Disclaimer: Nothing in this document is hidden from public view. All allegations and factual assertions are made from open court and press records. There is NO gag-order in place to not disclose details. Furthermore, as this involved high level corruption at the near highest level of Arizona elected officials, and all parties are Republican, the appropriate step was taken to notify and inform the party before this publication.
In the first quarter of 2014 (yes, FIVE years ago) an investigation originally conducted by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office was handed over to the feds. That case then illegally placed an unconstitutional hold on the case Hempfling v. CVDC Holdings et.al. in Pinal County Superior Court.
Prior to that illegal hold, there was an apparent legal delay agreement with the Arizona Second Division Appeals Court to hold the case from mandate until it was expressly demanded. When that was stopped through a request to that court, the illegal hold was placed in Superior Court under then Judge Bradley Soos.
In violation of the 14th Amendment’s protection from the theft of due process, that hold not only stopped the non-released and FINISHED DEFAULTED civil case from being published, it also prohibited the parties from filing a motion to complain about it. By direct order.
What amounted to a minimum of $70,000,000.00 dollars to be awarded to the plaintiffs by DEFAULT in Hempfling v. CVDC Holdings et.al.: was stopped from OUTSIDE of the case. How it was a default is where this all began.
YEARS LATER on July 5, 2017 Julianne Stanford, of The Arizona Republic reported :
“The indictments of a former state corporation commissioner, a utility owner and a lobbyist grew out of a ‘much larger and more intensive’ federal investigation still underway, court records filed Monday indicate.
Former Arizona Corporation Commission Chairman Gary Pierce; his wife, Sherry Pierce; water-company executive George Johnson; and lobbyist Jim Norton were indicted May 23 on federal bribery, conspiracy and fraud charges
Attorneys for the Pierces filed a motion July 3 seeking pretrial disclosure of investigative documents they said are needed to begin building their clients’ defenses.
Federal prosecutors have asked the attorneys to first agree to a protective order restricting how and with whom the information may be shared. Prosecutors indicated in correspondence submitted to the court that some of the documents are sensitive to the larger case the FBI is investigating.
‘Mr. Pierce, Mr. Norton and many others have been interviewed by the FBI concerning that larger investigation,’ Assistant U.S. Attorneys Fred Battista and Frank Galati wrote in an email to defense attorneys attached to Monday’s motion. Battista said the larger probe ‘is unrelated to our case.’
‘We do not want persons who are unrelated to this case getting their hands on evidence that the FBI has gathered in an ongoing investigation,’ their email said.
Prosecutors did not otherwise elaborate on the context or scope of the larger investigation.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined comment on the matter, and defense attorneys were unavailable to discuss the motion.”
Then, on August 7 2018 after a lackluster prosecution Katie Campbell of the Arizona Capital Times reported  :
“The government will not seek a second trial in the so-called ‘Ghost Lobby’ bribery case.
On Tuesday, prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss all charges against former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, his wife, Sherry Pierce, lobbyist Jim Norton and utility owner George Johnson.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment. …
When the jurors determined they could not reach a unanimous verdict, jury foreperson Taryn Jeffries told the Arizona Capitol Times that the majority had been leaning toward acquitting all four defendants.
Jeffries had been one of seven jurors who believed they were innocent, and on Tuesday, she said the government made the right choice by not pursuing the case further.
She said the case felt rushed, and she saw nothing to suggest the defendants were guilty.
‘Now I know this was part of something much bigger. It’s a tiny part of this huge thing,’ she said, comparing the trial to pre-season football. ‘This was their way of seeing maybe of how that would go.’
The ‘Ghost Lobby’ case stemmed from a larger investigation, dubbed ‘Operation High Grid’ in government documents. “
The general assumption is that Operation High Grid is all about election money.
That would be Operation Ghost Lobby.
On August 9, 2018 Katie Campbell, again of the Arizona Capitol Times reported [3,4] :
“The government’s decision to drop a bribery case involving a former regulator and utility owner leaves the question of what will come of its parent investigation.
Judge John Tuchi, of U.S. District Court in Phoenix, on August 8 approved the request by the U.S. Attorney for Arizona to dismiss felony conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud charges against former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, his wife Sherry Pierce, lobbyist Jim Norton and utility owner George Johnson.
The dismissal came three weeks after a jury was hung, ending 14 days of testimony over a five-week span.
