AbridgedVictimImpactStatement

To: Barack Obama (Certified)
Loretta Lynch (Certified)

James Comey (Certified)
John F. Bennett (Certified)
Michael Albanese (email)
others.
From: Randy Chapel
ABRIDGED VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT
REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND EDUCATIONAL FRAUD
CENTERED AT WESTERN SEMINARY
AS OF JUNE 2, 2016
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover to President Obama ...........................................................................................................................................5

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................15
II. THE ENTERPRISE ..........................................................................................................................................15
A. The Enterprise ...............................................................................................................................................15
B. Western Seminary .........................................................................................................................................16
C. The Association of Theological Schools ......................................................................................................16
D. The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities ........................................................................17
III. THE CONSPIRATORS ..................................................................................................................................18
IV. THE CO-CONSPIRATORS ...........................................................................................................................19
A. ATS .................................................................................................................................................................19
B. NWCCU .........................................................................................................................................................20
C. Insurance Companies ...................................................................................................................................20
D. Attorneys ........................................................................................................................................................21
E. Government ...................................................................................................................................................21
F. Unnamed ........................................................................................................................................................23
V. THE ENTERPRISE ..........................................................................................................................................23
A. The Relationships of the Enterprise ............................................................................................................23
B. The Legal Side Of The Enterprise ...............................................................................................................24
C. The Centrality of the U. S. Financial System .............................................................................................34
D. The Centrality and Failure of the AAEU // Accreditation Group ............................................................35
VI. STATEMENT REGARDING THE RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY .................................................39
VII. STATEMENTS REGARDING THE SCHEMES ......................................................................................39
A. The Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Scheme. ................................................................................39
B. The Conflict of Interest Scheme (ATS & NWCCU). .................................................................................49
C. The Substantive Change Scheme (ATS). ....................................................................................................49
D. The Substantive Change Scheme (NWCCU)..............................................................................................50
E. The Steve Korch Child Molestation Cover-up Scheme. ............................................................................51
F. The Steve Korch Secret Agreement and Tax Evasion Scheme. ................................................................53
G. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2003. ..........................................................................53
H. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2007. ..........................................................................55
I. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2013. ...........................................................................55
J. The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3733) Scheme. ...........................................................................55
K. The Exception Scheme. ............................................................................................................................56
L. The Settlement Scheme (A.K.A. Educational Fraud). ...........................................................................57
M. The Punitive or Exemplary Damages Scheme. .........................................................................................58
VIII. POSSIBLE FEDERAL LAWS ...................................................................................................................58
IX. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JAMES A. SCHARF ................................................................................58
X. SUSAN ALLISTER ...........................................................................................................................................60
XI. JOEL CHAPEL ...............................................................................................................................................60
XII. CAROL NYE-WILSON & DALE WILSON ..............................................................................................60
XIII. FORESEEABLE AND PREVENTABLE .................................................................................................61
XIV. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................................................61
3
4
Cover to President Obama
5
6
Randy Chapel
PO Box 711419
Mt. View, Hawaii 96771
June 2, 2016
President Barack Obama

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
April 28, 2008

Letter to Senator Barack Obama:
I would like to request that the Spellings administration be reminded of their duties and to provide to me the
requested materials I have requested since February regarding the concluded investigation upon the national and
regional accreditation agencies, and to contact the school to endeavor to obtain the materials I have repeatedly
requested for over two years as provided under the law.
April 4, 2011
Letter to President Obama, Eric Holder:
However, I have reached my limit at this point. I have now lost everything as a result of the corrupt actions
by Western Seminary, ATS and NWCCU, three insurance companies and the ongoing negligence of duty and
malfeasance by the former USDE administration. The evidences overwhelmingly demonstrate that the Spellings
administration covered for the school and accreditors (ATS and NWCCU) and the Departments own negligent
and malfeasant actions while using taxpayer money. I have lost my house, my possessions and my wife is
divorcing me and I will not be able to see my only childmy sonas a result. My wife made clear in her UK
court filings that she is taking this step as a direct result of my case. Last summer I nearly committed suicide. I
really cannot deal with this much longer.
Mr. President, you called for a spirit of cooperation and openness to prevail. I previously extended
understanding toward Secretary Duncan and the Department with regard to producing the materials I seek via
the FOIAmaterials we already know existdespite the unpleasantness contained in those documents. I prefer
to note the agencys successful transparency and the rule of law. I prefer to note the Departments exhaustive
introspection regarding problems created by Margaret Spellings political choices that negatively impacted
higher education and my life. I need Secretary Duncan, as a reformer and the top education administrator in the
nation, to make changes that prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again to any student or family.
I am prepared to engage in a constructive conversation and reasonable solutions, but I will need the materials I
am seeking by way of my FOIA request to do this.
Mr. President, I know you have many very important national affairs to conduct on behalf of the welfare of this
great nation. Will you please mention to your friend Secretary Duncan (when it is convenient) that I really need
my FOIA request to be completed very soon (see Mr. Holders memo section: Working Proactively and
Promptly), so I can file my last remaining documents with the agency for my pursuit of justice on behalf of all
students and their families?
May 31, 2011

Letter to President Obama, Eric Holder:
We are damaged. Our son, Randy Chapel, has now lost everything as a result of the corrupt actions of
Western Seminary, ATS and NWCCU, three insurance companies, their attorneys, the arbitrator who ignored
state and federal laws over Western, and the ongoing negligence and malfeasance by the former USDE
administration. The USDE could have prevented the continued destruction on May 8, 2008when Asst.
Secretary Diane Auer Jones cited ATS and NWCCU for 34 CFR 602.20 and 602.23. But she stopped short of
7
total accountability by omitting the 34 CFR 602.22 noncompliance that Mr. Mula stated was already determined
on January 2, 2008, The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates the Spellings administration covered for the
school and ATS and NWCCU. Randy lost his house, his possessions, and his wife is divorcing him and he will
not be able to see his only childour grandsonas a result. His wife made it clear in her UK divorce filings
that she is taking this step as a direct result of the lawsuit whereby Randy was set up for more retaliation via
FERPA violations, conflicts of interest, and USDE ongoing negligence of duty. I will be 61-years-old this year
and Carol will be 71 in August. We used up our life savings and took loans out on our house to help our son
against ten years of abuse by Western against Randy. Carol witnessed Randy degrade after the USDE refused to
reply to Carol and Randys pleas for help about Westerns FERPA violations. Carol experienced deep
emotional despair and frequent nightmares last summer after Randy disappeared intending to commit suicide.
Randy complains of nightly nightmares and depression. When Randy returned last fall, we worked diligently to
help him get back on his feet to confront the Department and its failures.
Mr. President, you called for a spirit of cooperation and openness to prevail. We (Carol, Randy, and I) are
prepared to engage in a constructive administrative conversation to find reasonable solutions to these problems,
but we will need the materials we are seeking by way of our FOIA requests to do it. We ask that our FOIA
requests also be searched under the Privacy Act and under the intent of both Memos for FOIA transparency. We
are aware that dis- coverable materials for administrative claims should be released, and our requests under
FOIA should be processed on that basis. Please see McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Garlucci, 835
F.2d 1282 (9th Cir. 1987) (requests under FOIA for information to be utilized in a tort claim cannot be denied
on the basis that there is a commercial interest). Hernandez v. U.S., 1998 WL 230200 (E.D. La.) (both USPS
accident report and USPS driver's personnel file (Privacy Act) must be released).
Mr. President, we know you have many very important national affairs to conduct on behalf of the welfare of
this great nation. Will you please mention to your friend Secretary Duncan (when it is convenient) that we
really need our FOIA requests to be completed very soon (see Mr. Holders MEMO section: Working
Proactively and Promptly), so Carol can file her last remaining documents with the Department for our pursuit
of justice on behalf of all students and their families?
September 1, 2011
Letter to President Obama, Eric Holder, Arne Duncan, Phil Rosenfelt, Kathleen Tighe and (James A. Scharf):
This has cost me everything I have and everyone close to me. I have been stripped to nothing so that the
cover up by the Republican Margret Spellings administration, ATS, NWCCU and Western Seminary can
continue. The White House knows about the damage inflicted upon me by the negligence of duty described in
the Federal Torts Claims Act documents you received from me in July.
Today my wife divorced me as a result of the ongoing delays, fraud, and outcomes caused by the governments
negligence of duty about which my government refuses to turn over FOIA records. I was told I will not see my
2 12 year old son, my only child, until he is an adult. I cant fathom the depth of your love for your two
daughters, but you surely must understand what it means to be cut off from your child or to not have a father.
My wife divorced me because I have been fighting for my civil rights that I have been repeatedly denied since
2002.
The public has a right to know who or what is influencing its government concerning this corruption that has
had such an impact on human life. Open Records and Freedom of Information laws are critical to ensuring a
transparent and accountable government, yet it is the entrenched and dysfunctional employees at the U.S.
Department of Education that want these records kept covered up. Taxpayers deserve to know how their hard-
earned tax dollars are spent. The public deserves to have transparent and accountable leaders and an explanation
with the records sought as to why public money is being used to cover up for a pastor who molested a girl,
Section 504 fraud, FERPA violations, and academic fraud, and so on all in the name of earning an
education.
These ongoing tortuous acts against my life need to stop and I am asking you that this request be upheld. It is
not reasonable that any American go through what I have and I really would like this to end.
8
September 14, 2011
Letter to President Obama, Eric Holder, Arne Duncan, Phil Rosenfelt, Kathleen Tighe and James A. Scharf:
Instead, I have lost everything now. I have lost

my house, my land and everything else. My wife
has divorced me because of the time, effort and cost
all of this has taken. She has informed me that I will
not see my two-and-a-half-year-old son until he is
an adult. She and her family are beyond pissed. My
family is beyond pissed. The USDOE, with ATS,
NWCCU and Western Seminary have destroyed
every aspect of my life and future. I will not live the
governments lies that are being forced on me. I
was not put on this earth to live this lie. The
USDOE made this personal and the USDOE is
forcing this to end in tragedy. Our nation has a
right to know what the Republican Margret
Spellings administration did and will do to favor
special interest groups against a student, a
whistleblower and his family, and the length they
will go to screw anyone who stands up against it.
You want time? Beg my wife to reconsider
divorcing me and to not withhold my son from me
due to lawsuits defending my inalienable right to
life, liberty, and my pursuit of happiness, and please
call my little son and explain why his government is
withholding records that demonstrate government
fraud that harmed and destroyed his family:
+4401733358431
Susan.Chapel@gmail.com
The continued failure of the USDOE to produce records as required under the FOIA will be seen unfavorably
by the public and the Court against the USDOE and other government officials who know that the USDOE is
willfully withholding records in order to cover up negligence of duty and malfeasance that damaged me and my
family. The failure of the USDOE to produce records is an undeniable fact. Several of the FOIA requests can
never be produced, because records that justify the USDOE, ATS, and NWCCU do not exist, which is an
undeniable fact that will be highly unfavorable against the USDOE. Those facts will be construed by the public,
by the Court, and by the media as a deliberate and willful cover up against the public welfare, since those
willful acts to damage us required forethought against my family and meand against We the People.
Respectfully, I cannot agree to an additional thirty-day extension, and it is reasonable to conclude that no one in
my position would entertain it at this point. The USDOE provided Western Seminary full rein to screw me over
and Western did exactly thatcontrary to state and federal laws, against accreditation standards, and against its
own Articles of Incorporation and against its school policies and its so called religion.
This tortuous period of my life needs to stop. The government needs to find some other American to screw
over.
April 2, 2012
Letter to President Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Arne Duncan, Robert Mueller,
Melinda Haag, Robin C. Ashton, Laurie O. Robinson, Robert L. Listenbee, Catherine Connell McSherry:
We are tired of being bullied, harassed and threatened for standing up for our civil rights, for our refusal to
go along with corporate and educational fraud perpetrated against us that was designed to cover up criminal
activities, insurance fraud, money laundering, and government fraud.
9
My son has lost everything for standing up and refusing to go along with others. He has lost his home, his land,
and his things. He is divorced because his British wife did not understand an Americans compelling sense to
fight for his civil rightshis life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. He has not seen his American son since Nov,
2010, because his British wife is withholding little Joel from our son, in spite of the requests by the U.S.
Embassy in London for her to reestablish communications between my son and Joel.
We refuse to be part of the cover up the government condoned and has perpetuated by withholding records from
us after they rubber stamped accreditation agencies who condoned the original cover up that Western Seminary
demanded.
April 2, 2012
My complaint about the misconduct by Assistant United States Attorney, James A. Scharf relates to my
FOIA requests that underscore fraud, academic fraud, negligence and abuse during the Spellings administration
that is now in full cover up mode by the U.S. Department of Education by your friend, Arne Duncan. I know it
is embarrassing to learn and have evidence that Spellings conducted her administration poorly and was
motivated to cover up her failures.
This needs to end Mr. President. This needs to be resolved, and I need your help for a resolution that does not
require us to just move on, or continue to force us to tolerate multiple fronts of fraud. I should not be paying
taxes for Mr. Scharfs salary to bully and emotionally abuse me and my family for seeking FOIA records. In
fact, I should never have to file a tort case. Randy has spent one-fourth of his life dealing with the immoral and
unethical demands by Western Seminary, ATS and NWCCUand the USDOEin which they sought to
entangle Randy and me. He is not well his mind is harmed, and he suffers from clinical depression and PTSD.
I fear this is going to end tragically. If this ends in tragedy, then it will be linked to you, Eric Holder, and Arne
Duncan, for defaulting your responsibilities.
PLEASE correct the government corruption that condoned unlawfulness by Western, ATS, and NWCCU.
Please show America that what Western Seminary has done does not represent the kind of American values we
hold dear. Please keep your word.
April 2, 2012
Thus, I am writing to ask for your help, Secretary Clinton. Your diplomatic skills, along with those of
President Obama and Congress made a world of difference in other circumstances of parental alienation such as
for the American father, David Goldman, of New Jersey, and his 9-year-old son, Sean Goldman, who was held
and alienated from his father. (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/134047.htm)
It is completely understandable that the Allisters dont understand America, much less Americas government,
but it doesnt excuse them of actions to alienate Joel from Randy and alienate Randy from Joel. They have used
to their advantage the Western fraud that the government supports to the governments advantagethus, the
U.S. Attorney, James Scharf, told me its time he [Randy] moves on. It would be hard to find any community
in America what condones the actions and beliefs of Western (or Mr. Scharf), and it is likely equally hard to
find a community in England that would condone such unconscionable acts and beliefs as well. However,
because the government wants to cover up its own negligence, the failures by the Spellings administration to
correctly oversee accreditation agencies, our government has dumped this whole mess on Randy and destroyed
his life, his marriage and his father-son relationship regardless of the governments accountability. These are
not American values we can be proud ofand I am not pleased, and I am sure many in America and England
will be equally displeased.
10
Randy has lost everything in his life. His house; his things; his land; everything. What Randy has suffered and
is dealing with is unbelievable and surreal. He doesnt have money to hire an attorney, which allowed the
Allisters to manipulate the Court with misrepresentations. If it was not for the recent action by the U.S.
Embassy, continued obstruction and no knowledge by Randy (and us) about Joel would have occurred. Can you
please help American grandparents who desire to know and communicate with their grandson, and an American
daddy who desires to communicate with his beloved son?
April 2, 2012
I am a woman, a mother, and a grandmother. I am not chained to the sink, barefooted, illiterate, or need a
man to do my thinking for me. Before Mr. Scharf was born, I had successfully graduated from college while I
was married with three children. I paid my own college tuition with money I had worked for myself. I bought
my own car and I earned two lifetime teaching credentials. I am now nearly 72-years-old, a retired teacher, and
if necessary I just might beat Mr. Scharf in an arm wrestling contest due to chopping my own wood since 1977.
I have been dealing with this case for the last eleven years, and my son has been dealing with this case for one-
fourth of his life.
Since 2010, I have experienced intense emotional anguish concerning the potential that my son might fatally
perish as a result of the governments corruption and ongoing cover up rather than accountably coming clean
about its negligence of duty. Ive had horrifying nightmares about the destruction perpetrated by Department
employees cooperating with accreditors whose goals are to force my son and me to accept their unconscionable
and unlawful acts to help Western Seminary conceal fraud and a child molester as the only way my son could
finish his education.
The record is very clear regarding the emotional damage and trauma Randy has suffered, while Dale and I have
extending ourselves out completely in order to deal with the current issues and to keep Randy afloat. This has
taken my savings. Dale has no savings and we are defending justice only on our small retirement, because we
are not going to accept the Obama administration robbing us of our civil liberties.
I feel helpless and angry due to being treated this way. I feel angry that my family is being treated this way by
the government, not only by Mr. Scharf, but that government leaders would rather bear their teeth at me, an old
lady victim, rather than hold government, accreditation, and school people responsible for their unlawful
actions.
Ultimately, this is going to end badly. Destroying someones life leaves people depressed and suicidal. That is
what Western did, that is what ATS did to help its member school (Western Seminary), and that is what the
government has done with taxpayer money. I fear Randy wont make it and this mega-corruption will cost his
life. He has nothing to live for. Based upon the malice conducted against me by U.S. Attorney, James Scharf, I
expect that this may be intended by the government to end tragically rather than doing whats right and
enforcing federal regulations which is also linked to Western, ATS, and NWCCU. People can only be pushed
so far. Randys damages are immense. Randy has nowhere to move on to, and corrupt government acts
working to divide us were a very bad choice.
I respectfully request appropriate disciplinary action be taken concerning Mr. Scharf who abused me. I request
intervention by the Office of Professional Responsibility in order to prevent additional abuse against me (and
my son and family) in the future by Mr. Scharf. Because if this continues, most of all against a mentally and
emotionally shattered and beat up person like Randy, I will not be responsible for what happens. Thank you in
advance for your attention to the urgency of my request due to my age, due to my sons condition, and due to
the necessity for Mr. Scharf as a paid government employee to conduct himself in a lawfully professional
manner toward me and my family. The Obama administration needs to find some other family to abuse.
11
July 2, 2012
Letter to President Obama, Robert Mueller:
No student and their family should have to endure the corruption being forced on me, my son Joel, my ex-
wife Susan and her family the Lord Bishop Donald Allister, Janice Allister, MD., John and Rosie, my parents
Carol and Dale and my extended family. This lawsuit, while seeking damages regarding what we have endured,
also aims to provide a citable case for the welfare of the People.
May 13, 2013

