struggle to get through the myriads of documents which I have submitted thus far. I have done this person’s work for them! It’s just a matter of putting things in good order.
-Jim Campbell, $100K donor to MCDC Fence Project May, 2006.
****************************************************************
At all times relevant hereto:
1. The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (”MCDC”) was established in 2005, by Defendant CHRIS SIMCOX and its headquarters were located in Scottsdale, Arizona. Defendant SIMCOX became its self-appointed leader and has remained in that capacity up to the present, and had a fiduciary duty to provide honest services to not only the members of the MCDC, but to the General Public (from whom donations to the MCDC Border Fence Project were solicited), as well. The MCDC became a project of Declaration Alliance in or about, April, 2005.
2. Declaration Alliance, doing business out of Reston, VA, took over the control of the MCDC (i.e.: The MCDC became a “project” of Declaration Alliance.) and provided, among other things, oversight, public relations, the public solicitation and the receipt of donations, and the accounting thereof, etc. for the MCDC.
3. Defendant CARMEN MERCER was the Vice President of the MCDC and the President of a non-profit entity identified as the Minuteman Foundation, Inc. This entity was created by both Defendants MERCER and LEWIS in December, 2005. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant MERCER acted as President and Defendant LEWIS acted as Treasurer of said entity. In addition, Defendant MERCER took on the responsibility of helping to coordinate day-to-day fence- building efforts as well.
4. Defendant MARY PARKER LEWIS was President of Declaration Alliance, Secretary of Declaration Foundation and Treasurer of the Minuteman Foundation, Inc. Defendant LEWIS had responsibility for the oversight of the MCDC, Diener Consultants, and the border fence project.
5. Defendant PHILLIP SHELDON was President of Diener Consultants and worked out of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Diener Consultants contracted with Declaration Alliance to do public relations work for the MCDC.
6. Defendant PETER KUNZ, as an independent contractor, worked under the supervision of Defendant PHILLIP SHELDON out of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and has (at all times relevant here to) been the “MCDC Fence Project Manager”.
*****************************************************************
Between in or about December 30, 2005, and continuing to at least June, 2008, at Scottsdale, Arizona, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and Reston, Virginia in the District of Arizona, and elsewhere,
CHRIS SIMCOX,
CARMEN MERCER,
MARY PARKER LEWIS,
PHILLIP SHELDON,
and
PETER KUNZ,
the defendants herein, together and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury (collectively the “co-conspirators”), knowingly devised, intended to devise, and participated in a scheme to defraud the General Public of money and property and of of the intangible right to the honest services of the General Public, and to obtain money and property from the General Public by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises and material omissions, which scheme is further described below.
It was part of the scheme that:
1.-——On April 19, 2006, via electronic mail transmission from Minuteman Headquarters, Defendant SIMCOX publicly announced that the MCDC would begin construction of a border fence to be entitled: “Minuteman Border Fence”. There then began the solicitation of donations from the General Public. Defendant SIMCOX further stated that all fence-funds would be caged in a designated “571” account. Thereafter, as donations began to come in, the MCDC Media Director made frequent public announcements of the amounts brought in. This continued up until on, or about, May 27, 2006, when a donor identified as Mr. Jim Campbell formalized his previously-announced $100,000. donation at a ground breaking ceremony. Thereafter, despite numerous requests for a fence accounting there have never been any announcements, explanations, or accounting of donations received or their disposition, nor has there ever been any disclosure of the amounts serving to offset these donations.
2.-——It has been determined that fence donations have been directed to at least two different entities: Declaration Foundation and the Minuteman Foundation, Inc. It was disclosed to the General Public that certain fence donations in this “571” account would be directed to Declaration Foundation. As to the Minuteman Foundation, Inc., the existence of that entity has remained a secret, thereby ruling out any public inquiry as to fence funds directed to that organization. All of the defendants identified herein have known about the existence of this entity, but have remained silent as to its existence.