And one thing jurors never heard about was the larger investigation from which the case, dubbed by prosecutors as ‘Operation Ghost Lobby,’ stemmed.
Investigators stumbled upon Ghost Lobby during their investigation of ‘Operation High Grid.’
It is widely known the FBI has been looking into certain statewide races in the 2014 election, and Gary Pierce has acknowledged talking to investigators about the secretary of state’s race that year – his son, Justin Pierce, was a candidate in the Republican primary.”
So we know that Operation Ghost Lobby involves election topics, but what does Operation High Grid involve? Remember, Operation Ghost Lobby just ‘fell into their laps’. So why was the Johnson-Pierce case just dropped? Why was it not pursued?
As would be understandably so, the Plaintiffs in the original Pinal County Superior Court case; Hempfling v. CVDC Holdings LLC et.al. were livid over the violation of their constitutional rights to Due Process and had mounted a long and intense battle to stop prosecutors from illegally withholding the civil case. Defendants in Hempfling v. CVDC Holdings et.al. AS LISTED BY THE SUPERIOR COURT include:
- JOHN A BIGLER,
- JAMES A BOURNE,
- JAMES R BOURNE,
- ELWYNN CAFFALL,
- PEGGY CAFFALL,
- TREVOR CAFFALL,
- WYNN C CAFFALL,
- CANYON VISTA DENTAL CARE LLC
- CVD CARE LLC
- CVDC HOLDINGS LLC
- JOHN A BIGLER DDS,
- TREVOR CAFFALL DDS,
- WPF HOLDINGS LLC,
- WYNN CAFFALL DDS PC
Way back in August of 2011, defendants or their representative(s), responding to the action brought against them from a 2009 massive series of dental malpractice and fraud issues: did cause or commit acts of bribery involving clerks of the Pinal County Superior Court to illegally conceal documents filed in response to the complaint.
If that concealment had not been discovered (by another Court Clerk) then the Plaintiffs would have been drummed out of court for having filed default documents claiming defendants failed to respond to the action as the ‘hidden’ documents would have appeared after such filing. 10 days after that response was due from defendants, no documents were contained in the court docket system, prompting the clerk to declare the copies sent to the Plaintiffs to be ‘trash’.
The default request did not immediately follow that assertion. Plaintiffs’ evidence was entered into the record before the demand. As is quite often the situation in self-represented cases; the court continually ruled against the Plaintiffs prompting a Special Action to be filed in District Two of the Arizona Appeals Court. No defendant appeared in that court to defend their positions. The court, nevertheless continued the self-represented method and the initial ruling was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. No defendant appeared in the Supreme Court and that court declined to hear the appeal, allowing the ‘hidden and unknown order’ of the Appeals court to stand. A YEAR LATER the Plaintiffs insisted the mandate be issued and it was. Then it stood still. After being ordered by the Appeals court to complete the Superior Court case, i.e.: PUBLISH IT…fell on deaf ears; the quest began to make it happen.
On Nov 10, 2015 a law suit was filed in Arizona District Court before Judge Diane J Humetewa as Hempfling et al v. Stanford et al 2:15-cv-02268. It sought to punish the illegal acts of the Court Clerk including 18 U.S. Code §242 Deprivation of rights under color of law and numerous state violations. The state defended the Defendants through Assistant Attorney General Karen J. Hartman-Telez who based her entire defense on a false pretext. She was notified of its false and irrelevant condition but continued the defense. In Violation of 18 U.S. Code §1623 False declarations before grand jury or court. In the mean time:
On Sep 21, 2016 a law suit was filed in Arizona District Court before Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett initially as Hempfling et al v. Voyles et al 2:16-cv-03213, later changed to Hempfling et al v. Volkmer et al and later changed to Lee Kent Hempfling & Suesie Kent Hempfling vs. Kent Volkmer, Mark Brnovich and [a retired Superior Court judge] .
The Willett case was a simple request for a Permanent Injunction to stop the Superour Court from illegally withholding the Superior Court Case. The only way to stop the deprivation of Constitutional Rights was to publish the case that was already years late in seeing sunlight. As happens with Pro-Se cases, it wound up in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as Lee Hempfling, et al v. Kent Volkmer, et al 0:17-cv-16329 on Jun 28, 2017.
What arose from the defense of that attempt is reprehensible conduct by ARIZONA REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS.