Letter to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Arne Duncan, Robert Mueller, Melinda Haag, Robin C.
Ashton, Laurie O. Robinson, Robert L. Listenbee, Catherine Connell McSherry:
Your administration, and specifically, Eric Holder and Arne Duncan, could have at any time enforced
government regulations against ATS, NWCCU, and Western Seminary, but they and their staff outrageously
refused. Instead, your administration chose to cover up educational fraud by ATS, NWCCU, and Western
Seminary that Margaret Spellings condoned in 2008 and fight me and my parents in a no holds barred fight with
public money.
By not enforcing laws that protect students like me, your administration destroyed my life, and damaged people
in my life who I love (my son Joel, my now ex-wife Susan Allister, my parents and extended family and the
parents of my ex-wife Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough, his wife Janice and their extended family).
The Allisters are not even Americans, yet your administration used public money to damage all of our lives so
that no one would find out about the outrageous government corruption and educational fraud under Spellings.
Obviously, the Allisters dont want to be involved with anyone who the government has spent hundreds of
thousands, if not a million dollars or so demonizing because it must be true if the government will go to the
length it has against Randy!
What did we dome, my family, Susan and her familyto deserve to be treated this way?
What did we do to justify your administration doing what it has done and continues to do?
What did my four-year-old son Joel do to deserve to be treated this way by his American governmentfor his
entire life and future to be treated as acceptable collateral damage in order to cover up government
corruption and educational fraud?
I have lost everything in my life: my house, my land, my education, my future, my family--everything and
everyone dear to me, because your administrations priority was to cover up government corruption and
educational fraud by false and misleading statements, while psychologically torturing and emotionally water
boarding me to the point of irreparable harm.
With all due respect Mr. President, when will this reach the outrageous level? Because I really would be
interested to know.
Your administrations handling of this case has completely destroyed my life, and significantly damaged the
lives of others.
How many lives must be damaged by your administrations acts to cover up government corruption and
educational fraud?
November 12, 2014

Letter to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Arne Duncan, Robin C. Ashton, Laurie O. Robinson,
Robert L. Listenbee, Catherine Connell McSherry and every U.S Attorney in each district of America (except
Guam & Puerto Rico):
Your Administration knew or had the information to know, including you Mr. President, including you; that
what Margaret Spellings had done had no legal support, let alone the actions of ATS, NWCCU and Western
Seminary. The U.S. Constitution, Congress, and State of California have never empowered either accreditation
12
agencies (20 US Code 1099b) or schools to trump the U.S. Constitution or a state constitution, federal or state
laws, or decisional cases.
Your administration used public money to defend and cover up the corruption and fraud of the
Religious, because their dishonesty intersected with the governments need and priority to cover up
government corruption and failures within the Department of Education.
Your administration has violated my civil rights at every turn, covered up or destroyed material so that it cannot
be uncovered, threaten people, misled the public and the courts, used public money to bully and beat me up,
financially breaking my family while using public money, used and manipulated Susan and treated Joel as a
pawn, among many more things.
Because I would not capitulate to the government corruption and educational fraud, your Administration
embarked on a path, which retaliated against my family and me using deception, and force, thus causing
irreparable damage. It is one thing for your Administration to go out of its way to demonize me and destroy my
life, but it is another to take it out against my wife and our son. What your Administration has done is wicked
and incredibly fucked up, Barack. The ultimate dick move done on a family to my wife and our child.
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
What could my family and me have done to deserve such malevolence by the United States of America and
your Administration? The destruction of my family and me is your legacy before the nation, not Transparency
and the Rule of Law will be the Touchstones of this Presidency.
As Eric Holder is responsible for the governments litigation strategy (28 U.S.C. 516, 519), which
eviscerated my family, my life and my liberties, you, as President are responsible for those under you. You are
ultimately responsible for allowing and covering for the Religious to commit unspeakable evil against my
family, me and others.
No God condones this terror. No grievance justifies these actions. There can be no reasoning, no negotiation,
with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this, is the language of force President
Barack Obama regarding religiously motivated fanatics - ISIS on Sept 24, 2014.
As the evidence demonstrates in this document, I have every right to seek justified retaliation against these
religious terrorists. Not a single school of the other 259 ATS schools, not a single instructor from any of those
schools has spoken up against what Western Seminary et al, Daniel Aleshire and Jeremiah McCarthy have been
doing. We are not simply fighting religiously motivated fanatics in the Middle East, the fight is here in America
with the Religious these right-wing extremists, who see themselves above the law in every way, who demand
to be treated differently because they claim superior morality or religious exception. These people are not godly
and there is no way that any true god, if such actually existed, would condone what they are doing. They dont
represent good-natured people, that fill our places of worship, that seek to do good in their communities. The
Religious I have fought, they are of the darkest evil mankind can muster and you and your Administration
protected them with the publics money because their corruption intersected with the governments
malevolence.
April 12, 2015

Letter to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Sally Yates, Leslie Caldwell, Arne Duncan, Loretta Lynch, Robin C.
Ashton, Laurie O. Robinson, Robert L. Listenbee, Catherine Connell McSherry, Ron Taylor, Steve Korch, Gary
Tuck, Bert Downs, Randal Roberts, Rob Wiggins, Sanda Elman, M. James Sawyer, Daniel Aleshire, Dale Wilson,
Carol Nye-Wilson:
You got what you wanted - Catastrophic Personal Injury
And for those who claim to be "Christian", there is nothing about Christianity in what you have done, or
continue to do.
13
You have completely destroyed everything in my life and everything I will ever be. I have spent basically a 1/3
of my life being screwed over by Western Seminary and 10 years of my life being screwed over by the United
States of America / Obama Administration (6 + years).
All of you, have done everything possible you could, to eviscerate my life, while promoting false and
misleading statements, that you knew at the time they were being made were false, misleading and had no
evidence to back it up and no law to support. The record is clear, the history of this case betrays these facts. Say
what you want, many people now have the facts and evidences and just because you ignore or promote false and
misleading statements, doesn't mean that the facts and evidences go away or don't exist.
.... it is not like you can just erase them away as some people do to cover what they have done .....Because of
what you all have done, I will spend the rest of my life being screwed over time and time again over this. I am
48 years old. I have no interest spending the rest of my life, being America's bitch or living out your insane
need to screw my family and me over.
I have stated, and I will reiterate it here, I have every right to seek justified retaliation for what you have done to
my life and family. I want to assure all of you reading this -- including you Mr. President, Sally Yates, Leslie
Caldwell, Loretta Lynch, that those involved at Western Seminary will pay a significant price for what they
have done, what they continue to do and for what they did with the help of others to destroy my family and life
at all costs, while manipulating 3rd parties to conduct as much evil as they possibly could against us.
Mr. President, what is America to infer about this disastrously mishandled situation?
Exactly why is it so important to beat the crap out of a student and his family, his mother in her 70s and his 100%
disabled and retired army officer father for refusing to go along with government corruption and educational fraud
purposely aimed to cover for political insiders and the reprobate religious leaders in America?
Sincerely,
/s/
Randy
14
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The purpose of this victim impact statement is to allow the crime victims of the enterprise and in
particular the victims of Western Seminary, to describe the impact of the crime. Because no judge is proceeding
over this case, the information from this statement is being made not to help determine why the various offenders
should be punished, but rather why justice will be brought against the offenders. Because victims often do not
testify fully, a statement is a way to confront the offenders who have harmed them. Allowing victims to vent their
physical, emotional, medical and financial damage provides victims with additional satisfaction with the process and
allows them to recover.
2. In this special case, the victims Joel Chapel, Susan Allister, Dale Wilson, Carol Nye-Wilson and
Randy Chapel are being and have been repeatedly bared from justice by the U.S. Government, who has protected the
enterprise over and again the persons being victimized. This is due in part because members of the U.S.
Government are actually involved in the corruption.
3. This is the work product concerning the research and evidence gathered as of May 2016. At all
relevant times, this work product supersedes all others. Records can be examined at www.educationalfraud.com or
from the Records Custodian, Carol Nye-Wilson, PO Box 711419, Mountain View, HI 96771.
4. Justice in this case will never be found through the government or the courts. In this new era,
students and/or families must take justice into their own hands.
II. THE ENTERPRISE

A. The Enterprise
5. Education oversight in America is handled through federal, state, regional, or national agencies or
associations. Each agency or association has a particular purpose in the oversight process. Under normal
conditions, the process works. As a result, the States primarily oversee education in America, while Federal
oversight is linked to funding tied to federal law.
Figure 1. Legal Entities and Individuals of the Enterprise

that Interfaced with the Federal Government
15
6. There are several legal entities and individuals involved in the enterprise. Although RICOs
definition of enterprise, 18 U.S.C. 1961(4), does not specifically list an association of legal entities, and it does
not preclude such as an association. Section 1961(4) states that the term enterprise includes the various entities
enumerated in that provision. An association-in-fact of several legal entities and individuals collectively constitute
the enterprise," as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4), and as a group of legal entities and
individuals associated in fact (hereinafter "enterprise"). The enterprise constitutes an ongoing group of legal entities
and individuals who functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the
enterprise, while interfacing with the government. In fact, the legal entity Western Seminary with Steve Korch,
Gary Tuck, Lynn Ruark, Randal Roberts, Rob Wiggins, and Bert Downs exist as an enterprise," as defined in Title
18, United States Code, Section 1961(4).
7. The overarching common purpose of the enterprise is to protect Western Seminary, et al. at all
costs. None of the schemes detailed herein have anything to do with Christianity or religious practice.
B. Western Seminary
8. Western Seminary is a legal entity. Western Seminary is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C.
1961(3). Western is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation engaged in activities affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
9. Western Seminary claims to be a theologically conservative graduate school that promotes true
innovation and humility in ministry practice. The Bible is Gods inerrant Word and we set it at the center of our
curriculum in the belief that faith and practice must be driven by principled interpretation and integration of the
Scriptures. Our faculty is made up of practitioners who teach out of this conviction, drawing from years of
experience to equip their students.1
10. Western Seminary claims to be a Gospel-Centered Gospel is at the core of curriculum in all
Western classesnot only Bible or theology classes. Our students become part of a movement to restoring the
Gospel to a place of centrality in the churches and communities where they serve.2
11. Western Seminary claims it exists to glorify God by exalting His Son, Jesus Christ, in prayerful
dependence upon the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.3
12. Western Seminarys mission: to serve as a catalyst and resource for spiritual transformation by
providing, with and for the church, advanced training for strategic ministry roles.4
13. Western Seminarys vision is to provide education that is thoroughly biblical in its conviction,
faithfully conservative in its theology, passionately spiritual at its core, intensely missional in its focus, creatively
flexible in its delivery, and warmly relational in its dynamic. In so doing, Western seeks to be both a proactive
influence and an ongoing source of support for the body of Christ as it matures spiritually and increases in
fruitfulness. To that end, special emphasis is given to grounding students in the classical dynamics of spiritual
renewal through Gospel-centered transformation for both individuals and groups.5
14. The purpose of Western Seminary is All aspects of the seminarys operations therefore
consciously aim at enhancing the reputation of the Triune God. Furthermore, these efforts must be consciously
guided by Gods inerrant word and empowered by His Holy Spirit to fulfill this high and holy calling.6
C. The Association of Theological Schools

15. ATS is actually two corporations, referred as The Association (hereinafter ATS-Association)
and Commission on Accrediting of ATS (hereinafter ATS-COA). The Association and the Commission on
Accrediting of ATS are persons as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3).
16. The purpose of ATS is to promote the improvement and enhancement of theological schools to
the benefit of communities of faith and the broader public. ATS achieves its purpose through the two corporations.
ATS-Association provides a host of programs, services, research, and other resources to support the work of
administrators and faculty at member schools while ATS-COA accredits institutions and approves degree programs
offered by accredited schools.7

