Thursday, September 3, 2015

Excerpt passage from Government Corruption and Educational Fraud: The Toxic Legacy of the Obama Administration. (draft)

The following is an excerpt passage from Government Corruption and Educational Fraud: The Toxic Legacy of the Obama Administration.  

Currently being edited and revised, it contains over 550 pages documenting the educational fraud and corruption the government, two accreditors (The Association of Theological Schools and Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities) and a school called Western Seminary is involved in. It includes thousands of pages of exhibits as well as videos of various people, published both online and in print, and distributed widely.  (United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1114 (3d Cir. 1985) “[T]he public has a substantial interest in the integrity or lack of integrity of those who serve them in public office.”).

The Obama Administration has fought with public money to support the link of retaining education already paid for and graded as well as any additional education, regardless if taken at Western Seminary MUST cover up child molestation, section 504 fraud and other corruption at Western Seminary, collusion with the accreditors and corruption at the government level.

In spite of 42 million American survivors of child sexual abuse, and with the knowledge of Barack Obama, using public money the Obama Administration defend Western Seminary, the collusion with the accreditors and failures at the federal level as valid.


Put the following into perspective:

On October 7, 2011 the U.S. Department of Education swore under oath that it did not have the documentation to support its various conclusions or claims made in 2007-2008 during the Spellings tenure as U.S. Secretary of Education and during the genesis of the cover-up by the Department under her leadership.  In the most hurtful and powerful way, this also lined up with the conclusions made by the Department’s Inspector General Audit of the AAEU in 2003.

Ten months earlier in January 2011, current Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was confronted that Western Seminary had lied, backdated and falsified documents during an investigation in 2005.  Federal Student funds are linked to compliance with section 504 of the rehabilitation act of 1973.  Compliance includes not retaliating because someone filed a complaint.  (Barker v. Riverside County Office of Education, No. 07-56313 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2009) "The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance . . . .". that panel rejected the suggestion that a person under the statute must be disabled to have standing to raise its protections: "Section 504 and its anti-retaliation provision use the all inclusive phrases 'any person aggrieved' and 'any individual,' and no language further limits who 'any person aggrieved' or 'any individual' may be. In particular, the statutes do not include language requiring such individuals to have disabilities in order to have standing.”)  Just as Randy stated in 2005, Western Seminary was retaliating against him for questioning the treatment of Matt Tuck in 2001.  The settlement agreement clearly indicates no complaints are to be filed involving Matt ¶ 14.  Western Seminary demand everything else to be covered up and threaten both Randy and Carol if they said anything, they would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to Western Seminary, Gary Tuck, Steve Korch and Lynn Ruark.

Western not only used the Settlement Agreement to coverup for the $25,000 under the table pay off to Steve Korch which Randy, Carol or Dresser did not know about at the time, but did so through the lead attorney's trust account (money laundering) so that there would be no trace of the transaction or the secret agreement between Western Seminary and Steve Korch.  It was not until FOIA's filed and received in 2010, that Randy and Carol would learn Western Seminary also used the conditions of the Settlement Agreement as a means to cover for Matt, due to their lying, backdated and falsified documents during the OCR investigation in 2005.

The Obama Administration defends the use of Settlement Agreements to cover up section 504 retaliation, 18 U.S. Code § 1001 and California Penal Code § 134 felonies involving government investigations, and a whole lot more at the direct detriment of Randy Chapel's family and life, because such support covers up the government's failures and corruption in these matters.

Fed up, Susan Allister filed for divorce on February 1, 2011.   Susan forced the divorce by linking it to the "win" of Western Seminary, who colluded with ATS, NWCCU and was being covered by the government against Randy and Carol.  Randy has not seen his son since Nov 2010 and according to Susan will not until he is an adult. (joelchapel.com, joelchapel.co.uk, forcing the creation of www.facebook.com/Joel.T.Chapel)


What has Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, given he has known about this case since 2009?

“stunned,”    “rotten culture,”    and    "The answer here is very simple, you just have a culture of integrity and you have better security measures in place. But again what was so disappointing for me here was not an isolated individual or two, this was clearly systemic; … simply can't happen, that is absolutely inexcusable."

Those words are not about the government's ongoing failures costing Randy’s family and life, or the morbid acts of abuse and corruption of the two accreditors and Western Seminary.  This is in reference to the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal.  About former Superintendent Beverly Hall who was indicted as she “knew or should have known” what was going on.







The draft passage from the book:

In the State of California, a person under the age of 18 is considered a child.  Claiming that the child consented is not a defense.  This is clearly noted in the Criminal Jury Instructions written by the Judicial Council of California. In both No. 1102. Sexual Penetration With Person Under 18 (Penal Code Section 289(h))  (pp. 818-820) and No. 1122. Annoying or Molesting a Child (Penal Code Section 647.6(a)–(c))  (pp. 840-843) People v. Kemp (1934) 139 Cal.App. 48, 51 [34 P.2d 502] is referenced if a defense claims that the other person may have consented.  In Kemp, the defendant was convicted of rape and incest on his niece.  Four counts were charged as rape and four counts as incest.  At the time the niece was sixteen for two of the occasions and seventeen for the other two.  In particular, the niece gave birth to a child, which died a couple of months after birth.  During the time the niece was living with the defendant (March, 1932 - December, 1932 and June, 1933 - October, 1933) the niece and uncle had repeated acts of sexual intercourse.