3.-——Upon discovery of the existence of the Minuteman Foundation, Inc. and the financial documents required to be submitted to the IRS by it and Declaration Foundation as well, it has been determined that these financial documents revealed that only a small portion of the donation amounts revealed in these financial documents went towards direct, fence-related construction expenses. This, despite the promotion of this fraudulent scheme through frequent public announcements which conveyed the false impression to the General Public of only gross donation figures while failing to mention the fact that these gross figures would be offset by excessive expenses directly benefiting the fraudulent scheme promoters. In large measure, these excessive expenses, plus the public controversy surrounding the lack of transparency of fence financials, led directly to the ultimate failure and abandonment of this border fence project in February, 2007.
4.-——On April 24, 2006, Defendant KUNZ (with or without the knowledge and/or cooperation of the other named defendants) caused to be established a domain and an active, public website entitled “Minuteman Border Fence Scheme”. (This website included as its homepage the same colorful homepage of, as well as an active “donation” link to the donation page of, the “designated” MCDC Border Fence Project website.) By Defendant KUNZ’s decision to effectively characterize the just-announced border fence project as a “scheme”, the defendant effectively trivialized and brought into question the legitimacy of this border fence project. This creation represented a conscious, pre-meditated, contemplation of actual or foreseeable harm to, and a contempt for, his intended victims: members of the General Public from which donations were to be solicited. Defendant Kunz’s decision to create a domain so entitled clearly and undeniably demonstrates a malice aforethought, a thought and intention to commit a crime well in advance of the crime, which goes to show criminal intent to expose his contemplated victims to reasonably foreseeable economic harm.
5.—— On April 23, 2006, Defendant KUNZ caused to be established an active, public website entitled “Minuteman Fence Fund” (use “Minuteman Fence Fund” to find the site.). The existence of this website has never before been revealed by any of the defendants named herein. The domain for #2 below (Minutemanborderfenceproject.com) was caused to be established by Diener Consultants, Inc. on April 24, 2006. The home page of this website contains a left-hand “index” column. By selecting each option below, the following individual page titles are revealed:
1. Home: Minuteman Border Fence Fund
2. Border Fence Project: Minuteman Border Fence Project
3. Security Donations: Minuteman Project Fence Donations
4. Contact Us: Minuteman Border Security Fence
5. Fax Blast Capitol Hill: Minuteman Security Fence Fund
6. Site Map: Minuteman Fence Fund Project
7. Site Map: Border Security Fence Project
On May 3, 2008, Defendant KUNZ, (disguised as “MMTruth”), via electronic media (i.e.: the MCDC Forum, which was owned and operated by Diener Consultants) publicly asserted that:
“ 1) No one knows who MMTruth is. Many think they have some sort of clairvoyant ability to divine who I am however I think they should stick to looking for water with a forked stick. I am here to correct lies, innuendo and nutty conclusions. . .
2) minutemanfencefund.com is not owned by Diener Consultants or anyone associated with MCDC. It does not collect donations for MCDC or the Minuteman Border Fence.”
These were false exculpatory statements as well as a breach of Defendant KUNZ’s fiduciary duty as the Fence Project Manager to acknowledge his true identity and provide truthful replies to those forum members who were asking legitimate questions of him in his capacity as the Fence Project Manager. Thereafter, Defendant KUNZ no longer attempted to respond to further questions/challenges posed by MCDC Forum members, and on May 5, 2008, Defendant KUNZ “locked” the thread, and immediately deleted every post on that thread which dealt with challenges to his personal integrity and/or the legitimacy of the border fence project. Defendant Kunz’s last statement to all of the Forum members was: “One final answer. MMTruth is not Peter Kunz.”
6.-——At sometime between April 24, 2006, and May 4, 2008, Defendant KUNZ caused the appearance of the Minuteman Fence Fund website to be altered. One of the purposes for so doing was to hide the fact that it once contained the following information excerpted from the website description: “Donate to the Minuteman Fence Fund, it was established as a non-profit organization to help stop Mexican illegal immigration into the united states to help secure and protect U.S. Mexico border from criminals and terrorists”. (aboutus.org/MinutemanFenceFund.com)Neither the existence of the Minuteman Fence Fund, nor its status as a non-profit organization, have ever been revealed or acknowledged by any of the defendants named herein.