1
https://www.westernseminary.edu/admissions/why
2
Ibid.
3
https://www.westernseminary.edu/employment
4
https://www.westernseminary.edu/admissions/why/mission
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
http://www.ats.edu/about/overview
16
17. The ATS-Association is formed with more than 270 graduate schools of theology in the United
States and Canada. Member schools of the Association represent various backgrounds, such as Christian mainstream
Protestantism, evangelical Protestantism, and Catholic and Orthodox churches and Jewish faiths.8
18. Membership within the ATS-Association meet the standards and criteria for membership
established by the ATS-Association. Schools initially join the ATS-Association as Associate members upon a vote
by the membership at its Biennial Meeting in even-numbered years. Within five years, Associate members are
expected to pursue Candidate for Accredited Membership through the ATS-COA. Once a school has completed the
requirements of the ATS-COA, it is recognized with Accredited Membership.9
19. The ATS-Association seeks to implement its mission with attention to four key values:10
a. Diversity. ATS values the different expressions of faith that are represented by member
schools and seeks to respect the varying understandings of theology, polity, religious leadership, and social
commitments.
b. Quality and Improvement. ATS schools value quality in the practice of ministry and in
educational practices. Quality is always linked to improvement; even schools that have achieved a high degree of
quality can improve. The Association encourages schools to advance in quality.
c. Collegiality. ATS values the contributions that schools make to one another. Regardless of
differences in theological perspective, organizational complexity, or institutional size, ATS schools, as peer
institutions, can learn from one another, cooperate on common tasks that benefit the broader community of
theological schools, and hold themselves accountable to common practices and quality.
d. Leadership. ATS values leadership and considers it essential for schools to attain their
missions. ATS is committed to developing the skills and capacities of administrators, faculties, and boards of
member schools.
20. According to the ATS-Association, In addition to these core values, the Association values
formal education for ministerial leadership and advocates on behalf of its benefits for religious leaders, religious
institutions, and the work of religion in broader publics; values justice in society and institutions and seeks to
embody justice in its organizational life; and values accountability for student learning.11 [Emphasis in
statement.]
D. The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities

21. The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (hereinafter NWCCU) is a legal
entity. NWCCU is a person a defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). NWCCU replaces the Commission on Colleges
and Universities that was originally part of the Northwest Association of Schools and of Colleges and Universities, a
voluntary, nongovernmental organization for the improvement of educational institutions founded in 1917.12
NWCCU is a legally established, private 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation for the expressed purpose of accrediting
higher education institutions in the seven-state Northwest region which includes Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington.13 NWCCU fulfills its mission by establishing accreditation criteria and
evaluation procedures by which institutions are reviewed.14 The Commission oversees regional accreditation for
162 institutions. Its decision-making body consists of up to twenty-six Commissioners who represent the public and
the diversity of higher education institutions within the Northwest region.15
22. The purpose of the NWCCU is to assure educational quality, enhance institutional effectiveness,
and foster continuous improvement of colleges and universities in the Northwest region through analytical
institutional self- assessment and critical peer review based upon evaluation criteria that are objectively and
equitably applied to institutions with diverse missions, characteristics, and cultures.16

8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
http://www.nwccu.org/About/History/NWCCU%20History.htm
13
Ibid.
14
http://www.nwccu.org
15
Ibid.
16
http://www.nwccu.org/About/About%20NWCCU/About%20NWCCU.htm
17
III. THE CONSPIRATORS
23. The various conspirators and co-conspirators at all times relevant were employed by their
respective corporations and practiced a pattern of racketeering activity, conducted or participated, directly or
indirectly, in their various enterprising affairs.
24. Beginning in 2001, or earlier, and continuing through 2016, conspirators and their co-conspirators
engaged in a continuing pattern of racketeering activity, through the internet, phone, the mail, and in-person
interactions to support, defend, and encourage activities for purposes unauthorized by federal and state laws, the
U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, legislation by Congress, and court decisional cases. A pattern of
racketeering activity extended through a myriad of actions to directly and indirectly cause as much irreparable
damage to Randy Chapel, Carol Nye-Wilson, Major Dr. Dale Wilson, PhD. (U.S. Army ret.), Joel Chapel and Susan
Allister, while supporting the personal and corporate unlawful gain of the enterprise, conspirators, and co-
conspirators.
25. At all relevant times, Bert Downs was an individual employed by and associated with Western
Seminary. Bert Downs is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Bert Downs, having been made aware of
the child molestation activities of Steve Korch, acted to cover up, impede justice, and protect Steve Korch. Having
personally taken part in the Section 504 cover up, Bert Downs acted to cover up, impede justice and protect Matt
Tuck, Gary Tuck, Lynne Tuck and the school. Bert Downs was the primary person leading the cover up and defense
of the Western Seminary corruption. He was previously the president of Western Seminary and now maintains the
position of Chancellor. He says of himself, I'm a Bible guy... so no matter who I'm working with or what the
specific project is, I'm always asking what the Bible has to say about each particular situation.17 In spite of having
an Honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Denver Seminary, awarded in 2001 for longstanding ministry service
and leadership, he goes by Dr. Bert Downs.
26. At all relevant times, Randal Roberts was an individual employed by and associated with
Western Seminary. Randal Roberts is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Randal Roberts' ministry
experience began with a variety of internships at Arcade Baptist Church in Sacramento before beginning seminary
(he also taught Bible at a Christian high school). After graduating from Western Seminary, Randal Roberts split
timeserving as the Seminarys Guided Field Education director and as Pastor of Assimilation at Lents Baptist
Church in Portland. In 1987, he became full-time special assistant to the president. He shifted to academics in 1998,
serving first as dean of faculty and then as academic dean/provost until becoming president in 2008. Since 1987,
Randal Roberts has taught a number of courses in spiritual formation, church history, and ministry design. Parallel
to his time at Western Seminary, Randal Roberts has served in a variety of congregational lay leadership roles
(elder, deacon, etc.) in both existing congregations and church plants. He continues to teach Sunday school classes
and church workshops. He also served for three years as a first round judge for the ECPA Gold Medallion Award,
and chaired the Northwest Regional section of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1986 and the Evangelical
Seminary Deans Council in 2006. He has a Doctor of Ministry degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
27. At all relevant times, Lynn Ruark was an individual employed by and associated with Western
Seminary. Lynn Ruark is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Lynn Ruark earned a Bachelor's degree in
History, and later received M.S. and M.A.T. degrees. He is now retired. At various times, Lynn Ruark held many
positions at Western Seminary, and when it was necessary he lied to federal investigators about the positions he
held.
28. At all relevant times, Gary Tuck was an individual employed by and associated with Western
Seminary. Gary Tuck is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Gary Tuck was involved in pastoral
ministry from 1978-1984, interim pastoral ministry in 1988 and then again from 1991-1992. At Western Seminary
Gary Tuck was employed part-time from 1988-1994, and then he was employed full-time 1994-currently. Gary
Tuck received his Master of Divinity degree from Western Seminary and a S.T.M., Ph.D., from Dallas Theological
Seminary. Gary Tuck has a history of damaging or pissing off students. Most dont say anything about it or only
advise friends regarding their extreme dislike of Gary Tuck. On one occasion, a student (not Randy Chapel) came
for Gary Tuck with the possibility of hurting or killing him, but instead turned away.
29. At all relevant times, Steve Korch was an individual employed by and associated with Western
Seminary. Steve Korch is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Steve Korch committed acts of sexual
molestation in 1975. Steve Korch's acts of sexual depredation and molestation, were known as his "sexual
misconduct" by the other conspirators, the co-conspirators, the corporations within the enterprise, and even by
members of the government and the public. The other conspirators and co-conspirators, corporations within the
enterprise, and the members of the government and public aided, abetted, and condoned the cover-up of Steve

17
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/speaker/dr-bert-downs
18
Korch's sexual acts, jointly and severally, permitting Steve Korch to escape detection and being held accountable.
Indeed, the sexual misconduct of Steve Korch was covered up to impede full investigation and possible criminal
prosecution. Steve Korch earned a Doctor of Ministry degree from Western Seminary post settlement.
IV. THE CO-CONSPIRATORS

A. ATS
30. At all relevant times, Daniel Aleshire was an individual employed by and associated with ATS as
executive director from 1998 forward who oversaw the work of both ATS-Association and ATS-COA. Daniel
Aleshire is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Daniel Aleshire first joined the ATS staff in 1990 as an
associate director for accreditation, and he was named associate executive director in 1996. During his twenty-four
years with ATS, he oversaw two major revisions to ATS-COA's accrediting standards, one in 19921996 and most
recently in 20082012. Outside ATS, Daniel Aleshire has held positions of leadership in organizations related to
accreditation, including the Commission on Postsecondary Accreditation, the Commission on Recognition of
Postsecondary Accreditation, and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation's task force to develop criteria for
the non-governmental recognition of accrediting agencies.
31. Daniel Aleshire is an ordained minister. Daniel Aleshire holds a BS degree from Belmont
College, a MDiv degree from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and an MA
degree and PhD in psychology from George Peabody College for Teachers in Nashville, Tennessee. He served on
the faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary from 1978 to 1990 and, before that, he was a research
scientist at Search Institute in Minneapolis where he worked on projects related to theological education, church-
related higher education, and youth service agencies.
32. Daniel Aleshire is a frequent guest speaker. Aleshire has written extensively on issues of ministry
and theological education. He served as a coauthor of Being There: Culture and Formation in Two Theological
Seminaries, which received the 1998 Distinguished Book Award from the Society for the Scientific Study of
Religion. He is also the author of Earthen Vessels: Hopeful Reflections on the Work and Future of Theological
Schools, that was released in 2008.
33. During his time at ATS, Daniel Aleshire worked with the conspirators, supporting the enterprise
over and against Randy Chapel, Carol Nye-Wilson, and the government. Daniel Aleshire worked with Jeremiah
McCarthy to collude with Western Seminary to manipulate the government and Courts. Daniel Aleshire was the
chief co-conspirator for ATS.
34. At all relevant times, Monsignor Jeremiah McCarthy was an individual employed by and
associated with ATS. Jeremiah McCarthy is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Jeremiah McCarthy is
a Catholic priest of the Diocese of Tucson, AZ. Beginning January 2002, he served as director, accreditation and
institutional evaluation. Jeremiah McCarthy served on the ATS Commission on Accrediting starting in 1994. His
work focuses largely on the administration of the accreditation work of the Association. He also provided staff
support to accreditation visiting committees, conducts accreditation self-study workshops, participated in a range of
leadership education programs of ATS, and serves as editor of Theological Education, the ATS journal. McCarthy
left ATS in and around July 2009, to serve as academic liaison officer and a Professor of Moral Theology at St.
Patricks Seminary and University in Menlo Park, CA. From St. Patrick's he became the National Catholic
Educational Association, Executive Director of the Seminary Department in September 2010. In April 2014,
Jeremiah McCarthy left the NCEA and returned to his home Diocese of Tucson, Arizona -- a well-known and
established haven for child molesters and sexual deviants. Jeremiah McCarthy is working for Bishop Gerald
Kicanas, the same individual Hower18 sued over his education, and the same Bishop noted in the massive cover up
of priest sex abuse cases in Chicago, that also includes another ATS seminary cover up (Mundelein Seminary at the
University of St. Mary of the Lake).
35. Prior to ATS, Jeremiah McCarthy served St. John's Seminary in Camarillo, California, for almost
two decades in the roles of professor of moral theology, academic dean, vice-rector and rector/president. St. Johns
Seminary in Camarillo, California, is an integral part of a network of pedophile priests and seminarians. Pedophile
students at the seminaries have encouraged the enrollment of other such students, and graduates who have become
priests have extolled the seminaries to their pedophile cohorts, resulting in a student and graduate population of
these two seminaries which is in large measure comprised of sexual perverts.19