According to instruction notes for No. 1102, “Except as provided in Section 288, any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year.” Penal Code Section 289(h)).”  The instruction notes go on to define various possible claims and defenses, such as:

1. Foreign Object, Substance, Instrument, or Device Defined. Pen. Code,
§ 289(k)(2); People v. Wilcox (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 715, 717 [223 Cal.Rptr. 170] [a finger is a “foreign object”].

2. Sexual Penetration Defined. Pen. Code, § 289(k)(1); see People v. Quintana (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1371 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 235] [penetration of genital opening refers to penetration of labia majora, not the vagina].

3. Unknown Object Defined. Pen. Code, § 289(k)(3). “Unknown object" shall include any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or any part of the body, including a penis, when it is not known whether penetration was by a penis or by a foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any other part of the body.”

4. Sexual Abuse Defined. People v. White (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 193, 205–206 [224 Cal.Rptr. 467].

In the case of instruction notes for No. 1122, “(a) (1) Every person who annoys or molests any child under 18 years of age shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. (a)(2) Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, engages in conduct with an adult whom he or she believes to be a child under 18 years of age, which conduct, if directed toward a child under 18 years of age, would be a violation of this section, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), by imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (b) Every person who violates this section after having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any other building, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, and by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000). (c) (1) Every person who violates this section shall be punished upon the second and each subsequent conviction by imprisonment in the state prison. (c)(2) Every person who violates this section after a previous felony conviction under Section 261, 264.1, 269, 285, 286, 288a, 288.5, or 289, any of which involved a minor under 16 years of age, or a previous felony conviction under this section, a conviction under Section 288, or a felony conviction under Section 311.4 involving a minor under 14 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.”

Just as was the case in No. 1102, the instruction notes go on to define various possible claims and defenses, such as:

1. Child annoyance or molestation may be committed by either a single act or a repetitive course of conduct. 

2. Sixteen year old cannot consent. See People v. Kemp (1934) 139 Cal.App. 48, 51 [34 P.2d 502].  See also People v. Cardenas (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 927, 937, fn. 7 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 567] [dicta, in context of lewd act].

3. “Annoy” and “molest” are synonymous and generally refer to conduct designed to disturb, irritate, offend, injure, or at least tend to injure, another person. (People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 289 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 965 P.2d 713]; People v. Carskaddon (1957) 49 Cal.2d 423, 426 [318 P.2d 4].) “Annoy means to disturb or irritate, especially by continued or repeated acts . . . . [¶] ‘[M]olest’ [means] . . . ‘to interfere with or meddle with unwarrantably so as to injure or disturb.’ ” (People v. Pallares (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d Supp. 895, 901 [246 P.2d 173].) A photographer can “annoy” a minor by taking the minor’s photograph in a public place in an offensive and irritating manner. (See Ecker v. Raging Waters Group, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1320, 1325 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 320].) A lewd act is not required. (People v. Thompson (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 459, 465–466 [253 Cal.Rptr. 564].)

4. Annoy and Molest Defined; Objective Standard. People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 289–290 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 965 P.2d 713]; People v. Kongs (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1741, 1749–1750 [37 Cal.Rptr.2d 327]; People v. Pallares (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d Supp. 895, 901–902 [246 P.2d 173].  Penal Code 647.6 does not require any touching whatsoever. Words alone may constitute annoying or molesting a child.

5. Lewd Act Not Required. People v. Thompson (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 459, 465–466 [253 Cal.Rptr. 564].

6. Need Not Actually Be Annoyed. People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 290 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 965 P.2d 713].

7. Actual Touching Not Required. People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 871 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305]; People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282, 289 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 965 P.2d 713].

Steve Korch and his various Religious supporters in 1975, have claimed that it was only one child or that he did not commit the acts again or whatever claim he can muddle through.  Somehow making this better, but that is not what the law or the court says.  In People v. Shaw (2009) 77 Cal.App.4th 92, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 ("The statute does not merely protect children as a class; it protects "any child" in the State of California from being annoyed or molested by an adult motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest... To hold that a defendant might lawfully annoy or molest a child motivated by an abnormal sexual interest toward that child alone is not only ludicrous, but defeats the express statutory purpose of protecting any child in this state against sexual offenses.").  In fact, there is nothing in the statute or any case law directly on point that requires the defendant to have singled out any particular child (or group of children) in advance for his actions.

In other words, regardless if it was an one time act, several acts over several weeks which is the case, one child, more children that have not come forward; regardless if he penetrated Jane Doe with his penis, placed it next to her vagina, thrusted his fingers inside back and forth, simply used his fingers, mouth, touched her in any way or even just annoyed her, Steve Korch molested a child.


No comments:

Post a Comment

A moderator will review your comment.