7.-——In three separate, public pronouncements between 04/19/06, and 4/28/06, Defendant SIMCOX caused to be stated via electronic mail transmissions from Minuteman Headquarters (in effect) that “six” or a “half-dozen” landowners along the Arizona-Mexico border had said that they will allow fencing to be placed on their borderlands or that six private landowners had partnered with the Minutemen. Every donor thereafter would then have reason to place detrimental reliance on these various statements in their decisions to donate to the border fence project. (Until such date as it finally became apparent that Defendant SIMCOX had merely been lying to everyone in a effort to gain financial support for the fraudulent scheme.)
8.-——On or about May 19, 2006, having seen the media announcements of a half-dozen landowners “partnering” with the MCDC and realizing the huge impetus that such a large group of “partnering” landowners would have towards the successful start to the border fence project, a donor previously identified herein as Jim Campbell stepped forward and offered to contribute financially to help this border fence project succeed. Mr. Campbell was directed to Defendant KUNZ, who was identified as the Fence Project Manager. Defendant KUNZ represented to Mr. Campbell during the first of a total of two interstate telephone calls, that the border frontage owned by a Mr. Jack and a Mr. John Ladd would be the site upon which the model of the “Israeli-style” fence would be constructed. The Ladd’s owned and/or leased a total of 10 miles of border frontage upon which it was also represented to Mr. Campbell by Defendant KUNZ that the Ladd’s had granted the MCDC permission to build ten miles of an “Israeli-style” fence. Mr. Campbell responded by donating $100,000. with the express condition that his donation would be used exclusively fabricate the heavy fence posts that would be then be placed along this 10-miles of border frontage. Mr. Campbell documented these conditions via an electronic mail transmission on May 21, 2006, directed to Defendants KUNZ, SIMCOX, and SHELDON. Both Defendants SIMCOX and SHELDON had a duty to instruct Defendant Kunz to immediately notify Mr. Campbell that his $100,000. donation would not be dedicated to the purchase of structural steel tubing from which steel posts would be fabricated and used along this ten miles of the Ladd’s border frontage, but -in part - would instead be used in the construction of ten miles of “cattle fencing”.
8.-——On May 22, 2006, Defendant LEWIS initiated an interstate telephone call from her residence in Seal Beach, California to Mr. Campbell requesting that Mr. Campbell wire-transfer his announced $100,000. donation to Declaration Foundation. (Which Mr. Campbell did.) In that first and subsequent interstate telephone conversations and electronic mail transmissions, Defendant LEWIS acknowledged that this steel “would be a linch-pin element” of the upcoming fence project on Ladds’ property and talked frequently and knowledgeably with Mr. Campbell about subjects such as the ultimate design, fabrication, as well as the integration and the coordination of the steel posts into the construction activities that would already be going on on the Ladd’s property. At no time during these conversations did Defendant LEWIS disclose to Mr. Campbell that her attorney was then negotiating with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bureau of Charitable Organizations a Settlement Agreement relating to allegations (criminal) made by that Office of LEWIS’ having “Made material False statements in applications and documents required to be submitted to that Office. These were the falsified returns of the same Declaration Foundation in whose care Defendant LEWIS had already successfully induced Mr. Campbell to direct his $100,000. donation to.
9.-——On or about June 24, 2006, via electronic mail transmission from Minuteman Headquarters, Defendant SIMCOX announced that: “We have a monumental challenge ahead to raise $55 million . . “. (The $55 million figure was the “build-out” figure for 70 miles of contiguous border frontage and represents their “envisioned”, total, potential magnitude of the their fraudulent scheme.)
10.-——Defendant SIMCOX - acting as a fiduciary - utilized his position of trust to obtain a benefit for himself and co-conspirators at the expense of the General Public - whose trust he thereby breached/abused. These breaches of duty were accompanied by misrepresentations and non disclosures that Defendant SIMCOX intended and contemplated would deprive the General Public (to whom the duty was owed) of some legally significant benefit: Specifically, the realization that (beginning with the “model fence”, of whatever length donations would permit) there would at least be sufficient cooperating landowners (6-9) with border frontage, to “potentially” allow this model to extend for considerable distances along their respective border frontages. . A ”potential” continuation of what was falsely “represented” to this General Public as a viable, and credible length of “Israeli-style” fencing. Instead, precious financial resources were diverted to the construction of 10 miles of “cattle fencing” and away from what has only been the partial completion of only a nine-tenths of a mile section of an “Israeli-style” fence. This nine-tenths of a mile section represents the TOTAL border frontage belonging to just the ONE participating rancher out of a range of between 7 and 9 ranchers which Defendant SIMCOX had represented as having “partnered”.Defendant SIMCOX, as well as his co-conspirators, were aware even prior to the April 19, 2006, fence announcement date that the Ladd’s (the landowners upon whose land the MCDC was to have its groundbreaking) had rejected outright the MCDC’s offer to build an “Israeli-style fence, yet Defendants SIMCOX, LEWIS, and KUNZ persisted in promoting their fraudulent fence scheme to Mr. Campbell and the General Public, alike.