18
Hower, et al. v. The Roman Catholic Church Archdiocese of Santa Fe, et al., U.S. District Court of Arizona, Case No: CIV04-369 TUCDCB
Philip Hower sued under RICO when members of the Catholic Church acted to cover up the child molestations / homosexual misconduct Hower
refused to take part in covering up, and for which the Church leaders ultimately destroyed Hower's education in retaliation.
19
Ibid. at 209
19
36. Ordained in 1972, Jeremiah McCarthy earned BA and MA degrees from St. John's Seminary
College in Camarillo, California as well as a PhD from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California and
the Licentiate in Sacred Theology (STL) from the Jesuit School of Theology in Berkeley.
37. Jeremiah McCarthy comes off as humble and gracious, but as demonstrated by his collusion with
Daniel Aleshire to support the conspirators, co-conspirators, and enterprise, both will do anything to cover for the
member schools of the ATS and the child molesters with whom they are involved.
B. NWCCU
38. At all relevant At all relevant times, Sandra Elman was an individual employed by and
associated with NWCCU. Sandra Elman is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Sandra Elman is the
President of Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, in Redmond, Washington, since September 1996.
39. Sandra Elman is responsible for overseeing the accreditation of institutions in the Northwest
region of the United States, including the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Sandra Elman oversees the Commissions accreditation reviews aimed at assuring the educational quality of
undergraduate and graduate programs in a multitude of disciplinary fields; provides oversight of undergraduate and
graduate curricula in humanities, social sciences, sciences, arts, and professional fields including law and medicine
in accordance with the Commissions standards of accreditation and related policies. Sandra Elman works closely
with administrators and faculty on issues of general education, programmatic development, students learning
outcomes, and planning, academic leaders in developing appropriate policies, protocols, and outcomes measures to
ensure programmatic quality. Sandra Elman conducts workshops for Boards of Trustees and CEOs regarding
accreditation standards on governance, financial stability, and institutional integrity.
40. Sandra Elman provides leadership in formulating and reviewing the Commissions policies,
programs, and procedures; direct the Commissions training and research activities; and serve as representative for
accreditation to federal and state governments and to the general public.
41. During her Presidency at NWCCU, Sandra Elman worked with the conspirators, supporting the
enterprise over and against Randy Chapel, Carol Nye-Wilson, and the government. She also interfaced with
Jeremiah McCarthy and Daniel Aleshire to collude with Western Seminary to manipulate the government and the
Courts.
C. Insurance Companies
42. GuideOne Insurance Company (hereinafter GuideOne) was founded upon two key
philosophies: a commitment to social responsibility and a dedication to serving customers who strengthen the
community. GuideOne is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). During the mid-1940s, the GuideOne
founder, William N. Plymat, set out to create an auto insurance company that would insure non-drinkers at lower
rates. Plymat believed drivers who did not drink deserved a discount because they kept roads safe and losses down.
On April 1, 1947, Plymats Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company that was later named GuideOne Insurance
became licensed to operate in Iowa. GuideOne serves churches, educational institutions, senior living and health
care centers, and nonprofit organizations with commercial insurance solutions. They also help families and
individuals with a wide range of auto, home owner and renter coverages.
43. GuideOne is rated A (Excellent) by A.M. Best Company, and GuideOne operates in all 50 states
through a network of thousands of independent and career insurance agents, who serve more than 49,000
commercial policyholders and 74,100 households. Since the 1970s, GuideOne has had a multi-peril program for
educational institutions. GuideOne is proud to insure many small- to medium-sized private colleges, universities,
seminaries, elementary and secondary schools across the country. In 2014, GuideOne had a net income of 33.8
million. GuideOne's direct and assumed written premium was $606.6 million, while its surplus was at $537.9
million. GuideOnes return on equity (ROE) equaled 6.1 percent. GuideOnes assets totaled $2.1 billion.
44. Tudor Insurance Company (hereinafter Tudor) [a member of the Western World Insurance
Group]. Tudor Insurance Company is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Formed in 1964, Western
World has successfully weathered several insurance underwriting cycles, and has learned from each. General
liability coverage includes owners/contractors protective, products/completed operations, liquor law, and employee
benefit liabilities; commercial property coverage comprise building, personal property, business income/extra
expense, crime, inland marine, equipment breakdown, and bailees coverage; commercial auto coverage includes
auto and truckers general liabilities, auto physical damage, cargo, and in-tow coverage; and professional liability
coverage comprise architects, engineers, directors, officers, public officials, and other professional liabilities, as well
as educational errors and omissions, information technology errors and omissions, and other errors and omissions.
45. Through difficult periods and years of spectacular growth, the company has built a record of
profitability and capital accumulation; an enduring reputation for underwriting expertise; and a staff of seasoned
20
professionals capable of providing its customers with quick, knowledgeable and thoughtful solutions, specifically
tailored to classes of business.
46. As of 2013, Tudor had a financial strength rating of A. Revenues at $261 millions, direct
premiums at $280 million, and surplus at $368 million. Reported assets of $1.357 billion.
47. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Brotherhood) insures Americas
churches and related ministries. Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C.
1961(3). Brotherhood has operated for more than 90 years, and from their perspective sees insurance as more than a
commercial endeavor. Its a platform to accomplish our mission: to help Americas churches and related ministries
build the Kingdom. Brotherhood provides quality property and liability insurance coverage, custom designed to
help churches and related ministries do their work safely and effectively. Find out more about how we come
alongside our customers work. According to Brotherhood, In serving the church, we will uphold the Biblical
values upon which the company was founded. We will:
a. Be the Leader in developing and providing ministry-focused insurance products and risk
management services.
b. Build the Kingdom by helping churches and ministries focus on changing lives and fulfilling
the Great Commission.
c. Bless the Laborers by creating a corporate culture, compensation structure, and ministry
opportunities designed to further personal and professional purpose.
48. As of 2015, Brotherhood had a net income of $19 million, with premiums at $292 million.
Brotherhood has admitted assets of $.542 billion.
D. Attorneys
49. The legal entities and conspirators, with their co-conspirators used the services of attorneys in an
attempt to cover-up communications, plans, goals, and practices. With the exception of two, these attorneys are
located in California.
50. Each named attorney below and their law firm is a person a defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3).
51. Attorneys associated with the ATS-Association, ATS-COA, Daniel Aleshire, and Jeremiah
McCarthy are Tom Johnson of K & L Gates; John Barber, Lisa Sween, Jessica Luke of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP.
52. The attorney associated with NWCCU and Sandra Elman was Michael Madden of Bennett
Bigelow & Leedom, P.S.
53. Attorneys associated with Western Seminary and the conspirators are Linda McPharlin of
McPharlin Sprinkles & Thomas LLP; Jonathan Radmacher of Mcewen Gisvold; Thomas Hadley of the Law
Offices of Thomas Hadley; Anthony Lauria, Ellen Hung, David Trent, Raymond Gates of Lauria Tokunaga
Gates & Linn, LLP; Mark Shem, Anthony Zand, and Sam Phillips of Borton Petrini LLP; and Andrew Adler of
Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe, PC.
54. Brotherhood hired the law firm of Borton Petrini LLP to represent Western Seminary.
55. GuideOne hired the law firm of Lauria Tokunaga Gates & Linn, LLP to represent Western
Seminary.
56. Tudor hired the law firm of Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe, PC to represent Western Seminary.
57. Thomas Hadley of the Law Offices of Thomas Hadley represented Western Seminary and it is
unknown if his employment was paid for by the insurance company or by Western Seminary itself.
58. The attorney associated with Steve Korch was Linda McPharlin of McPharlin Sprinkles &
Thomas LLP. Although, Linda McPharlin later provided representation after March 14, 2006, that included Gary
Tuck, Lynn Ruark, Western Seminary and the administration of the school against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-
Wilson.
E. Government
59. At all relevant times, Margaret Spellings was an individual employed by and associated with the
United States Department of Education. Margret Spellings is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3).
Margaret Spellings has a B.A. from the University of Houston, class 1979. She was aide to the Texas legislature;
director of select committee on education for Texas Gov. William P. Clements Jr.; associate executive director,
Texas Association of School Boards; political director, George W. Bush's campaign for governor, 1994; senior
advisor to Texas Governor George W. Bush, 1995-2000; assistant to the president for domestic policy, 2001-04,
U.S. Secretary of Education, 2005-2008. After leaving the appointment of U.S. Secretary of Education, Spellings
started her own consulting firm and worked as a lobbyist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Margaret Spellings
21
was president of the George W. Bush Presidential Center from 2013 through 2016, and she is currently the President
of the University of North Carolina, as of March 2016.
60. After Margaret Spellings became the Secretary of Education in January of 2005, she immediately
threw herself into the country's culture wars by pressuring public television not to broadcast an episode of a
children's program that included a segment with unseen lesbian mothers (Postcards from Buster). In the episode, the
word lesbian or homosexual is never said, and the episode like all Postcards episodes has no sexual content.
Buster meets the children and comments, "Boy, that's a lot of moms!" one girl mentions her "mom and stepmom,"
adding that she loves her stepmother very much, and no other comments are made about the couple. PBS vice
president of media relations, Lea Sloan, said at the time, The fact that there is a family structure that is
objectionable to the Department of Education is not at all the focus of the show, nor is it addressed in the show.20
61. Margaret Spellings demanded that PBS return all federal funding that had been used in the
production of the episode, claiming, many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles
portrayed in this episode.21 Margaret Spellings' position came back to haunt her in many ways, including after she
became President of the UNC.
62. At all relevant times, Kent Talbert was an individual employed by and associated with the United
States Department of Education. Kent Talbert is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Kent Talbert was
the U.S. Department of Education's General Counsel. He was nominated by President Bush on September 27, 2005,
and confirmed by the United States Senate on May 19, 2006, and served out his term to 2009. As General Counsel,
Mr. Talbert served as the principal adviser to the Secretary on all legal matters affecting Departmental programs and
activities.
63. Prior to his confirmation, he served as the Department's Deputy General Counsel for the Division
of Business and Administrative Law and the Division of Legislative Counsel. Before coming to the Department,
Kent Talbert served as Education Policy Counsel for the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the United
States House of Representatives, as well as on the staff of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
in the United States Senate, and on the staff of the late U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC). Kent Talbert is a
magna cum laude graduate of Erskine College (1982), and he is a graduate of the University of South Carolina
School of Law (1985), where he served on the International Moot Court team. He also practiced law in Columbia,
South Carolina. Kent Talbert currently maintains his own law practice.
64. At all relevant times, Cheryl A. Oldham was an individual employed by and associated with the
United States Department of Education. Cheryl Oldman is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Cheryl
Oldham has 20 years of experience in public policy development and implementation as well as in project
management and government relations. Her previous experience includes serving for 8 years in President George W.
Bushs administration. In July 2008, the president designated Oldham as acting assistant secretary for postsecondary
education while also serving as chief of staff to the under secretary of education. As chief of staff, Oldham was the
senior adviser on policy and strategy, and she oversaw the coordination of the programs and policies for which the
office was responsible. These included vocational and adult education, postsecondary education, and federal student
aid. Cheryl Oldham is currently a lobbyist, vice president of education policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
and is also vice president of the education and workforce program of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation.
Through events, publications, and policy initiativesand drawing upon the Chambers extensive network of
membersthe education and workforce program connects the best minds in American business with the most
innovative thinkers in education and training, helping them work together to preserve the strength of Americas
greatest economic resource, its workforce.
65. At all relevant times, Diane Auer Jones was an individual employed by and associated with the
United States Department of Education. Diane Auer Jones is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Diane
Auer Jones served as Assistant Secretary for post-secondary education in the U.S. Department of Education from
2007 to 2008 during the administration of President George W. Bush. She then joined Career Education Corporation
as Vice President of External and Regulatory Affairs at the Washington Campus. Diane Auer Jones is currently
President & CEO of AJsquared Consulting, a firm dedicated to advancing sound higher education public policy;
helping institutions innovate, improve student outcomes, communicate with the full range of constituents and
navigate the complex regulatory environment; and advancing high quality post-secondary alternatives such as
Registered Apprenticeship Programs.
66. At all relevant times, Charles Chuck Mula was an individual employed by and associated with
the United States Department of Education. Chuck Mula is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Chuck

20
www.nbcnews.com/id/6869976/ns/us_n
21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40188-2005Jan26.html
22
Mula was the Chief Analyst within the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit (AAEU) that reviewed ATS and
NWCCU compliance with 34 CFR PART 602.
67. At all relevant times, Nancy C. Regan was an individual employed by and associated with the
United States Department of Education. Nancy Regan is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Nancy
Regan was at the time the director of the Accreditation and State Liaison Group (or simply the Accreditation Group)
within the U.S. Department of Education, which among other things, oversaw the compliance of accrediting
agencies using regulations set forth at 34 CFR PART 602.
68. At all relevant times, Sally Warner was an individual employed by and associated with the
United States Department of Education. Sally Warner is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). Sally
Warner is a General Counsel attorney from the Department of Education used by the Accreditation Group during the
events noted below and was named by Chuck Mula as being involved.
69. At all relevant times, James A. Scharf was an individual employed by and associated with the
United States Department of Justice. James Scharf is a person as defined under 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). James A.
Scharf is a Department of Justice attorney used by the Government and in particular by the Department of Education
to perpetuate the cover up of unlawfulness by the enterprise, the conspirators, and the co-conspirators.
70. There are many other individuals who held government positions that involved themselves and
used the government as a protector for the enterprise. There is a clear paper trail to indicate those who knew or
should have known what was going on. Under the Obama Administration, the governments positioning has
become one of anti-transparency and rule by law instead of transparency and rule of law as promised. The
government has become the overall protector for the enterprise and is willing to cause as many problems or play as
many games as needed to thwart justice.
F. Unnamed
71. There are John Does and Jane Does involved in the enterprise who acted to support the various
conspirators and co-conspirators and are presently unknown, but by deduction it is clear that others participated with
and assisted the various conspirators and co-conspirators in the commission, perpetration, and concealment of the
wrongs against the Chapels and Wilsons.
V. THE ENTERPRISE
A. The Relationships of the Enterprise
72. Relationships between the legal entities and individuals existed prior to 2001.
73. The named individuals noted were employees of their respective legal entity and maintained and
exercised control as employees of their respected legal entities. Individuals each have long standing relationships,
not simply as employee to employee of the same legal entity, but also between each other through their mutually-
respected and legal entity relationship.
74. Western Seminary maintains a paid membership with its accreditors NWCCU and ATS.
Likewise, both NWCCU and ATS provide accreditation for Western Seminary so that Western Seminary can
receive Title IV funds.22
75. ATS and NWCCU are regulated by and maintain a relationship with the non-enterprise entity, the
U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Department of Education maintains a relationship with NWCCU and ATS
by recognizing NWCCU and ATS as accreditation agencies that are regulated under 34 CFR Part 602 (20 U.S.C.
1099b). The relationships of NWCCU and ATS with the U.S. Department of Education are based upon quality
assurance for the schools they accredit and function as gatekeepers for federal funds.23 The accrediting agencies
serve as the gatekeeper, then, to the U.S. Treasury, giving the accreditors much of their authority, and the
ramifications of that linkage are significant.24
76. Accreditation is a requirement for Western Seminary to maintain a relationship with and to receive
Title IV funds from the U.S. Department of Education, while the U.S. Department of Education regulates Western
Seminary by requiring compliance with various Codes of Federal Regulations, such as, 34 CFR 668.14 - Program
Participation Agreement (20 U.S. Code 1094).

22
Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., 431 F.3d 353, 362 (9th Cir. 2005) ([j]ust as a corporate officer can be a person
distinct from the corporate enterprise, [the corporate defendant] is separate from its legal defense team).
23
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/30/accredit
24
Ibid.
23
77. Each legal entity (ATS, NWCCU and Western Seminary) is represented by a set of attorneys. In
the case of Western Seminary, its attorneys are paid by insurance companies, due to insurance products Western
Seminary bought to protect itself and its employees.
78. The enterprise relationships of attorneys, insurance companies, legal entities, and individuals came
together and exist in order to deal with complaints from Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson, inside and outside of
the Court, which some have done since at least 2001 (Western Seminary, Steve Korch, Gary Tuck), since 2002 for
additionally others (Lynn Ruark, Randal Roberts, Rob Wiggins, and Bert Downs), since 2003 for still others
(GuideOne and Tutor, attorneys), and since at least 2006/2007 for the remaining attorneys, insurance companies,
legal entities, and individuals (ATS, NWCCU, etc).
79. The enterprise is engaged in activities that affected interstate and foreign commerce. Western
Seminary receives substantial amounts of money from both interstate and foreign commerce. In particular, since
2003, Western Seminary received substantial amounts of money due to the relationships within the enterprise and
Title IV funds.
80. Western Seminary, et al., ATS, et al., NWCCU et al., and various corrupt government agents have
acted to fraudulently conceal their pattern of racketeering activity from Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson and
the public.
81. Under normal conditions, the legal entities and individuals entangled in the enterprise have for
years involved themselves in the regulating nature and the oversight of education to ultimately provide educational
training to students. The enterprise interfaces with the U.S. Department of Education.
82. The purpose of the U.S. Department of Education is to promote student achievement and
preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. The
Department was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. The Department's 4,400
employees and $68 billion budget are dedicated to: 1) Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education,
and distributing as well as monitoring those funds; 2) Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating
research; 3) Focusing national attention on key educational issues; and 4) Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring
equal access to education.25
83. However, while the legal entities and individuals involved have engaged in legal operations for
years, they have also engaged themselves in conduct to corrupt those legal entities for personal and corporate
benefit. The members of the enterprise engaged in corrupt enterprise purposes by a variety of methods and means,
including, and not limited to, they created and enforced fraudulent standards and rules to avert taking action based
upon regulated standards, rules, statutes, and laws.
84. Certain members of the enterprise, as well as individuals and entities who are employed by and
associated with the enterprise, frequently engaged in banking activities with United States financial institutions. In
order to engage in monetary transactions through United States financial institutions, relationships between
members of the enterprise were required by law to preexist as a precondition of any transaction.
B. The Legal Side Of The Enterprise

