Jim Campbell's Letter to His Attorney
I joined the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps upon learning that the MCDC was going to build a fence on the border. I read the various formal announcements on the MCDC website of "a half-dozen ranchers have said that they would allow . , "Six private land owners have 'partnered' ". I talked at length on 5/17 with Diener Consultant's Peter Kunz, the project manager. He spoke glowingly to me about the 10 miles of border frontage on which the Ladds had given us permission to build the "Israeli-style" fence. In a follow-through e-mail that same day to Kunz:
"I repeat my offer to advance the 'project' $100,000 on May 27th . . We want to be able to disspell any apprehensions, appearances, etc., of under-funding. On the contrary, I would like to convey the image that this fence is going the 'full distance' (no 'staging'). If we've got dozers, paint them bright caterpillar yellow to make them look new from the air. Cut the fence alignment as far as we can. Then bring in the steel! Place it along this alignment.. . . Miles and miles of steel! I feel so fervently about this critical point of the project: the ground breaking, that (assuming the 'payback' arrangement is firmly structured), I'd even come up with a lot more money after I can see the steel orders."
On 5/21, I told Kunz that I was going to DONATE $100K outright. I re-iterated in a 5-21 follow-up e-mail to Kunz and Phillip Sheldon (who heads Diener Consultants) and MCDC Headquarters (Simcox):
"My motivation for giving this money at this specific time is to keep the momentum going on the Arizona project. We need a 'jump start'. I see my $100,000 going into steel posts (continuing the initial 150' 'Model') and keeping the volunteers in 'material' for a significant distance. (flagpoles for the newsmedia flying overhead - either conveying positive images of our progressing or negative images of our faltering for lack of funding)".
None of these three individuals objected to my express condition placed on my donation. In a 5/22 e-mail to Mary Parker Lewis (Executive Director of Declaration Foundation and President of Declaration Alliance):
"Mary, Smith Steel and Pipe is trying to find 'available' tubing in the U.S. If they find $200K worth, I'll wire another $100K so that we can get it rolling to Tucson".
She acknowledged that this steel
:"would be a linch-pin element" of the project.
Did Simcox or Sheldon or Kunz or Lewis then disclose to me that the "actual plans" for the Ladd ranch didn't include heavy steel posts? NO! There wasn't even any mention on 5/27, at the groundbreaking, that the "Israeli-style" fence was not going in on the Ladd ranch. (If any one of these four had been forthcoming about the true nature of Ladd's project, I would never have made my donation! For barbed wire? NO! The intended effect/impact of my donation was "diluted" - to say the least.)
Immediately after the ceremony on 5/27, I e-mailed Kunz and others:
"As you are all aware by now, I left this project a very bitter man today. I realized at the end that this project (as started today) is destined to fail. I gave this project artificial respiration this last Monday with my $100,000.00 donation. In my decision to make this donation, I placed detrimental reliance on the achitectural drawings of the fence as presented on the website. This particular design comes with engineering ('pipe sizing') that has been accepted by Israel and is used in other areas of our border with Mexico. . . . .
. . I do know one thing for certain. If we continue the construction started today (with it's "embarassingly" flimsy, substandard, "Home Depot" construction), then I will be out of this project; and I will then be discussing how I get a full refund. I am not going to jeopardize my reputation, credentials, credibility, and trust that others have placed in me as a fiduciary to represent their interests (i.e: their donations.) Nor will I see my retirement nest egg squandered. . . . . . "
No response. Then on 5/28:
"We've started on the 'cheap' with a below-standard design/construction.". No response.
Then on 5/30:
"By the time that our groundbreaking was over, I and everyone else who observed all of it, were left with the false impression that these poles were in fact part of a permanent fence. To date, nobody has dispelled this notion."
Only MCDC organizers knew that no fencing materials were ever to be attached to the poles. Yet, MCDC leadership failed to make any public announcement that these poles were merely "symbolic." MCDC’s detractors seized upon this failure to disclose by publicly eroding the public’s confidence in MCDC’s intentions and capabilities as they related to the entire border fence project. As a consequence, donations have suffered and the intended impact of my donation was needlessly put into jeopardy.
Finally, Simcox called me on 5/30. We both agreed that steel (with its limited availability) should be bought immediately with my donation. I then put in another $63K+ to pay for the available steel in Arizona immediately in an effort to avoid losing it, as well as to rehabilitate MCDC's image and credibility by backing up it's promises and representations.