Attempting to have the delay of publication stopped, the first attempt was in asking the newly elected Clerk of Court, Amanda Stanford to acknowledge what was holding it up. Instead of doing that, she and her chief deputy conspired together to Interfere with a judicial proceeding by publishing, through U.S. Mail, a false & grossly inaccurate report of the court proceeding in question by declaring the case to be ended and that the Plaintiffs had lost the case and owed filing fees that were deferred. That violated Arizona Revised Statute Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-2810 Interfering with judicial proceedings. It also violated numerous rules of conduct created by the Arizona Supreme Court for court Clerks, as well as additional state and federal law.
When the Willett case was filed, an act was performed that is unheard of before this event. SOMEONE HIGH UP in political circles in ARIZONA made an agreement with GOOGLE to create a Lumen Database copyright block that stopped publications of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals from showing up in search indexes ONLY FOR THIS CASE. In fact, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was CENSORED through the entry of a children’s book. No reference was made in that entry to the Appeals Court, but its blocks contained just that.
When the 9th Circuit issued a short unpublished notice of judgment on Dec 26, 2017 it never appeared in Google search. It did appear as provided by the US Government printing office, but not the court. Every other document on the court’s unpublished memorandum page for the same day showed up as normal in Google search, but not the Lumen Database controlled blocked case. How do we know? Google ‘used’ to provide the data from Lumen at the bottom of any search affected by a block of copyright infringement. That was stopped.
Lumen declares on its front page  :
“The Lumen database collects and analyzes legal complaints and requests for removal of online materials, helping Internet users to know their rights and understand the law. These data enable us to study the prevalence of legal threats and let Internet users see the source of content removals.”
It is a front for political censorship. The court is well aware of it. What motive could there have been to hide the involvement of the Attorney General’s Office in high crimes? What Judge was pending appointment to the Federal Bench in Phoenix?
While Google was doing the bidding of ARIZONA POLITICIANS, Karen J. Hartman-Tellez once again offered the same defense she put forth in the Humatewa case. Knowing the defense to be false, she proffered it numerous times, each time reminded how false it was, until at the end of the 9th Circuit case (the first ending) she withdrew from the case and let the lies fall on Assistant Attorney General Pamela Linnins who continued the lies and was once again caught doing it. The Pinal County Attorney’s office offered the same lies, well after numerous notifications of their falsity.
Google continues to censor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Not to be left alone in corruption, the Google censorship act was but one weapon turned against the Plaintiffs simply attempting to receive what is due process in constitutional cases. The continue perjury was another but there was a serious third.
When the Willett case began, the Plaintiffs, filing in U.S. Mail, were the victims of obstruction that continued throughout the case. The very first filing of the initial case complaint was STOLEN from inside the United States Postal Service and redirected from the overnight delivery distribution center to the International Distribution Center. In other words, it was redirected to wind up somewhere outside of the country. Apparently Postal Inspectors found that mailing as it was delivered to the Court in San Fransisco a few days later. So began the mail theft saga.
A total of three times inside the trials (the case was retried by sitting Appeals Court Judges) mail was either stolen and redirected, or stolen and hidden. Each time, Postal Inspectors found the missing documents and completed delivery to the court.
Following the December 2017 entry of judgment (hidden and unpublished) the Defendants, Mark Brnovich as Attorney General and Kent Volkmer as County Attorney (in their official capacities) refused to appear in defense of their behavior in court, effectively admitting their illegal acts. Kent Volkmer was represented by Kevin S. Costello. At least the court was told he was, as Kevin S. Costello refused the copy of the Plaintiff’s final motion and declared there was no such person at the Pinal County Attorney’s Office. He did it officially by rejected mail delivery.
No Defendant appeared in response. The case was ended on or around April 27, 2018 and mandated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on or about April 30, 2018 as shown on the Willett docket.
50 days later, since nothing was completed by the appeals court and the Willett retry case was never made public ( the Plaintiffs have never received a final order in any case all the way back to the Superior Court case ,) the Plaintiffs attempted to invoke 9th Circuit rule 36-4:
Circuit Rule 36-4. Request for Publication
Publication of any unpublished disposition may be requested by letter addressed to the Clerk, stating concisely the reasons for publication. Such a request will not be entertained unless received within 60 days of the issuance of this Court’s disposition. A copy of the request for publication must be served on the parties to the case. The parties will have 14 days from the date of service to notify the Court of any objections they may have to the publication of the disposition. If such a request is granted, the unpublished disposition will be redesignated an opinion. (Rev. 12/1/09)
That attempt was stolen in the United States Postal Service. The federal court clerk was notified of the mail theft and an attempt was made to transmit a fax to the clerk of such a letter but the request was denied since the case was closed.