85. Three authorities oversee educational intuitions in America: States, the Federal Government, and
accreditation agencies. Each authority provides various protections to the student and the public at large.
86. Each state oversees degree authority and business conduct of the educational intuition, while
accreditation agencies provide for the quality aspect of education. The Federal Governments role is largely one
tied to federal funds for students to attend educational intuitions, thus, the government leverages the state and
accreditation agency oversight of the educational intuition.
87. It is the position of the government that: the Tenth Amendment (1791) of the U.S. Constitution
(1787) states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.26
88. It is the position of the government that: in order to ensure a basic level of quality, the practice of
voluntary accreditation arose in the United States as a means of conducting nongovernmental, peer evaluation of
educational institutions and programs. The entities that conduct accreditation are associations of higher education
institutions and academic specialists. These associations define procedures for assessing the quality of
institutions and programs and formally recognize those institutions meeting their standards while

25
http://www2.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml
26
U.S. Department of Education, International Affairs Staff, Education in the United States: A Brief Overview, Washington, D.C., 2005. p. 6.
Constitution of the United States, which does not mention education, sets forth in Articles I, Sections 8 and 10, and Article II, Section 2 that
foreign affairs are reserved to the federal government, and in Amendment X of the Bill of Rights that powers not reserved to the federal
government, such as oversight and administration of education, are reserved to the states and citizens.
24
withholding or withdrawing recognition from those that do not,27 and these agencies develop and enforce
standards for institutions and programs.28 [Emphasis bold]
89. It is the position of the government that: the accrediting organizations develop the quality
standards or criteria for accreditation, develop and manage the accreditation process, and make the final
decision on accreditation.29 This is because accreditation is the process used in U.S. education to ensure that
schools, postsecondary institutions, and other education providers meet, and maintain, minimum standards of
quality and integrity regarding academics, administration, and related services.30 [Emphasis bold]
90. Accreditation provides no legal authority for degree authorization, and it simply provides the
purported claim to the public of quality oversight. States provide authorization as a precursor to accreditation.
States and the PEOPLE (Congress) write laws within which schools must abide in order to conduct business. The
Government is aware that NWCCU and ATS require as a matter of accreditation approval that school members will
conduct their operations lawfully as part of quality education, and they have made those claims before the U.S.
Department of Education in order to gain and retain recognition.
i. Education
91. State oversight is not simply a constitutional issue, but a matter of public importance. Often
employers and consumers are concerned about the qualifications of a person it is about to hire or rely upon. Thus,
degree validity is questioned. For example: "What makes a degree genuine?" "What makes a bogus degree false?"
And, "How can anyone tell the difference?"
a. A professor in California who was named the states poet laureate claimed to have a college
degree, but never earned one.31
b. Pennsylvania State University initiated background checks for all new employees, including
faculty, after discovering that a popular faculty member had committed murder over twenty
years earlier.32
92. Misrepresentation of academic degrees is nothing new and it often happens in two main ways: an
individual claims to have a degree he or she did not earn (i.e., resume fraud), or the individual has obtained a
fraudulent degree from a diploma mill. The problem is substantial in scope.33 Supported by the government and

27
Ibid, Page 28
28
U.S. Department of Education, International Affairs Staff, Accreditation and Quality Assurance:Postsecondary Accreditation, Washington,
D.C., 12/2007.
29
"Assuring Quality in Higher Education: Key Issues and Questions for Changing Accreditation in the United States" ed.gov.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/schray.pdf (accessed November 28, 2011).
30
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Network for Education Information, Accreditation and Quality Assurance, Washington, D.C. 2/21/2008.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-accreditation.html (accessed January 30, 2012)
31
Robin Wilson. Fall From Grace. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Apr. 4, 2003. Accessed August 28, 2015.
http://chronicle.com/article/Fall-From-Grace/22787/ (One lie, retold over 26 years, undoes a professors teaching career)
32
Scott Smallwood. Should Colleges Check up on Professors? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Sept. 12, 2003. Accessed August 28, 2015.
https://chronicle.com/article/Should-Colleges-Check-Up-on/27180
33
Julianne Basinger, 4 Years After a Scandal, a President Steps Down. The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 5, 2004. Accessed August 28,
2015. http://chronicle.com/article/4-Years-After-a-Scandal-a/30708 . See also Thomas Wanat. College President Resigns After his Resume is
Questioned. The Chronicle of Higher Education. February 2, 1996. Accessed August 28, 2015. http://chronicle.com/article/College-President-
Resigns/95575/ (The president of Edward Waters College resigned last month, after the governing board learned that he had falsified credentials
on his resume) See also Andrew Mytelka. Top Official at Texas A&M Resigns After Claims on Resume Are Questioned. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. June 18, 2010. Accessed August 28, 2015. http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/top-official-at-texas-a-m-resigns-after-claims-on-
r-sum-are-questioned/24923 (The No. 3 administrator at Texas A&M Universitys flagship campus resigned today after The Bryan College
Station Eagle, a local newspaper, raised questions about two claims on his rsum. The official, Alexander Kemos, who was senior vice president
for administration, stated on his rsum that he had been a Navy SEAL and had earned a doctorate at Tufts University. According to the
newspaper, Navy records showed that Mr. Kemos had never served in the elite military unit and Tufts records showed he had not completed his
masters degree, let alone his doctorate. A masters degree is a requirement for the $300,000-a-year job at A&M.) See also Lindsay Bosslett.
President Quits after Resume is Questioned. The Chronicle of Higher Education. November 8, 2002. Accessed August 28, 2015.
http://chronicle.com/article/President-Quits-After-R-sum-/26453 (The president of Quincy University announced last month that he was
resigning after the university's Board of Trustees discovered some "inaccuracies" in his academic credentials. The Rev. Eugene R. Kole had listed
on his rsum two master's degrees that he had never earned. Ralph M. Oakley, the chairman of the board of the Roman Catholic institution in
Quincy, Ill., insisted that the findings about Father Kole's background had not prompted the resignation.) See also Elizabeth F. Farrell, Professor
at UC-San Diego Admits to Lying on Resume, Steps Down as State's Poet Laureate. The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 21, 2002.
Accessed August 28, 2015. http://chronicle.com/article/Professor-at-UC-San-Diego/116756/ (An award-winning poet and professor at the
University of California at San Diego who was named the state's poet laureate in June informed university officials on Friday that he had lied
about having received a college degree. He did not graduate, and when state officials confronted him with the discrepancy on his rsum, he
resigned from the poet-laureate post. University officials are reviewing their options and have not yet) See also Robin Wilson. Lab official
Resigns over Lack of a Ph.D. The Chronicle of Higher Education. September 17, 1999. Accessed August 28, 2015.
http://chronicle.com/article/Lab-Official-Resigns-Over-Lack/35838 (An official of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who has
25
two accreditors, there is now an accepted third way to misrepresent the validity of a degree as the result of their
combined, corrupt resolve.
93. Using a phony degree at this time is not a crime in most states,34 however, as Yahoo CEO Scott
Thompson learned,35 applicants may risk job loss. Generally, the court has not delved deeply into the issue of
misrepresenting educational attainments as being illegal, but one court did.36 Generally, the public and courts are
unsympathetic to employees discharged due to fraud.37
ii. The Federal Governments Role in Education
94. Congress rarely gets involved in degree granting an institution. When Congress does get
involved, such work can be seen in authorizing military academics and other related institutions for the armed
forces. While Tribal Authority exists in and of itself, there is interchange with the Department of the Interior Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Federally recognized Indian tribes have the authority to charter degree-granting colleges
independent of state approval.38
95. The U.S. Department of Education acknowledges the states primary authority in determining
degree-granting authority. Legally authorized: The legal status granted to an institution through a charter, license, or
other written document issued by the appropriate agency or official of the State in which the institution is physically
located. (34 C.F.R. 600.2)39
96. Because of the states primary authority, federal law is tied to the distribution of federal money.40
Thus, for institutions to receive federal money or for students to be eligible for student financial aid, institutions
must be 1) authorized by the state; 2) must be accredited; and 3) must comply with federal laws, because the U.S.
Secretary of Education is the custodian of federal dollars.
97. Because the U.S. Secretary of Education is the custodian of federal dollars, the Secretary oversees
various laws, which includes but is not limited to:

overseen construction of a cutting-edge research facility involving lasers and nuclear weapons resigned last month, after it was revealed that he
lacks a Ph.D.) etc.
34
North Dakota and Oregon have enacted laws that make the use of a fake degree to attempt to obtain a job a misdemeanor. See N.D. CENT.
CODE, 1520.415 (LexisNexis 2003) (stating that issuing or using a false academic degree is a class C felony, and using or claiming to have a
false academic degree to obtain employment, to obtain a promotion or higher compensation, to obtain admission to an institution of higher
learning, or in connection with any business, trade, profession, or occupation is a class A misdemeanor). See also O.R.S. 348.609 (2005)
(forbidding individuals from representing that they have an academic degree unless it has been awarded by an accredited institution or has met
other standards established by the Oregon Student Assistance Commission). Individuals found guilty may be fined up to $1,000. See also Will
Potter. States Try to Crack Down on Diploma Mills. The Chronicle of Higher Education. December 19, 2003. Accessed August 28, 2015.
http://chronicle.com/article/States-Try-to-Crack-Down-on/5434. See also Federal employees who misrepresent their educational credentials may
be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 1001, which provides for a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for
making a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation to a federal agency. 18 U.S.C. 1001 (2000), amended by Act of July 27
2006, 18 U.S.C.A. 1001 (West Supp. 2006). Other states prohibit the use of false information including: Colorado (COLO. REV. STAT. 26-
6-1-5.5 (West 2002)) (child care providers); Illinois (720 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/17-2.5 (West Supp. 2006)) (college employees); Iowa (IOWA
CODE 715.6A(2)(d) (West 2003)); Michigan (MICH. COMP. LAWS 390.1604 (West Supp. 2005)); New Jersey (N.J. STAT. ANN.
18A:3-15.2 (West 1999)); Ohio (OHIO REV. CODE ANN. 4715.19 (West 2006)) (dentists); and Tennessee (TENN. CODE ANN. 39-17-
112(b) (2004)). A few states outlaw the false production or alteration of an academic degree: Iowa (IOWA CODE 715A.6A(2)(a) (2005));
Michigan (MICH. COMP. LAWS 390.1603 (2005)); and Tennessee (TENN. CODE ANN. 39-17-112(a)) (2004)).
35
Julianne Pepitone. Yahoo confirms CEO is out after resume scandal. May 14, 2012. Accessed August 28, 2015.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/13/technology/yahoo-ceo-out/ (Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson was fired after four months on the job after falsely
claiming to have a degree in computer science. His claim was placed on records filed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
meant that he and the company lied to the government.)
36
Greenhouse v. MCG Capital Corp., 392 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2004).
37
Williams v. Boorstin, 663 F.2d 109 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The former employee had claimed several educational credentials, including a law degree
from Georgetown University that he had not earned, to secure a position as a copyright examiner at the Library of Congress. The court rejected
the plaintiffs claim of race discrimination and retaliation, ruling that the plaintiffs formidable record of lying to the employer clearly justified
his discharge, at 117. See Fishel v. Farley, No. 93480, 1994 WL 43793 (E.D. La., Feb. 8, 1994) a woman who misrepresented her educational
credentials on her employment application was discharged for the falsification after she made a sexual harassment complaint. She sued the
employer for harassment, but lost both that claim and the claim that her termination was retaliatory. The court found that the employer had
responded promptly and appropriately to her harassment claim, and that the falsification was ample grounds for discharge. In Rizzo v. Sheahan,
No. 97 C 3995, 2000 WL 679982 (N.D. Ill., May 22, 2000) a police officer who falsely claimed that she had earned a General Equivalency
Diploma, and who submitted fraudulent documentation of such credential, was discharged after filing a sexual harassment complaint. The
investigation of her fraudulent documentation had occurred prior to her filing the harassment complaint, and the court ruled that the employer had
discharged her for just cause. As cited in Barbara Lee Who are you? Fraudulent credentials and background checks in academe expansion of a
presentation made at the 27th Annual National Conference on Law and Higher Education, sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Higher
Education Law and Policy, Stetson University College of Law, February 19, 2006.
38
John Tippeconnic, Susan Faircloth, Cheryl Crazy Bull & George Gipp. A Guide To Establishing A Tribally Controlled College Or University.
American Indian Higher Education Consortium. Accessed August 24, 2015. http://www.aihec.org/who-we-are/docs/Establish_TCU_Guide.pdf).
39
The state authorization requirement is at 34 CFR 600.4(a)(1). These in turn are rooted in 20 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2), which says that an educational
institution must be legally authorized within each state to provide a program of education beyond secondary education.
40
34 CFR 600.4, 600.5 and 600.6. See also Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99, etc.
26
a. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 codified at 29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., and in particular Section 504
(29 U.S.C. 794) which is designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities
that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Section 504 provides: "No
otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability,
be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . ."41 The regulations implementing Section 504 in the context of
educational institutions appear at 34 C.F.R. Part 104.
b. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is
a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds
under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
iii. The States Role in Education (Degree Authority)

98. It has been repeatedly shown that state and federal courts require explicit bequests of authority for
any college to issue degrees.42 In the United States, there isnt a legitimate degree-granter that does not have
governmental degree-granting authorization. As we shall see, accreditation by itself cannot confer degree-granting
authority. Authority is a matter of legality, as it is a clean distinction between those who have legal authority to grant
a degree (as discussed below) and those who dont. This doesnt mean that even when there is a degree-granting
authority in the state, then everything is done correctly.43 I should also stress at the outset that just because a college
has the legal authority to issue one or more degrees, it isnt tantamount that the degrees issued are good, adequate or
actually valid.
a. A degree is a type of public credential.
99. A person may earn all sorts of awards and recognitions, but the public credential is used for a
focused purpose. Valid degrees are awarded based on knowledge and legitimate student performance against a set
of generally accepted criteria. In the United States, credit hours are issued based on student work. Completing the
right kind of credit hours allows a student to be eligible for the award of the degree in question by the institution.
The degree represents the efforts of educators and students to organize the learning experience in pursuit of these
critical purposes. As the capstone of higher education, the degree is intended to foster lifelong learning and useful
involvement in the world around us. By its confirmation of skill development, the degree signifies that the student
has acquired some mastery of general education and preparation for career or profession. The degree indicates that a
course of study has been completed and that the student is positioned to continue to learn, work, and function
productively in pertinent communities.44 "The degree of M.D. is something more than a title, it is a certificate
attesting the fact that the person upon whom it has been conferred has successfully mastered the curriculum of study
prescribed by the authorities of an institution created by law and by law authorized to issue such certificate. It has
thus a legal sanction and authority. But it has more. In practical affairs it introduces its possessor to the confidence
and patronage of the general public. Its legal character gives it a moral and material credit in the estimation of the
world, and makes it thereby a valuable property right of great pecuniary value." (Townshend v. Gray 62 Vermont
373. 1890.)
b. A degree is not a certification
100. Certification is seen as in the case of RN (Registered Nurse) and CPA (Certified Public
Accountant), etc., to represent certification for the individual, normally by some sort of state licensing board in a
professional area.45
c. The basis of degree granting rests in authority
101. For a degree to be valid, it has to be properly granted by an entity that has the legal authority to
do so. A degree could be fraudulently granted by a valid entity, if that entity does not have the legal authority to
issue the degree. Authority to issue degrees in the United States can be obtained from Congress, a state government,

