Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The Two Posner Orders : AOUSC Executives' Hand in Court's Theft of the $48,903.81

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 devise a simple plan (on which is based NSFfunding.com's contract with Treasury) for the 7th Circuit's use of the Two Posner Orders as follows. 
The $48,903.81 and the John Doe Trust in a res of $261,664.89 are the two sums remaining of the bankrupt Woodmar Realty Company's assets stolen by the courts totaling $2.34m in 1941, see, Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 92d Congress, 2d Sess., Vol. 118, March 27, 1971, at E3117, to which Fong has asserted a claim against the courts and others. 

Woodmar claimants are successors-in-interest to the unclaimded Woodmar assets in In re Woodmar Realty Company, USDC, N.D.Ind., No. 3151

Woodmar recipients are those revenue officers and NSF OIG (Office of Inspector General) employees named by Steve Beering on the PX 45 tape , in the bribery complaint filed by IRS District Director's Representative John Hunter with IRS Inspection and Exempt Organization, FOIA Document A, on the December return, to whom the $48,903.81 was paid 1978 through Purdue Employees Federal Credit Union (PEFCU), and those disclosed by Fong's internal contact as Outside Stakeholder appointed by Bobby Hunt.  See, Bayh (1-25-10) and FOIA Documents D and E.   

For decades, Posner maintained the plan of Two Posner Orders to shield PCDF's promotion of the Lawler tract for making of the Calvin cycle.  But the shrouds ran afoul.  In February of 1998, the U.S. Attorney (N.D.Ind.) authenticated Beering's written report by order of federal court (Moody).  Contemporaneously, that report became the subject of a contempt of court citation (for perjury, Tippecanoe Superior Court 2, Case No. 79D02-9708-CP-0162) upon Purdue counsel David Starkweather's disavowal of that written report.  Thereafter, Fong began his investigation involving the accounting division of the AOUSC.

Beering's report exploded the simple plan, compelling Moody's manipulations to vanish the $48,903.81, which in turn prompted the IRS EXEC to issue an executive directive for Fong to detect and punish Posner and Moody for the theft of moneys from Treasury. 
Posner could have walked away with his $250,000.  Charges of corruption are common.  The pejorative connotations of the word, "corruption," minimize the normative significance the word itself.  As it turned out, Fong's work was brought to fruition.  On 7-10-98, AOUSC's accounting division wrote:
  • "In reviewing the material you faxed to me yesterday the funds you claim were transferred to the General Funds of the Treasury on 6-28-1973.  (See entry on the docket page (for In re Woodmar Realty Company, No. 3151) identified as Encloaure B of your faxed material.)"
  • "The process for disposing of unclaimed funds at that time were for them to be deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts [receipt account 101099].  Upon claim by someone entitled to part or all of the proceeds, and a determination by the court of jurisdiction of the authenticity of, and entitlement to the funds, an order would be prepared and mailed to our office.  (emphasus added)  Our voucher examination section would transfer an amount equal to the claim from the General Fund [receipt account 101099] to the trust account [20x6133] from which a check would be issued to the claimant."    
In response, Fong wrote AOUSC: Its message of 7-10-98 was clear.  The 6-28-73 entry for the docket page read: "Escheated Funds in the sum of $48,903.81 forwarded to Treas. (1099) under provisions of Title 28, Section 2042."  ("Section 2042. Withdrawal--No money deposited under section 2041 of this title shall be withdrawn except by order of court.")  The very next entry dated 4-25-74 read: "Woodmar Realty Co. files petition for the release and delivery of its cash assets in the Federal Registery (sic) at South Bend."  Therefore, the $48,903.81 was withdrawn from Treasury in Washington and transferred back to the Federal Registry at South Bend, Indiana, absent the statutorily mandated order of court "prepared and mailed to AOUSC" for its "voucher exmination section to transfer an amount equal to the claim from the General Fund to the trust account from which a check was issued to the claimant." 

In reply, on 11-21-03, referring to the entry for 2-16-78, in which the court "forever barred" claimants failing to file proof of claim (to the $48,903.81 "held in the Registry of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana") as of 4-30-78, Systems Accountant Mike Eisert of AOUSC wrote:
  • "As I said in my previous communication the action of the court in barring a claim against the funds then held appear incorrect but are certainly at the crucx (sic) of your problem.  Why was the action by the court taken in 1978?  And where were the funds held prior to that time?" (emphasis in red provided)
It is therefore reasonable to conclude, pending a formal accounting by the AOUSC showing proof to the contrary, that the court on or before 4-25-74, with the assistance of the management ranks of AOUSC in control of its voucher examination section, withdrew without the requisite order (i.e., stole) the $48,903.81 from Treasury's General Fund [receipt account 101099] and moved it to the trust account [20x6133], from which, in late 1973 or early 1974, they transferred it back to the Federal Registry in South Bend, whence the funds were funneled through the John Doe Trust for PEFCU to pay, in 1978, the Woodmar recipients to protect NSF's DPFS from being exposed by reason of Fong et al's finding in 1977-78 of the chlorophyll water splitting reaction.

Eisert's obaservation, that Treasury lost the $48,903.81 prior to 1978, between the docket entries for 6-28-73 and 4-25-74, thus nailed down AOUSC management ranks' hand in assisting the court's theft of that money.  This is because, he wrote,
  • "This procedure was changed later to permit the courts to make the adjustment for funds previously treated as miscellaneous receipts without this office being involved.  The claim, if otherwise correct, and the funds may be paid by the court by making the adjustment previously made by this office.  This can be done by the district court financial department preparing an AO 283 transferring the money from 109900 (sic) to 613300 with the explanation - "to recover unclaimed funds previously treated as forfeited to distribute to claimant to whom the amount is owed".  The District court can then post the collection to its 613300 balance and issue a check upon receipt of the order to disburse."  (emphasis in red added)
That is, even though the court's role in stealing the $48,903.81 can not be disputed, because the docket is without an entry of the order to withdraw mandated by Section 2042, the role played by the management ranks of AOUSC could have been made ambiguous by the procedural change, had the transfer-back not taken place almost immediately after the $48,903.81 was escheated 6-28-73 to Treasury prior to the procedureal change to permit the courts to make the adjustment for funds without the AOUSC's voucher examination section being involved.

No comments:

Post a Comment