That letter was sent to the clerk and the court by FEDEX to guarantee delivery and a copy of it was mailed in U.S. Mail. That copy was stolen. In that letter the clerk and court were notified of definitive civil proof that the persons named in the action and in the Humatewa case were aware of the contents of the first attempt to invoke 36-4. No defendant responded to that letter and they certainly were aware of the contents of a stolen piece of mail.
The original case in Superior Court was attempted to be stopped from being held up. That delay was not only horrible when the Willett case was filed, it was compounded by the commission of federal crimes inside the case and its appeal. Doing that meant that even though all effort was made to keep any criminal activity outside of the case, the very act of criminal commission in the case was just another delay tactic as criminal prosecution will hold up a related civil case, even though that civil case was illegally held to begin with by the very same parties.
It is undoubtedly true that the Johnson-Pierce bribery charges were not refiled because at that time, the cases discussed here were working through the federal appeals court. Had the court published the case documents when they were mandated (April 2018) the case of Johnson-Pierce would have been ongoing as that case was still in court until August 2018.
Defense attorneys in Johnson-Pierce are and were aware of the background leading to the extra result of their clients’ legal jeopardy. After all that effort and cost: nothing.
The underlying initial 2011 investigation regarding corrupt bribery inside the Arizona state Court Clerk system cannot be confined to just Pinal County. The deal was made far too fast for it not to have been ongoing and available to unscrupulous attorneys or other people at a moment’s notice and the right price.
Amanda Stanford and her chief deputy were in that clerk’s office when the bribes took place.
On the 20th of this month (February) it will be eight (8) months since requesting publication. Ten more days and it will be 10 (ten) months since the case initially mandated.
The Superior Court case is now over 6 years, 10 months and 19 days since judgment and the case is still prohibited from release.
The Willett case and first appeals order is now over 9 months, 14 days since it was mandated.
The Appeals case is now nearly 8 months since it was requested to be published.
Each act of law violation inside the appeals court case and district court cases further exacerbated the Constitutional violations of due process, 1st, 5th, 4th, 8th, and more amendment violations all to protect a federal criminal case that is not at ALL related and illegally stopped a civil case.
A decision by a prosecutor to bring charges in criminal court for anything inside these civil cases is arbitrary and a discretionary act. Since the prosecutor making that decision is also the prosecutor responsible for the original illegal act:
Well… we’ll leave it there for now. But not for long. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that it will not ‘entertain’ any filings in the appeals case, even though :
- nothing is released,
- nothing is known,
- no person or entity has been held responsible for Constitutional violations and many other violations
- the criminal case that initially held up the Superior Court case is STILL HOLDING IT UP even after numerous continuations of Constitutional violations during trial:
- even though two of the three ARIZONA REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS Mark Brnovich and Amanda Stanford were re-elected and both took the oath of office to NOT due what they have been proven in court to have done (THEY LIED TAKING AN OATH OF OFFICE)
- and recovery of default judgment award was made nearly impossible by the illegal delay in the Superior Court case.. that 70 million dollars PLUS INTEREST was STOLEN by ARIZONA REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS
What is to come if this case is not released immediately will include the following:
18 U.S. Code §1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code §1506. Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; or
Whoever acknowledges, or procures to be acknowledged in any such court, any recognizance, bail, or judgment, in the name of any other person not privy or consenting to the same—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1509 – Obstruction of court orders
Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents, obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or willfully attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
No injunctive or other civil relief against the conduct made criminal by this section shall be denied on the ground that such conduct is a crime.
18 U.S. Code §1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations
(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code §241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 U.S. Code §242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 U.S. Code §371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
18 U.S. Code §1031. Major fraud against the United States
(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent—
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,
in any grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, including through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, an economic stimulus, recovery or rescue plan provided by the Government, or the Government’s purchase of any troubled asset as defined in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of such grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of Federal assistance, or any constituent part thereof, is $1,000,000 or more shall, subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b) The fine imposed for an offense under this section may exceed the maximum otherwise provided by law, if such fine does not exceed $5,000,000 and—
(1) the gross loss to the Government or the gross gain to a defendant is $500,000 or greater; or
(2) the offense involves a conscious or reckless risk of serious personal injury.