41
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html
42
See the following: Natl Assn. of Certified Public Accountants v. United States, 53 App. D.C. 391, 292 F. 668 (1923), cert den. Oct. 6, 1923;
Townshend v. Gray, 62 Vt. 373, 19 A. 635 (1890), The Medical College of Philadelphia Case, 3 Wharton. 445 (1838); Regents of University of
Maryland v. Williams, 9 Gill and J. 365, 31 Am. D. 72 (1838); In re Duquesne College Charter (Com. Pl.) 12 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 491, 2 Pa. Dist. R.
555 (1891); Kerr v. Shurtleff, 218 Mass. 167, 105 N.E. 871 (1914).
43
California exemplifies what can happen with no adequate oversight. See the publish record of the Governmental Affairs Committee. United
States Senate. Hearings Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 108th Congress, Second Session, MAY 11-12, 2004. URL:
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings?PageNum_rs=3&c=108
44
Council for Higher Education Accreditation, The Value of the Degree. May 1, 2001. Accessed August 24, 2015.
http://www.chea.org/pdf/Value_of_Degree.pdf
45
True, a person might have a Bachelor of Science in Accounting, that in and of itself doesnt mean the person is a CPA.
27
or a recognized sovereign Indian tribe.46 This theory of authority developed from the Tenth Amendment, commonly
referred to as the Reserved Powers Clause47 Education, while it is not directly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution,
it is one of the most inviolable powers reserved for the states and people. To this end, the U.S. Congress avoids
direct authority in education unless Federal funds are involved.
102. Authority cannot be inferred from a corporate charter. The case on point is known as the
Cramwell Institute case.48 In this case the Federal Trade Commission held that it was a violation of the federal trade
law for a corporation to issue degrees without authority, and noted that:
103.
The evidence shows that degrees are lawfully conferred only by duly authorized, accredited and
recognized educational institutions of higher learning as evidence of, and in recognition of,
prescribed and substantially standardized scholastic attainments in various fields by students of
said institutions. Unless such degrees are so well earned and conferred, they do not constitute
degrees in the accepted meaning of said term and are of no meaning and effect whatever. A
diploma is a mere paper evidence of the attainment of the degree. All of the evidence in this
connection ... shows that the respondent has no authority to award degrees or diplomas. ....
In the educational field, the words diploma and degree have come to have a well-established
meaning.49
d. Degree granting can be abused
104. The court calls a degree, "a valuable property right of great pecuniary value." Degrees can be
made valueless, if irresponsible institutions like some that are accredited by ATS, bestow degrees incorrectly. To
hold that the legislature, by a general law, intended that any three men in any town in the state, however illiterate or
irresponsible, might organize and flood the state with doctors of medicine, doctors of law, doctors of divinity,
masters of arts, civil engineers, and all the other various titles that everywhere in the civilized world have signified
high attainments and special equipment for professional work, is to liken it to the witty French minister who
threatened to create so many dukes that it would be no honor to be one, and a burning disgrace not to be one.50
105. The majority of degree-granting institutions operate under the authority of the local state
governments. The majority of schools seek authorization by a state when they are established, or they are shut down
because they dont possess authorization from the state. Authorization comes in three basic forms: 1) public
institutions owned by a state; 2) nonpublic institutions authorized by the state; and 3) religious schools authorized by
the state, but conducted under religious grounds.
e. Degree authorization
106. Every state has at least one or more agency dealing with approving or licensing institutions and
regulating institutions regarding the use of degrees by people within that state. Of course, with fifty states having a
variety of enforcement attitudes ranging from strict to negligent, institutions even valid ones -- take advantage of
the situation. Montana has a decent licensing law, but deliberately chose to not enforce it. California also had a
reasonable licensing law, but let it expire, and then allowed authorization to dangle for some time. Thus, the door
opened for fake schools to rush into California, and corrupt schools (i.e., Western Seminary) had access to do
whatever they wanted.
107. In somewhat bizarre thinking, Louisiana allowed religious schools to operate without state
licensing, and the Religious took advantage of it. Subsequently, the religious schools then proceeded to offer
nonreligious degrees. Wyoming failed to regulate religious schools offering nonreligious degrees. Again, the
Religious took advantage of that negligence in droves.
108. New Mexico enacted licensing laws for schools, but at the same time grandfathered in all
unaccredited schools that could not have qualified under the law. But the case of New Mexico is nothing compared
to Idaho that does in fact regulate schools in the state, but ignores certain schools as long as students from other
states enroll.

46
Tribal authority is not the same as federal authority.
47
The Tenth Amendment reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
48
In the Matter of Joseph Jayko trading as Cramwell Institute, Etc. 55 FTC 242 (1958).
49
Cramwell at 269 and 279.
50
Townshend v. Gray, 62 Vt. 373, 377, 8 L.R.A. 112, 115 (1890)
28
109. Many older schools were approved this way (Harvard, Dartmouth, and William and Mary) and of
the first schools in America, nine were grants via royal charters prior to Independence.51 Our nations first school
was Harvard:
Although no mention of the power to grant academic degrees is to be found in the Harvard
College charter of 1650, the institution conferred nine bachelor of arts degrees as early as 1642.
This was a bold action; it amounted to an unauthorized assumption of sovereign powers.52 ...
Despite the cloud that hung over the legality of Harvards charter, the college was able to carry on
without interference until 1684, when the colonial charter of Massachusetts was revoked. With
that revocation even any appearance of legality for Harvards incorporation vanished too. ...
Consequently Harvard operated without a charter till 1707. In that year the Massachusetts
legislature, standing on the thin ice that the charter of 1650 had never been formally repealed or
annulled, directed the college authorities to regulate themselves from time to time according to the
provisions of the original document.53
110. The case on point regarding authorization is Natl Assn. of Certified Public Accountants v. United
States, 292 F. 668, 53 App. D.C. 391. This case showed that simply opening a corporation for educational purposes
did not establish that the corporation acquired degree-granting authority.54 The court held that degree-granting
authority had to be granted in expressed terms by the government.
111. In addition, there is the case of Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Oregonian Ry. Co., Ltd. 130 U.S. 1
(1889). (In the United States, a corporation can only have an existence under the express law of the state by which
it is created, and can exercise no power or authority which is not granted to it by the charter under which it exists, or
by some other legislative act.). What is most important regarding this United States Supreme Court case is that
corporations set up to offer education are limited only to the power that is granted to them (via charter or legislative
act). They cant mindlessly claim they can do this or that, if that power is not expressly provided in charter or from
a prior legislative act.55
112. This is further reinforced as an corporation cannot bootstrap authority by 1) listing such power in
documents of incorporation; 2) modifying documents of incorporation in the future; 3) claiming power through
some sort of extension of power from another corporation (an accreditor recognized under 20 U.S. Code 1099b)
which itself has not been granted the authority it claims to have. Thus, Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co. buttresses the later
Accounts and any other corporation claiming authority to offer educational services or degrees, when it actually has
no authority (via charter or legislative act) to do so. When Congress desired to give a corporation that power, it did
so in express terms. From this it must be inferred that, where it did not expressly grant such power, it intended to
withhold it ... when Congress thought it proper to vest a corporation with the right to confer degrees, it said so in
express terms, and was not willing to leave the matter to conjecture.56
113. The Vermont Supreme Court case of Townshend v. Gray, 62 Vt. 373, 19 A. 635 (1890) resonances
Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., in that it concluded a corporation had no authority to grant degrees simply under the states
corporation laws, unless the state legislature itself had expressed such power. As Townshend immaculately betrays:

51
Gordon Clapp. The College Charter. Journal Of Higher Education. 5:79-87 (1934). For law related to the rights of nonpublic colleges, See
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819). This case was a landmark decisions from the United States
Supreme Court regarding Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution to private corporations. This case is important since it deals with the limits
and exercise of a charter based system as compared to the states authority. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of
Dartmouth, which pre-dated the creation of the State.
52
Willis Rudy & John Brubacher. Higher Education In Transition: An American History Transaction Publisher. 1958. p. 22.
53
Id. at 32.
54
This concept is not simply limited to the courts. The current Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education in CA also handles cases where
someone opens a corporation and claims to have acquired degree-granting authority, without proper authorization by the state. For example,
California Technology University was fined $50,000 for failing to seek approval to operate.
(http://www.bppe.ca.gov/enforcement/actions/citation_1213006.pdf) For additional examples in CA, See
www.bppe.ca.gov/enforcement/disciplinary_actions.shtml
55
Western Seminary doesnt have the power to make exceptions to the law in order to confer degrees or offer educational course work, unless
such power is expressed in charter or through a legislative act, which directly expresses such power. Indeed, 20 US Code 1099b doesnt
express such power for accreditors to bestow on the schools they accredit either. It doesnt matter that Western Seminary, which is located in
Oregon was offering degrees in California at the time. Western Seminary doesnt have the power to do what it claimed and tie that to education,
because its claims and demands violated laws and its limited authorization.
56
Accountants at 394.
29
No express power to confer degrees can be found in the Statute under which this medical college
was organized, and hence the power to confer degrees must be classed as incidental to the general
powers of a corporation formed for the purpose of maintaining a literary or scientific institution, if
it exists at all. ...
The power to confer degrees, not being conferred explicitly by the statute ... clearly does not exist
at all. ...
Every state in the union has chartered these institutions, and it is believed that none of them has
ever supposed that, with all the widely enumerated powers delegated to them, it had the power to
confer degrees of any kind unless such power was expressly conferred in its charter. ... Such has,
manifestly, been the legislative idea respecting the necessity of special authority from the
lawmaking power of the government touching the right to confer degrees.
To hold that the Legislature, by a general law, intended that any three men in any town of the
State, however illiterate or irresponsible, might organize and flood the state with doctors of
medicine, doctors of law, doctors of divinity, masters of arts, civil engineers and all the other
various titles that everywhere in the civilized world have signified high attainments and special
equipment for professional work, is to liken it to the witty French minister who threatened to
create so many dukes that it would be no honor to be one, and a burning disgrace not to be one.57
114. In addition to Townshend, courts in Maryland (1838), Pennsylvania (1891) and Massachusetts
(1914) essentially came to similar results.58
115. Some have attempted to circumvent authority with novel claims. Many colleges were created
from the authority of churches or denomination. The formation of church-based degree granting is still used with
varying attention by the state, since degree granting, even by religious institutions, is a secular activity that is
inherently the province of Caesar.
116. These institutions are commonly referenced as religious exempt. However, the exemption is
expressed as a matter of public law. The state delegates authorization powers to religious schools that want to issue
religious degrees. Thus, religious exempt is viewed as something different on a per state basis. Obviously, the
Religious people and schools like to test the boundaries of what they can get away with. Some of them argue a
free-standing argument to assert independence of state law as a right to issue degrees that falls under convoluted
arguments of the First Amendment free exercise theory. One example of such elaborate argumentation by the
Religious is the New Jersey State Board of Higher Education v. Board of Directors of Shelton College case.59 In this
case, Shelton argued that issuing degrees (religious or otherwise) was a protecting function under the First
Amendment. The court correctly disagreed: ... the States program for licensing institutions of higher education is
applicable to sectarian institutions and that facially it does not unduly interfere with the free exercise of religion nor
create an excessive state entanglement with religion.60
117. Founded in 1952, the Fundamentalist Clarksville School of Theology, later renamed to Clarksville
Theological Seminary ran into similar issues. Based on legal action in 1982, it was determined that its curriculum
did not meet state standards for granting academic degrees.61 Unlike Shelton, Clarksville only issued degrees in
religious fields. In spite of this fact, the Tennessee Supreme Court held, even with degrees in religious subjects, the
state has sole authority over all degree granting. This was also the case in the Ohio concerning the St. Matthew
University of St. Matthew Church of God matter.62 Once again, it was found that degrees could not be issued
without state authorization.
118. It is widely recognized, that Californias program for regulation of private postsecondary and
vocational education institutions failed in spite of various iterations of laws, Bureaus, and Counsels. During the time

57
Townshend at 636-637. See also The Medical College of Philadelphia Case, 3 Wharton. 445 (1838).
58
Regents of University of Maryland v. Williams, 9 Gill and J. 365, 31 Am. D. 72 (1838); In re Duquesne College Charter (Com. Pl.) 12 Pa. Co.
Ct. R. 491, 2 Pa. Dist. R. 555 (1891); Kerr v. Shurtleff, 218 Mass. 167, 105 N.E. 871 (1914).
59
New Jersey State Board of Higher Education v. Board of Directors of Shelton College, 90 N.J. 470, 448 A.2d 988 (1982). It was really two
cases decided 15 years apart, but the key case for degree authority is the 1982 case.
60
Shelton College at 998.
61
State ex rel. McLemore v. Clarksville School of Theology, 636 S.W.2d. 706, 5 Ed. Law Rep. 1294 (1982).
62
State Board of School and College Registration v. Ohio St. Matthew University of St. Matthew Church of God, Case No. 72- AP-130, Court of
Appeals for Franklin County, Ohio (1972), unpublished, also cited by Nevada Atty. General Robert List in letter opinion cited in Note 43.
30
of Californias struggle, accreditation agencies became strong lobbying forces for the schools they accredit at the
state and the federal levels. Subsequently, the lions share of oversight transitioned to accreditation agencies made
up of representatives from the schools that the accreditation agencies oversaw.
iv. Accreditations Role in Education (Quality & Gatekeeper)

119. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education
meets acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or
national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are
met. Institutions and/or programs that request an agency's evaluation and that meet an agency's criteria are then
"accredited" by that agency.63
120. Accreditation is a non-governmental process established by colleges and universities to evaluate,
assure and improve educational quality in American higher education. It is a peer-review process designed to
recognize and validate that an institution or program within an institution (e.g. nursing or business) meets a set of
established standards and fosters a commitment to continued excellence. To become accredited, colleges and
universities, as well as specific academic programs, apply to join private membership associations known as
accrediting agencies. These agencies, in coordination with their member institutions or programs, develop standards
and criteria around what constitutes quality higher learning.64
121. Accreditation serves two purposes:
a. Institutional Purpose: Universities and Colleges claim that accreditation provides peer-review
of the school, providing insight, feedback and recommendations to enhance academic
quality.65
b. Public and Federal Propose: the government and the public rely on accreditation for a type of
quality assurance since money in the form of loans and grants are tied to education.
Accreditation that predates federal action was used as a means to insure federal funds goes to
credible, legitimate and quality institutions.66
122. The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education
meets acceptable levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, which are private educational associations of regional or
national scope, develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are
met. Institutions and/or programs that request an agency's evaluation and that meet an agency's criteria are then
"accredited" by that agency.67
123. Accreditation is often likened to a pack animal, saddled with more of a load than can reasonably
be sustained.68
a. History
124. The accreditation system foundation was laid in 1847. At that time, the American Medical
Association (AMA) became the first to establish and maintain professional standards. After the AMA, came the
New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) in 1885, the Middle States Association of Schools and
Colleges (MSA) in 1887, both the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCASC) and the Southern
Association of Schools and Colleges (SACS) in 1895, the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges
(NWASC) in 1917, and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in 1962.69
125. Accreditation developed out of a need to differentiate institutions with adequate capabilities for
undertaking college-level education. Prior to this, there was no generally accepted criteria for students to evaluate
what institution was considered a college. This was compounded by the geographic locations of certain schools as
compared to available students making decisions about which school was best to attend.