It was only immediately after the ceremony that Connie Hair announced on the MCDC website:
"The first full security fencing of the original design will be up on a nearby landowner's property as soon as we can get the steel order placed and shipped."
Then, on 6/02, Hair posted on the MCDC website that:
"Three more Arizona landowners have come forward and asked for the full-blown security fencing to be built on their property as presented in the original design."
This welcome announcement re-invigorated me. Other landowners had reacted positively to our groundbreaking. Rather than follow through with my threat to demand a full refund for having both misrepresented, and failed to disclose, the true nature of the Ladds' project, I then had good reason to continue to give my continued devotion to the project.
Based on Kunz's representations to me in a phone conversation on 6/02, I submitted an article to my local newspaper's Letters to the Editor (and they printed it June 7th). Here's an excerpt:
"The last of three ranchers (just east of Naco, Mexico) recently gave the Minutemen permission to build 4 miles of fence on his land. He told Chris Simcox (MM President) that his ranch was a major corridor for drug smugglers. These narco-traffickers, wearing black ski masks, high on meth so as to be able to work at night, and armed with AK-47's come across his portion of the border frequently. The Border Patrol refuses to respond because they are "out-gunned". (In the near-by town of Bisbee - a quaint, old copper mining town near the border - the kids are all strung-out on meth. Sorry-looking, young souls!) I've "sacrificed" a $120,000 of my retirement nest egg in an attempt to awaken fellow Americans to the magnitude of the crisis facing our country! Installation of the first of 875 tubular posts (4"x4"x 19' long - weighing 200,000 lbs. collectively, and purchased with my donation) will begin within two weeks."
In reliance upon this 6/02 formal website announcement, together with Kunz's "glowing" representations to me on the phone, and - with the knowledge and blessing of Kunz, Lewis, and Mercer - I spent approximately $8K to have a truck fitted, tagged, insured, delivered, and dedicated to the MCDC for its exclusive use in transporting (among other things) the steel posts that were to be fabricated from this structural steel and used in the construction of the fencing on these three alternative properties. (At that point, my $100K and $2K cash donations, together with the steel and the truck outlay, had amounted to $173K. Just days earlier, the total contributions of all other donors was around $225K. I've paid over $14,000 interest on all of this at a monthy average of $850.)
Then on 7/14, Chris Simcox announced on the MCDC Forum that we:
"We have two landowners in Arizona who have committed to the construction of 1.5 miles of the double layered Gaza-style security fence."
What happened to the six landowners who had initially "partnered" with MCDC, and then the third of three, and then the second of two? These three became one. Six were only "one". Nobody had the courtesy to tell me that my truck would actually only be needed on a .9 of a mile of fence. I challenge anyone to name any of the landowners other than Mr. Hodges and Mr. Ladd. (Simcox stated on his radio show that
"most of the posts were up". Less than one-quarter of the posts were up. On his fence website video he talks about:
"17 miles of 5-strand cattle fencing along the Ladd ranch being completed". Only a couple of miles had been completed at that time. As of 1/31, Simcox announced that 10 miles of
"security fence" had been completed on the Ladd property. Ordinary, 5-strand cattle fencing is now sold to the public as "security fencing" - implying that it somehow poses a more effective obstacle to human intrusion than do the hundreds of miles of existing 5-strand border fence.)
I asked both Jack and John Ladd if they had ever given the MCDC permission to build an "Israeli-style" fence on their land. They denied that they ever did so. Given this knowledge, I am convinced that the announcement of the three landowners on 06/02/06, was designed to not only placate me, but to also divert the public's and media's attention away from (with but one exception) the utter absence of landowners willing to commit to construction of an "Israeli-style" fence. Simcox and everyone else knew prior to the 04/19/06, fence announcement date that the landowner with the greatest border frontage (Ladds' with ten miles) had rejected MCDC's offer to build the full-blown "Israeli-style" fence. Without Ladds' cooperation, only one other landowner has been willing to step forward. If this had been a legitimate venture, the MCDC would have abandoned it upon learning that there was little enthusiasm for it among the local landowners.