(c) The maximum fine imposed upon a defendant for a prosecution including a prosecution with multiple counts under this section shall not exceed $10,000,000.
(d) Nothing in this section shall preclude a court from imposing any other sentences available under this title, including without limitation a fine up to twice the amount of the gross loss or gross gain involved in the offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3571(d).
(e) In determining the amount of the fine, the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. sections 3553 and 3572, and the factors set forth in the guidelines and policy statements of the United States Sentencing Commission, including—
(1) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, including the harm or loss to the victim and the gain to the defendant;
(2) whether the defendant previously has been fined for a similar offense; and
(3) any other pertinent equitable considerations.
(f) A prosecution of an offense under this section may be commenced any time not later than 7 years after the offense is committed, plus any additional time otherwise allowed by law.
(1) In special circumstances and in his or her sole discretion, the Attorney General is authorized to make payments from funds appropriated to the Department of Justice to persons who furnish information relating to a possible prosecution under this section. The amount of such payment shall not exceed $250,000. Upon application by the Attorney General, the court may order that the Department shall be reimbursed for a payment from a criminal fine imposed under this section.
(2) An individual is not eligible for such a payment if—
(A) that individual is an officer or employee of a Government agency who furnishes information or renders service in the performance of official duties;
(B) that individual failed to furnish the information to the individual’s employer prior to furnishing it to law enforcement authorities, unless the court determines the individual has justifiable reasons for that failure;
(C) the furnished information is based upon public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or GAO report, hearing, audit or investigation, or from the news media unless the person is the original source of the information. For the purposes of this subsection, “original source” means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government; or
(D) that individual participated in the violation of this section with respect to which such payment would be made.
(3) The failure of the Attorney General to authorize a payment shall not be subject to judicial review.
(h) Any individual who—
(1) is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by an employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in furtherance of a prosecution under this section (including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in such prosecution), and
(2) was not a participant in the unlawful activity that is the subject of said prosecution, may, in a civil action, obtain all relief necessary to make such individual whole. Such relief shall include reinstatement with the same seniority status such individual would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
18 U.S. Code §?1341. Frauds and swindles
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code §?1342. Fictitious name or address
Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code §?1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1346 – Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
18 U.S. Code §?1349. Attempt and conspiracy
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
18 U.S. Code §?1621. Perjury generally
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 1622 – Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code §?1623. False declarations before grand jury or court
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.
In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.
28 U.S. Code § 1746 – Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
18 U.S. Code § 1700 – Desertion of mails
Whoever, having taken charge of any mail, voluntarily quits or deserts the same before he has delivered it into the post office at the termination of the route, or to some known mail carrier, messenger, agent, or other employee in the Postal Service authorized to receive the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1701 – Obstruction of mails generally
Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs or retards the passage of the mail, or any carrier or conveyance carrying the mail, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1702. Obstruction of correspondence
Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1703. Delay or destruction of mail or newspapers
(a) Whoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, unlawfully secretes, destroys, detains, delays, or opens any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail entrusted to him or which shall come into his possession, and which was intended to be conveyed by mail, or carried or delivered by any carrier or other employee of the Postal Service, or forwarded through or delivered from any post office or station thereof established by authority of the Postmaster General or the Postal Service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) Whoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, improperly detains, delays, or destroys any newspaper, or permits any other person to detain, delay, or destroy the same, or opens, or permits any other person to open, any mail or package of newspapers not directed to the office where he is employed; or
Whoever, without authority, opens, or destroys any mail or package of newspapers not directed to him, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1708. Theft or receipt of stolen mail matter generally
Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof, letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for mail matter, or from a letter or mail carrier, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or abstracts or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, or secretes, embezzles, or destroys any such letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein; or
Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein which has been left for collection upon or adjacent to a collection box or other authorized depository of mail matter; or
Whoever buys, receives, or conceals, or unlawfully has in his possession, any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein, which has been so stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted, as herein described, knowing the same to have been stolen, taken, embezzled, or abstracted—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1709. Theft of mail matter by officer or employee
Whoever, being a Postal Service officer or employee, embezzles any letter, postal card, package, bag, or mail, or any article or thing contained therein entrusted to him or which comes into his possession intended to be conveyed by mail, or carried or delivered by any carrier, messenger, agent, or other person employed in any department of the Postal Service, or forwarded through or delivered from any post office or station thereof established by authority of the Postmaster General or of the Postal Service; or steals, abstracts, or removes from any such letter, package, bag, or mail, any article or thing contained therein, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 2315. Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, moneys, or fraudulent State tax stamps
Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any goods, wares, or merchandise, securities, or money of the value of $5,000 or more, or pledges or accepts as security for a loan any goods, wares, or merchandise, or securities, of the value of $500 or more, which have crossed a State or United States boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken; or
Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities or tax stamps, or pledges or accepts as security for a loan any falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities or tax stamps, moving as, or which are a part of, or which constitute interstate or foreign commerce, knowing the same to have been so falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever receives in interstate or foreign commerce, or conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of, any tool, implement, or thing used or intended to be used in falsely making, forging, altering, or counterfeiting any security or tax stamp, or any part thereof, moving as, or which is a part of, or which constitutes interstate or foreign commerce, knowing that the same is fitted to be used, or has been used, in falsely making, forging, altering, or counterfeiting any security or tax stamp, or any part thereof; or
‘Whoever? receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any veterans’ memorial object which has crossed a State or United States boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken—’?