63
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Education Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs. Accessed
August 24, 2015.
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/
64
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Health, Education Labor & Pensions. Higher Education Accreditation Concepts and Proposals. 144th
Congress, 1st Session, March 23, 2015. URL : http://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/alexander-seeks-input-from-higher-ed-
community-on-accreditation-risk-sharing-and-consumer-information
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
67
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Education Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs. Accessed
August 24, 2015.
http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/
68
Robert C. Dickeson. Recalibrating the Accreditation-Federal Relationship. Council for Higher Education Accreditation Washington, DC
January 27, 2009. p.3.
69
Saran Donahoo and Wynetta Lee. Serving Two Masters: Quality and Conflict in the Accreditation of Religious Institutions. Christian Higher
Education. 2008. 7(4), 319-336. p.320.
31
126. By the early 20th century the regional associations listed above, began to establish institutional
standards, length of programs, library and faculty size, as well as the size of required school endowments for schools
to meet in order to gain accreditation. As a result, accreditation was a tangible marketing ploy to differentiate
institutions, as to which institution was high quality and an incentive to maintain high standards though
accreditation. At that time, government remained largely uninvolved.
127. With the GI Bill (1944), financial assistance was provided to veterans to pursue a college
education. Such financial assistance was limited to institutions approved by the state. Naturally, this led to abuse
with the rise of so called diploma mills and substandard education. By 1952, due to various investigations that
strengthened the quality of education argument, a deal was struck allowing government to rely upon private
accreditors as gatekeepers to determine eligibility for federal funds.
128. The Commissioner of Education was directed "to publish a list of nationally recognized
accrediting agencies and associations he determined to be reliable authority as to the quality of training offered by
an educational institution." All six of the regional accrediting associations became recognized in 1952, thus making
them more significant than previously, because now a college or university that failed to obtain or lost accreditation
would be shutting itself off from the significant number of students who were able to attend college only because of
their GI benefits. The law made accreditors the gatekeepers for a large and growing source of revenue for schools.
In spite of their new role as gatekeepers of federal funding, accreditors do not think of their primarily role as
federal agents.70 Regardless of how accreditors see themselves, this partnership with the feds concerning quality,
marked a major turning point. Between 1950 and 1965, the regional accrediting organizations developed and
adopted what are considered todays fundamentals in the accreditation process: a mission based approach, standards,
a self-study prepared by the institution, a visit by a team of peers who produced a report, and a decision by a
commission overseeing a process of periodic review71
129. These modifications dramatically changed accreditation for institutions from a business model
perspective. While accreditation once was an advantage tool of competition in the education market place to attract
students, accreditation in and of itself was no longer required for competitive sake. After the Higher Education Act
(HEA) was passed in 1965, accreditation became a necessity. If anything, the accreditation - federal funds
gatekeepers link meant that quality through competition was no longer the focus of higher education. Bureaucracy
became part of Congress' changes to education, and that new focus became the power source by political influence
that overcame innovation through excellence in competition. As long as an institution checked off more right
things than bad things, it remained accredited.72 Thus, federal money flowed into schools--whether good or bad.
This point exemplified by Western Seminary.
130. By the 1965 Higher Education Act (HEA), Congress expanded federal funding, and the dynamics
of higher education significantly changed, and the link between accreditation - federal funds gatekeepers became
entrenched. As massive funds became available to institutions, those who wanted a piece of the action had to be
accredited. And as always the case where there is money, then there is the potential for fraud.
131. Since the link of quality through competitiveness was no longer advantageous for institutions to
focus on, fiefdom building became the new norm. Institutions shifted and continued expanding both their base of
operation to accept more students, which equates to more federal money, as well as creating additional bases of
operation (fiefdoms) as a means to lock out other institutions from possible students.
132. Follow the money and it will lead to the potential for fraud.
b. Quality and problems
133. Accreditation has become meaningless. Third party experts are concerned that accreditation is not
reliable for quality education. In 2002, George C. Leef and Roxana D. Burris of American Council of Trustees and
Alumni (ACTA) spoke out about the dysfunctional accreditation system in America in the white paper titled, Can
College Accreditation Live Up to Its Promise?73 Anne Neal, Executive Director of ACTA and member of
Defendant UNITED STATES own NACIQI, noted, we conclude that accreditation has not served to ensure
quality, has not protected the curriculum from serious degradation, and gives students, parents, and public

70
Barbara Brittingham. An Uneasy Partnership: Accreditation and the Federal Government. Change. SeptemberOctober. 2008.
71
Barbara Brittingham. Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are? New Directions for Higher Education, Volume
2009, Issue 145, pages 7-27. p. 14-15.
72
Just because a school is accredited doesnt mean a student should attend, or that the school itself is safe. It simply means that that school has
more good things than bad in some sort of over-arching qualification checklist that was approved by the accreditor.
73
Leef, George C. and Roxana D. Burris, "Can College Accreditation Live Up to Its Promise?" Washington DC: American Council of Trustees
and Alumni. July 2007.
32
decision-makers almost no useful information about institutions of higher education.74 [Emphasis bold]
ACTA notes that there is little evidence that accreditation is a reliable quality indicator.75 Accreditation agencies
do not look at learning outcomes and give no assurances about the quality of individual courses or
programs.76 [Emphasis bold] ACTA publicly questions the assumption that accreditation is a proxy for quality.
The ACTA notes there is little evidence that accreditation is a reliable quality indicator. According to the ACTA
findings: "Although accreditation is usually justified as a means of giving students and parents an assurance of
educational quality, it is important to note that the accreditors do not endeavor to assess the quality of individual
programs or departments. The visiting teams do not try to check on the quality of Professor Smiths English
Composition class or that students in Professor Joness American history class actually have learned important facts
about American history. The accreditation system is not based on an evaluation of the results of an institution, but
rather upon an evaluation of its inputs and processes. If the inputs and processes look good, acceptable educational
quality is assumed. It is as if an organization decided which automobiles would be allowed to be sold by checking to
make sure that each car model had tires, doors, an engine and so forth and had been assembled by workers with
proper training but without actually driving any cars."77
134. The problems and criticism such as: 1) the accreditation process is too rigid and superficial; 2) no
accounting for diversity of institutions and their missions; 3) inputs vs. outputs; 4) institutions not measuring up on
paper in spite of good education.
135. Although schools are not required to maintain accreditation for the former reasons, losing
accreditation status can affect a schools prestige and cause it to lose students because accreditation is now linked to
federal money. Since quality is not a primary incentive in competitiveness between institutions, rather, institutions
have shifted to catering to the student for the all-important (federal) money that each student represents.
136. With education quality on the downswing and the rise of student loan defaults, 1985-2005 saw the
rise of assessment and accountability.78 With Congress perception that accreditors are in part to blame, it responded
with the 1992 HEA Reauthorization, with additional regulations - limitations on distance learning, the maximum
percentage of a colleges budget attributed from federal aid, and student learning assessment requirements imposed
on accreditors.None of this is actually working, and its simply ineffective at preventing waste of federal funding
and fraud.
137. Accreditors are simply not interested or lack the tools to make quality assurance their primary
function as it relates to safeguarding financial aid funding.
138. While "accountability as quality" continued on, it also took a downward turn from 2005 forward.
This era heralds the rise of the bureaucracy and politics as a means to claim quality. This became so problematic,
that by March 2015, Senator Lamar Alexander published a white paper seeking feedback regarding Higher
Education Accreditation.
c. The ATS quality problem
139. While accreditation was used as a means to differentiate institutions early on, it further developed
and included the notion of institutional self-study as a means to ferret out quality as a pattern. As a result,
accreditation evolved to consider overarching aspects of the institutional purposes, rather than granular issues. An
institution with various weak issues but strengths in other areas could remain accredited because the strengths could
be used to offset weaknesses. Students and families are left to believe the mindless quality rhetoric that
developed. ATS states about quality:
ATS schools value quality in the practice of ministry and in educational practices. Quality is
always linked to improvement; even schools that have achieved a high degree of quality can
improve. The Association encourages schools to advance in quality.79

74
Anne D. Neal, President of ACTA and member of Defendant UNITED STATES own NACIQI. The ACTA is a non-profit organization
whose stated mission is to "support liberal arts education, uphold high academic standards, safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus, and
ensure that the next generation receives a philosophically rich, high-quality college education at an affordable price."
75
Leef. Page 2
76
Leef. Page 2
77
Leef. Page 7
78
Peter T. Ewell. Assessment, Accountability, and Improvement: Revisiting the Tension. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
November 2009. Accessed August 28, 2015. http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/PeterEwell_005.pdf (Many of the same
tensions that characterized the accountability and improvement purposes of student learning outcomes assessment when the assessment
movement began in the mid-1980s still exist today.)
79
ATS. ATS Shared Values. Accessed August 24, 2015. http://www.ats.edu/ats-shared-values
33
140. As a result, accreditation morphed into providing a service to the institutions. Rigid enforcement
of standardized policies and practices gave way to rhetoric centering on improvement mantras that the public was
left to digest. Consider ATS rhetoric mantra:
What did it mean to be accredited? One thing it did not mean was that seminary attainments were
automatically lifted to equal status with other professional or graduate schools. Both Brown-May
and Kelly made it clear that the majority of seminaries was struggling to perform at that level and
that only a few strong schools, including Union (New York), Princeton, Vanderbilt, and Yale,
were in that class. Nor did it mean that seminaries had automatic standing in higher education.
Accreditation was only beginning to be an important criterion for certifying institutions, and the
North American educational marketplace was still relatively open and free of regulation. The
Second World War, which required the standardization of everything from airplane parts to
qualifications for the officer corps, would elevate all accredited institutions. This was particularly
true of the chaplains, where the militarys task of finding officers qualified to serve as both
ministers and leaders was complicated by the seemingly endless array of qualifications for
ordination. Graduation from an accredited institution was an easy way to cut through the
confusion and enable quick appointments. But at first, to be honest, accreditation mattered little in
terms of status. What it did do was to distinguish some seminaries as part of a culture of aspiration
and improvement.
141. The logic of the ATS rhetoric mantra: If Western Seminary maintains an enrollment of 740
students and 40 faculty members, and if only one percent of the students and faculty members are abused and
mistreated in any given year, then those are acceptable and sustainable numbers that leaves room for Western
Seminarys ratings to improve. This is the quality of achievement based on ATS' diluted and poisonous oversight.
Such arguments boil down to a numbers game. However, in truth, those student and faculty numbers are real
people and real families suffering irreparable damage as a result of compromised laws, rules and standards that do
not meet the intent of Congress.
d. The dark side of ATS accreditation

142. Accreditation, like that of ATS, is known to have a dark side. For example, Specialized
accreditors are viewed as a guild designed to protect the guild from the public.
C. The Centrality of the U. S. Financial System

143. Over the course of 2000s and increasingly in the 2010s, the conspirators and Western Seminary
leveraged the access of federal money. It was able to do this with the help of it accreditors ATS and NWCCU and
the co-conspirators.
144. Western Seminary has been approved for Federal Student Aid Programs since 2003. Western
Seminary has been in violation of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 37293733), due to its false claims in the
Program Participation Agreement (20 U.S. Code 1094, 34 CFR 668.14). The Program Participation Agreement
is required by U.S. Department of Education, in order for schools to apply for and receive Title IV money.
145. Some forty percent of Western Seminary's income is from Title IV funds. The Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Ch. 28 1001 et seq.) mandates that an educational institution is ineligible to request Title
IV student loan and grant funds without first executing a Program Participation Agreement with the Secretary of
Education.
146. Western Seminary is eligible to participate in the following programs:
a. Federal Family Education Loan Program, 20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 682.
b. Federal Direct Student Loan Program, 20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 685
c. Federal Perkins Loan Program, 20 U.S.C. 1087aa et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 674.
d. Federal Work-Study Program, 42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.; 34 C.F.R. Part 675.
147. Since 2003, Western Seminarys tuition and fees has increased to $5,526,839 per fiscal year,
whereby forty percent coming from Federal Student Aid Programs.
34
148. Without becoming eligible to participate in Federal Student Aid Programs in 2003, Western
Seminary would have been out of business and insolvent, since it already had financial troubles for which NWCCU
placed Western Seminary on institutional probation in 2003.80
149. Western Seminary has involved itself in various capital improvements for the school over the
course of 2000s and increasingly in the 2010s. Since 2003, Western Seminary has been able to expand the school,
making capital improvements and investments, which directly and indirectly required a good name and standing
with the U.S. financial system.
150. In addition to the use of the particular financial institutions for Title IV, the conspirators also
relied on the broader strength and stability of the U.S. financial system, including access to the private donations to
the school under the belief the donors, such as Randy Chapel, were furthering the public mission of Western
Seminary.
D. The Centrality and Failure of the AAEU // Accreditation Group

151. The duty of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Inspector General (hereinafter OIG)
to promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the U.S. Department of Educations programs and
operations, conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and other activities.81 The
OIG determined the AAEU is known to be a FAILED UNIT as noted in the 2003 OIG Audit,82 and the
Department of Education proceeded to cover up those facts that further implicated the Department. The
2003 Audit was completed to ensure that accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary (3) take
consistent enforcement action when institutions are not in compliance with the standards.83 [Emphasis
bold] The objective of the audit was to evaluate AAEUs management controls for ensuring that accrediting
agencies recognized by the Secretary (2) monitor institutions adherence to the standards throughout their
accreditation, and (3) take consistent enforcement action when institutions are not in compliance with the
standards.84 The OIG results found that AAEU needs to improve its procedures for conducting evaluations
of accrediting agencies standards and procedures. AAEU has limited written procedures and documentation
addressing its evaluations of accrediting agency standards for student achievement and program length and
accrediting agency procedures for monitoring and enforcing the standards. AAEU has no documented
supervisory process and relies on individual specialists evaluations and recognition recommendations. AAEU
specialists do not contact other Department units or other agencies prior to evaluating an accrediting agency
for renewal of its recognition by the Secretary. Without adequate written procedures, documentation,
supervision, staffing, and communications, there is no assurance that AAEU is evaluating accrediting agency
standards and procedures in a consistent and effective manner.85
152. The OIG determined:
a. The Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit (AAEU), within the U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), needs to improve management controls over its
evaluations of accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary. The improvements are
needed to ensure that the accrediting agencies have established standards to address
institutions success with respect to student achievement and measures of program length, and
that the agencies monitor adherence to the standards and take enforcement action when
institutions are not in compliance with the standards.86
b. AAEU did not meet the minimum level of quality for management controls as defined in the
General Accounting Office publication Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government (GAOs Internal Control Standards), dated November 1999. Thus, there is no
assurance that AAEU evaluated accrediting agency standards and procedures in a consistent
and effective manner.87