When I announced my $100K donation, I received a phone call from Mary Parker Lewis, who identified herself as:
"I guess you can say I'm with MCDC". (Repeat: Lewis is the Executive Director of Declaration Foundation and President of Declaration Alliance.) On 5/21, Declaration Foundation was under an on-going investigation by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office for violations dating back to 2001. DF has negotiated in the past, and (on the day of her call) DF was currently negotiating what was tantamount to a "plea agreement" wherein the AG's Office agreed not to press criminal charges for having given false information:
"Material False Statements - 2001 BCO - 10, 2001 IRS Form 990, 2002 BCO- 10, and 2002 Form 990". Additionally:
"Failing to Administer Contributions Through An Account in the Name of Respondent and Under Respondent's Sole Control", "Failure to Comply with (provide information and documentation) an Investigative Subpoena", "making material false statements in applications and documents that are required to be filed . . ". DF falsely stated that no officers, directors, etc. are related to any supplier or vendor providing goods or services. Lewis, as Executive Director, CEO and Assistant Treasurer and Richard Ferrier as President of DF, collectively used DF funds to pay "consulting fees" to either themselves as officers of DF or a "related supplier providing services" to DF: specifically, Politechs, Inc. which was owned by Lewis. These "consulting fees" amounted to $44,000 during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001; and another $27,000 and $29,600 in 2002. Lastly,
"false statements were made which were subject to the criminal penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section relating to unsworn falsification to authorities" (misdemeanors of the third degree)
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/char/lib/cha ... -04601.pdf
On 5/21, a
"Consent Agreement and Order" was being negotiated. Criminal prosecution was to be avoided. An eventual $6,500 fine. Yet, Lewis made no mention of this to me. Without "full knowledge of the facts and circumstances", I was induced by Lewis into wire-transferring $100K to Declaration Foundation. Who knows what consulting fees, caging fees, etc., have been deducted from my donation? Both Diener and Declaration Foundation have ignored my request for disclosure.
Immediately upon my purchase of the steel, I submitted the necessary paperwork for reimbursement. If, as was made abundantly clear on the MCDC website, it was anticipated that this steel would be needed at the end of June, then why the long delay until 9/14 to finally cut me a check? Why did I have to threaten to hold up the steel until I was reimbursed? Was the complete $100K still there?
On 5/16/06, Declaration Foundation reported on its IRS Form 990 for its fiscal year ended 6/30/05, total revenues of $146K in the form of direct public support. Sixty percent of this $146K went to three expense categories: accounting: $40K - (27%), caging: $37K - (25%), and legal: $11K - (8%). On 5/22/06, Mary Parker Lewis, acting as Executive Director of Declaration Foundation, solicited my just-announced $100K donation to the MCDC fence project. Two questions: (1) What credentials did Lewis/ Declaration Foundation have for soliciting my donation of $100K, when total income for their most-recently reported fiscal year amounted to only $146K, and 60% of this $146K are highly questionable expenditures - to say the least. (2) Did Maureen Otis of the
"highly reputable and responsible" American Caging (as characterised by Simcox) get her $25K cut out of my $100K? Precedence was clearly set in the previous year that would justify my apprehensions regarding my donation.
On 8/11, The Arizona Republic Newspaper quoted Connie Hair (MCDC Media Director): . .
"Simcox estimated that MCDC has raised $1 million, plus about $600,000 to build fencing along the border but said that he can't be sure of the amount. ".
Connie Hair had access to the daily total, and had reported it freely in 5/06 on the MCDC Forum. Why the equivocation now to a newspaper reporter? At the very least, Hair had a burden to "clarify". If the same 34.7% "Fundraising Fees", by which 2005 donations were offset, were, likewise, applied to the $600K, we would have had less than $400K; and my net donation would have been $65K - not $100K. Had Simcox "mistakenly" revealed the gross, not the NET contributions? MCDC became a "project" of DA in May of 2005. MCDC's 2005 IRS Form 990 reveals a $112.5K "grant" from DA. DA's 2005 IRS Form 990 reveals a total of about $814K in direct public support raised by DA and specifically earmarked for MCDC's benefit. There has never been any mention on the MCDC website of the other $700K that DA brought in in addition to this $112.5K. DA averaged $116K/ month in MCDC donations, but MCDC donors and the public were only aware of about $16K/month. Instead, only about $418K out of about $1,120,000. were published - and MCDC leadership/media knew about this failure, but chose to remain silent. This raises questions/issues of impropriety and undermines the public trust. In as much as MCDC has given complete responsibilty over its finances to DA, both DA and MCDC had an ethical/fiducial duty to MCDC donors to have published DA's 2005 IRS Form 990 when filed on, or about, 8/22/06.