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. If the offense involves a pre-retail medical product (as defined in section 670) the punishment for the offense shall be the same as the punishment for an offense under section 670 unless the punishment under this section is greater. If the offense involves the receipt, possession, concealment, storage, barter, sale, or disposal of veterans’ memorial objects with a value, in the aggregate, of less than $1,000, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
This section shall not apply to any falsely made, forged, altered, counterfeited, or spurious representation of an obligation or other security of the United States or of an obligation, bond, certificate, security, treasury note, bill, promise to pay, or bank note, issued by any foreign government. This section also shall not apply to any falsely made, forged, altered, counterfeited, or spurious representation of any bank note or bill issued by a bank or corporation of any foreign country which is intended by the laws or usage of such country to circulate as money.
For purposes of this section, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. For purposes of this section the term “veterans’ memorial object” means a grave marker, headstone, monument, or other object, intended to permanently honor a veteran or mark a veteran’s grave, or any monument that signifies an event of national military historical significance.
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-2602 Bribery of a public servant or party officer; classification
13-2602. Bribery of a public servant or party officer; classification
A. A person commits bribery of a public servant or party officer if with corrupt intent:
1. Such person offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit upon a public servant or party officer with the intent to influence the public servant’s or party officer’s vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion or other action in his official capacity as a public servant or party officer; or
2. While a public servant or party officer, such person solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit upon an agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, judgment, exercise of discretion or other action as a public servant or party officer may thereby be influenced.
B. It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that a person sought to be influenced was not qualified to act in the desired way because such person had not yet assumed office, lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.
C. Bribery of a public servant or party officer is a class 4 felony.
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-2606 Offer to exert improper influence on public officer or employee for consideration; classification
13-2606. Offer to exert improper influence on public officer or employee for consideration; classification
A person who intentionally or knowingly obtains or seeks to obtain any benefit from another person upon a claim or representation that he can or will improperly influence the action of a public servant is guilty of a class 4 felony.
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-2809 Tampering with physical evidence; classification
13-2809. Tampering with physical evidence; classification
A. A person commits tampering with physical evidence if, with intent that it be used, introduced, rejected or unavailable in an official proceeding which is then pending or which such person knows is about to be instituted, such person:
1. Destroys, mutilates, alters, conceals or removes physical evidence with the intent to impair its verity or availability; or
2. Knowingly makes, produces or offers any false physical evidence; or
3. Prevents the production of physical evidence by an act of force, intimidation or deception against any person.
B. Inadmissibility of the evidence in question is not a defense.
C. Tampering with physical evidence is a class 6 felony.
Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-2810 Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification
13-2810. Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification
A. A person commits interfering with judicial proceedings if such person knowingly:
1. Engages in disorderly, disrespectful or insolent behavior during the session of a court which directly tends to interrupt its proceedings or impairs the respect due to its authority; or
2. Disobeys or resists the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court; or
3. Refuses to be sworn or affirmed as a witness in any court proceeding; or
4. Publishes a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding; or
5. Refuses to serve as a juror unless exempted by law; or
6. Fails inexcusably to attend a trial at which he has been chosen to serve as a juror.
B. Interfering with judicial proceedings is a class 1 misdemeanor.