11.———The evidence shows that Defendants SIMCOX’s, LEWIS’, and KUNZ’s initial misrepresentations, false representations and omissions were “material” and demonstrated that these defendants never intended to be bound by any fiduciary duty to their victims; and these defendants had thus created an identifiable economic risk for their donors. (”the prosecution must prove only that the defendant intended to breach his fiduciary duty, and reasonably should have foreseen that the breach would create an identifiable economic risk.”)
12.———These misrepresentations, half-truths, omissions were ‘material’. (At issue for an ‘honest services’ fraud conviction must be ‘material’ such that the misinformation or omission naturally tended to lead or was capable of leading a reasonable victim to change its conduct.”)
13.———Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER made deceitful statements of half-truths and/or concealed material facts and devised a scheme for obtaining money or property by such statements or concealment.
14.———The evidence shows that the Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER concealed or failed to disclose material facts while also making partial or ambiguous statements that warranted additional disclosure to avoid having been misleading.
15.———Defendants SIMCOX’, KUNZ’s, and MERCER’s failure to disclose can be regarded as intending to defraud or obtain money or property by deceit.
16.———Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, LEWIS, and MERCER performed deceptive acts or contrivances such as the creation of, and subsequent failure to disclose the existence of: Minuteman Fence Fund, Minuteman Foundation, Inc., and Minuteman Border Fence Scheme. - which acts or contrivances were intended to hide information, mislead, avoid suspicion, or avert further inquiry into a material matter.
17.———In May, 2007, Mr. Campbell filed a civil complaint against Defendants SIMCOX, LEWIS, KUNZ, and SHELDON alleging the fraudulent inducement of Mr. Campbell’s $100,000. donation. Defendant SIMCOX mal-appropriated $30,900. of the MCDC donors’ money to pay for the costs of these defendants’ collective defense. Mr. Campbell then realized the futility of attempting to obtain legal redress in the civil arena and thereafter dismissed his civil suit.
18.———Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER made omissions and/or concealed material information which constituted fraud cognizable under the mail fraud statute, without proof of a duty to disclose the information pursuant to a specific statute or regulation.
19.———Defendant SIMCOX, as a fiduciary, utilized his trusted position to obtain a benefit for himself and the other co-conspirators, but at the expense of the General Public whose trust he breached. The breach was accompanied by material non-disclosures and misrepresentations to the party owed the duty: the General Public.
20. -———Throughout the course of this fraudulent scheme, Defendants SIMCOX and KUNZ have caused to be utilized mass-mailing/ mass-marketing at frequent intervals in the promotion of this fraudulent scheme.
21.-—— In the two and one half years since the February, 2007, failure and consequent abandonment of the border fence project, Defendant LEWIS (through Declaration Foundation and Declaration Alliance) and Defendants SIMCOX and MERCER (through the MCDC), have persisted in causing to be maintained viable donation links to the “designated fence donation webpage”; and in the case of the Minuteman Foundation, Inc., Defendants LEWIS and MERCER have caused to be solicited direct donations, thus bypassing the caging officer.
22.———Between in or about December 30, 2005, and continuing to at least June, 2008, the defendants named herein have combined to engage on a continuing basis in conduct that violates the provisions of the felony statutes ARS 13-2310 and 13-2311. Under the provisions of ARS 13-2301, C., 7., these defendants meet the statutory definition of a Criminal Syndicate.
IMHO you and McLaim are a horse a piece. We have had enough of lying rinos!!!!
Lets seek out real conservatives evidenced by their actions and deeds no their lying words.
Chris, you recall your messages to the forum following your lunch date with la raza and maldef.
Please people. DONT BE FOOLED AGAIN!!!!!