All of this gives rise to the questions: "How was an approximate $670K of the approximate $814K gross "MCDC-earmarked" figure mentioned in the previous paragraph spent on 15 cent bulk mail stamps, the printing of 5-cent fliers, or electronic mailing using addresses already owned by Response Unlimited? Was Response Unlimited - a company in which Phil Sheldon has an ownership interest - entrusted with the mailing?" DA and DF, as non-profit organizations, are required to file an IRS Form 990. Response Unlimited has no such disclosure requirements. Sheldon is neither an officer nor a director of DF or DA. Therefore, DA and DF are not in violation of the rule that "no officers, directors, etc. can be related to any supplier or vendor providing goods or services". The MCDC-earmarked donations are "credited" to Response Enterprises - an organization in which Sheldon has an ownership interest; and the "printing and mailing" tasks of DF have been commonly performed by Response Unlimited - again, an organization in which Sheldon, likewise, has an ownership interest. Both entities occupy the same building. In 2005, an approximate $670K of an approximate $814K in "MCDC-earmarked" donations to Declaration Alliance could very-well have gone to Response Unlimited. It was reported that Mary Parker Lewis, as President of DA, received only $5,262 in compensation for her services for year 2005. There is no mention of any compensation to Alan Keyes - in a year in which DA reported total revenues of $1,632,222. and total expenses of $1,802,821. How could MCDC donors be left completely in the dark as to "how" $670K of their donations were actually spent?
Moreover, as of late 1/07, we have in our possession authoritative, to-date, on-site billings/expenditures on the .9 miles of fence. The on-site labor performed and the materials in place or in fabrication amount to $268K. According to Connie Hair's figures released in late 5/06 (then adding in my $100K donation) we had total donations exceeding $325K - or enough to get us to where we are now in late 1/07. The fence sits "dead in the water". People have to wait for their money. Were the $225K and the $600K truthful numbers? What did we bring in since May, 2006? Was Kunz being truthful when he told me in November that they had brought in $46K in just one week? Simcox has a duty to immediately provide up-to-date, month-by-month numbers on the total donations and expenditures (both direct and indirect) on the fence project. There needs to be an immediate and, ideally, a "voluntary" full disclosure - everything: fees, ("consulting", or otherwise), rental fees for lists of potential donors, first-class airline tickets, F-250 quad-cabs and Audi rental vehicles - even Kunz's fees for his help in "partnering" the six private landowners, etc. If established donors are now being asked by Simcox to "double their monthly pledges" to salvage what Simcox has most recently characterized as "demonstration fencing along the border", then they (as well as ALL donors) are entitled to know what has happened to their past donations. Over one hundred thousand dollars of equity in my home has now been converted into a combination of any or all of the following: "fundraising fees" (or the likes of which), caging fees, and "cattle fencing"/ "demonstration fencing". Everyone needs to be assured that the successful completion of the .9 of a mile of fence has not been subordinated to the personal GREED of those entrusted with the money and how it is spent.
In closing, as a consequence of the media's exposure of criminal acts by Declaration Foundation, together with the the on-going "lack of candor", the misrepresentations, the twisting of the facts and percentages, exaggerations, Simcox's needless "name-calling" of his adversaries, the failure/refusal to disclose pertinent information and to answer legitimate questions have, cummulatively, had the effect of "turning off" potential donors - thus making it more and more likely that my donation (in what I anticipated would be a monument to the financial and personal sacrifice of thousands of like-minded patriots), will have been squandered in a seemingly, well-intentioned, but short-lived "monument to deceit" on the border. It is clear to me now that this fence project was conceived as a grand facade - a scheme - to attract endless streams of donations from the public who placed blind faith (as I did) in both the sincerity and trustworthiness of its promoters. A project that was intially represented to me personally by Kunz (and to the public via website and media announcements, etc.) to be of a viable, credible, "Israeli-style" fence - and of a sufficient 10-mile length - thus enabling it to stand up to public and media scrutiny -has turned out to be a .9 of a mile of fractionally completed "demonstration fence"and 10 miles of barbed wire cattle fence, which Simcox has described as "Phase One" of the fence project. The .9 of a mile of fence has languished in an on-going state of distress and/or inactivity since mid-February. I am reminded of this every month when I make an $850 interest payment on a loan that is consuming my equity in my home.
Jim Campbell
Login
Register
FAQ