80
Under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 37293733), if the government intervenes in the qui tam action, the relator is entitled to receive
between 15 and 25 percent of the amount recovered from the school by the government through the qui tam action. If the government declines to
intervene in the action, the relators share is increased to 25 to 30 percent. These varieties provide for a possible recovery range of $4,310,934.42
to $8,621,868.84 from the school for the relator Plaintiffs.
81
Defendant UNITED STATES. Office of Inspector General Accessed January 30, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/index.html
82
Defendant UNITED STATES. Office of Postsecondary Education, Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit's Review of Selected Accrediting
Agency Standards and Procedures. Accessed January 30, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/areports2003.html
83
Ibid. Audit cover letter dated July 23, 2003
84
Ibid. Page 4
85
Ibid. Page 4
86
Ibid. Executive Summary, Page 1
87
35
c.
AAEU has limited written procedures and other guidance and does not require specialists to
fully document their evaluations. We also found that AAEU specialists did not report
limitations and weaknesses noted in OIG reviews conducted at individual accrediting
agencies.88
d. AAEU has no documented supervisory review process and relies on individual specialists
evaluations and decisions for recognition recommendations. AAEUs reliance on individual
specialists may impact the quality and thoroughness of the evaluations, as well as the integrity
of the process.89
e. AAEU does not contact other Department units, state licensing agencies, or other agencies as
part of the evaluations. Direct contact with these agencies and Departmental units could alert
AAEU specialist to weaknesses in accreditation standards and the accrediting agencys
procedures for monitoring and enforcing its standards at accredited institutions.90
f. We also recommend that the Assistant Secretary ensure that AAEU develops and
implements additional written procedures for its specialists to use in conducting evaluations
of accrediting agencies and takes other actions to improve its management controls.91
153. The OIG stated overall:
a. to be recognized by the Secretary, accrediting agencies must demonstrate that they are
reliable authorities regarding the quality of education or training offered by the institutions or
programs they accredit.92
b. Section 496 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended authorizes the Secretary to
establish criteria for making such a determination. Section 496(a)(5) lists the criteria required,
including that the agencys standards of accreditation assess an institutions the objectives
of the degrees or credentials offered. The regulations at 34 C.F.R. PART 602 implement the
provisions of 496. Among other requirements, the regulations require that accrediting
agencies recognized by the Secretary Reevaluate institutions at regular intervals and
monitor institutions throughout their accreditation period to ensure that the institutions
remain in compliance with the agencys standards, including adequate substantive
change policies; Take enforcement action within specified time frames when an
institution is not in compliance with the agencys standards; and Maintain a systematic
program of review that demonstrates that the agencys standards are adequate to
evaluate the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions it accredits
and relevant to the educational or training needs of students. Section 496(n)(1) requires
that the Secretary conduct a comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of an
accrediting agency in order to determine whether the agency meets the established criteria and
other requirements. AAEU is the unit within the Departments Office of Postsecondary
Education that is responsible for conducting evaluations of accrediting agencies standards of
accreditation and operating procedures. Based on those evaluations, AAEU provides an
analysis of the application to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and
Integrity (NACIQI), which in turn advises the Secretary.93 [Emphasis bold]
154. The OIG audit occurred prior to co-conspirator Margaret Spellings tenure as Secretary of
Education, but it was during co-conspirator Margaret Spellings tenure that it became clear that the AAEUs failures
based on the OIG audit would become an issue. It was at that time frame 2007-2008, the members of the
government within the U.S. Department of Education joined, supported, defended and promoted the enterprise over
and against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson. Since Margaret Spellings and those she was involved in have left,
current employees in the U.S. Department of Education continue to support, defend and promote the enterprise over
and against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson and continue to cover up material facts of evidence.
155. In addition, the OIG audit showed that the AAEU/ASL was not in compliance with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123 on Management Accountability and Control (June 21, 1995) which
requires that Federal agencies and individual Federal managers take systematic and proactive measures to develop
and implement appropriate, cost-effective management controls for results-oriented management. The Circular

88
89
90
91
92
Ibid. Page 3
93
Ibid. Page 3
36
states that [m]anagement controls are the organization, policies, and procedures used to reasonably ensure that (i)
programs achieve their intended results; (ii) resources are used consistent with agency mission; (iii) programs and
resources are protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement; (iv) laws and regulations are followed; and (v)
reliable and timely information is obtained, maintained, reported and used for decision making.94
156. In addition, the OIG audit showed that, The AAEU Has Limited Written Procedures and
Other Guidance for Use in Conducting Evaluations. AAEUs Checklist for Analysis of Accrediting Agencies
Petitions for Recognition Is Inadequate for Reviews of Accrediting Agencies Standards. The Checklist provided
specialists with little, if any, guidance for evaluating accrediting agency standards. The regulation at 34 CFR
602.16(a) states The [accrediting] agency must demonstrate that it has standards for accreditation... that are
sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the education and
training provided by the institutions and programs it accredits. The agency meets this requirement if (1) The
agencys accreditation standards effectively address the quality of the institution or program in the following
areas.... [Emphasis bold] The regulation at 34 CFR 602.21(a) states The agency must maintain a systematic
program of review that demonstrates that its standards are adequate to evaluate the quality of the education or
training provided by the institutions and programs it accredits and relevant to the educational or training needs of
students. The OIG determined, the Checklist does not define the terms: reasonable and appropriate threshold for
quality, plausible rationale, or rooted in educational quality. Also, the Checklist does not provide guidance for
applying the terms during an evaluation to determine that the accreditation standards are effective, adequate, and
relevant.95 [Emphasis bold]
157. In addition, the OIG audit showed that, the HEA 496(n)(4) required, [t]he Secretary shall
maintain sufficient documentation to support the conclusions reached in the recognition process. . GAOs
Internal Control Standards states, all transactions and other significant events need to be clearly documented, and
the documentation should be readily available for examination, and that [a]ll documentation and records
should be properly managed and maintained. [Emphasis bold]
158. In addition, the OIG audit showed that, Secretary shall maintain sufficient documentation to
support the conclusions reached in the recognition process and all transactions and other significant events
need to be clearly documented, and the documentation should be readily available for examination.
[Emphasis bold]
159. By October 7, 2011 and under oath (28 U.S.C. 1746) Jill Siegelbaum, Attorney in the Office of
General Counsel for the United States Department of Education, stated that For items 28-35, 39, 50-51, 56-63 and
65-78, OPE had no responsive records and is unaware of any other location where such records might be located.
The United States of America never had any evidence at any time and clearly no legal support to support its various
conclusions, claims, letters, etc. :
#28: The ATS exception policy in effect on March 14, 2006
#32: The NWCCU exception policy in effect on March 14, 2006
#58 The ATS exception standards or policies in which schools have a business practice of overriding
the law as of 1999
#59 All records between the Department and ATS concerning standards or procedures for exceptions
since 1999
#29 The ATS 34 CFR 602.22 policy in effect on March 14, 2006.
#30 The ATS 34 CFR 602.22 policy in effect on August 29, 2008.
#31 The current ATS 34 CFR 602.22 policy.
#33 The NWCCU 34 CFR 602.22 policy in effect on March 14, 2006.
#34 The NWCCU 34 CFR 602.22 policy in effect on August 29, 2008.
#35 The NWCCU 34 CFR 602.22 policy.
#56 The ATS standards or procedures that override Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp., 149 Cal. App. 3d 308
(1983) as of March 14, 2006
#57 The NWCCU standards or procedures that override Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp., 149 Cal. App. 3d 308
(1983) as of March 14, 2006
#60 All ATS standards or procedures that give ATS authority over March 14, 2006 settlement agreement
involving Randy Chapel and Western Seminary
#61 All ATS standards or procedures that give NWCCU authority over March 14, 2006 settlement
agreement involving Randy Chapel and Western Seminary

94
Ibid. Page 7
95
Ibid. Page 8
37
#62 All Department records concerning ATS review of the March 14, 2006 settlement agreement
involving Randy Chapel and Western Seminary.
#63 All Department records concerning NWCCUs review of the March 14, 2006 settlement agreement
involving Randy Chapel and Western Seminary
#65 The settlement agreement involving Randy Chapel and Western Seminary that provides ATS has
authority to make determinations regarding the settlement agreement or the validly of the settlement
agreement.
#66 The settlement agreement involving Randy Chapel and Western Seminary that provides NWCCU
has authority to make determinations regarding the settlement agreement or the validly of the settlement
agreement.
#67 Records of any ATS policies that gives schools authority to exceed or waive State law.
#68 Records of any ATS policies that gives schools authority to exceed or waive decisional cases.
#69 Records of any ATS policies that gives schools authority to exceed or waive FERPA.
#70 Records of any ATS policies that gives schools authority to exceed or waive Federal law.
#71 Records of any NWCCU policies that gives schools authority to exceed or waive State law.
#73 Records of any NWCCU policies that gives schools authority to exceed or waive decisional cases.
#73 Records of any NWCCU policies that gives schools authority to exceed or waive FERPA.(error in
numbering)
#74 Records of any NWCCU policies that gives schools authority to exceed or waive Federal law.
#75 Records that give Western Seminary authority to exceed or waive State law.
#76 Records that give Western Seminary authority to exceed or waive decisional cases.
#77 Records that give Western Seminary authority to exceed or waive FERPA.
#78 Records that give Western Seminary authority to exceed or waive Federal law.
160. The United States of America knew 2007-2008 that Western Seminary never had the authority to
enforce the March 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement. The importance of the Jill Siegelbaum admission on behalf of
the U.S. Department of Education is that in 2007-2008, the Department knew that the letters, claims and actions
taken were not in accordance with law and had no evidence to support them. Instead of correcting the errors, the
government continued to support and defend the enterprise. Subsequently, the Department of Justice proceeded to
defend the corruption and ultimately destroyed Randy Chapels family and life. Randy Chapel was married to Susan
Allister in April 2008.
161. In addition, the OIG audit showed that, The AAEU report for the accrediting agency with the
most recent renewal of recognition, which recommended renewal of recognition for a period of five years, did not
state the specialists determination on individual requirements or the basis for his overall determination that the
agency substantially complies with the Criteria for Recognition. Also, the report did not address two areas
specified in the regulations: 34 C.F.R. 602.22 Substantive change and 34 C.F.R. 602.20 Enforcement of
standards. [Emphasis bold]
162. In addition, the OIG audit showed that, Specialist Completed Checklist/Summary Table. The
completed Checklist for one accrediting agency had an X in the box next to each review indicator and referenced
the documents provided in the accrediting agencys petition for renewal that were used by the specialist in making
the determination. The review indicators, which consisted primarily of yes/no statements, did not prompt the
specialist to explain the basis. For example, the Checklist included the statement The agency has demonstrated that
it follows its substantive change policy, rather than, How did the agency demonstrate that it followed its
substantive change policy? The summary table listed the regulation section and the documentation reviewed for
the section, but provided no information explaining the basis for the specialists determination. [Emphasis bold]
163. In addition, the OIG audit showed that, AAEU has no documented supervisory review process. In
addition, AAEU relies on an individual specialist to evaluate an accrediting agencys standards and procedures.
GAOs Internal Control Standards states [q]ualified and continuous supervision should be provided to ensure that
internal control objectives are achieved. The Standards also state [n]o one individual should control all key aspects
of a transaction or event and that management has a key role in removing temptations for unethical behavior.
AAEU has no written procedures for supervisory review of the specialists work or decisions. According to the Unit
Chief, a documented review process was not needed since the specialists were experienced and exercise good
judgment. AAEU assigns one specialist to perform the review of an accrediting agencys petition for recognition.
The specialist makes the decision on whether the accrediting agency has the required accreditation standards and
procedures for monitoring and enforcing the standards. AAEUs reliance on individual specialists may impact the
quality and thoroughness of the evaluations. We are also concerned that assigning one specialist the responsibility
38
for designing and conducting the entire review, with minimal supervision, could subject the specialist to undue
influence by the accrediting agency being reviewed.
164. In addition, the OIG audit showed that, As part of their evaluations of accrediting agencies,
AAEU specialists do not contact other Department units, state agencies, guaranty agencies, or others that may have
pertinent information on accredited institutions. GAOs Internal Control Standards states [e]ffective
communications should occur in a broad sense with information flowing down, across, and up the organization, and
management should ensure there are adequate means of communicating with, and obtaining information from,
external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency achieving its goals. Defendant UNITED
STATES goes on to state AAEU did not require the specialists, as part of their evaluations, to contact the
relevant state agencies, guaranty agencies, or other Departmental units within the Office of Postsecondary
Education, Federal Student Aid, and the Office of Inspector General. [Emphasis bold]
165. In addition, the OIG audit showed that, We concluded that AAEU does not have sufficient
management controls to provide a reasonable level of assurance that accrediting agencies established the required
standards, ensured that accredited institutions adhered to established standards, and took consistent enforcement
action when institutions were noncompliant.
166. As demonstrated, Accreditation basically just doesnt work to ensure quality. This is true of both
for-profit intuitions and real colleges.96
VI. STATEMENT REGARDING THE RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY

167. Beginning in 2001, or earlier, and continuing, conspirators and co-conspirators engaged in a
continuing pattern of racketeering activity, through the internet, phone, the mail, and in-person interactions to
support, defend, and encourage activities for purposes unauthorized by and contrary to federal and state laws, the
U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, legislation by Congress, and court decisional cases. Their pattern of
racketeering activity extended through a myriad of actions to directly and indirectly cause as much irreparable
damage to Randy Chapel, Carol Nye-Wilson, Major Dr. Dale Wilson, PhD. (U.S. Army ret.) and by extension Joel
Chapel and Susan Allister, while supporting the personal and corporate unlawful gain of the enterprises,
conspirators, and co-conspirators. The conspirators, with the co-conspirators engaged in a pattern of racketeering
activity so deeply embedded, pervasive, and continuous that it was effectively institutionalized as a business
practice, and thereby corrupted the very mission of the enterprises while donors to Western Seminary, for example,
believed they were supporting Western Seminarys original, advertised, and approved mission.
VII. STATEMENTS REGARDING THE SCHEMES

A. The Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Scheme.
i. Background
168. In 2001 Randy Chapel became and continued as a graduate assistant employed by Western
Seminary at the San Jose (Los Gatos) campus over the objections of Gary Tuck and of Steve Korch. The objection
by Gary Tuck was based in part on Gary Tuck's long-standing personal ill will toward Randy Chapel. James Sawyer,
of Western Seminarys San Jose campus, testified that Gary Tuck harbored irrational animosity towards Randy
Chapel:
P57: 2 Q. Has it ever been your impression right up

3 through today that Professor Tuck disliked Mr. Chapel?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And when did that first become your impression?
6 A. Let's say in the fall of 2001.
James Sawyer also testified that Gary Tuck harbored ill will towards Randy Chapel:
P58: 17 A. My recollection is that on at least a couple of
18 occasions where students were gathered and Dr. Tuck came
19 in and was bantering, that the banter he directed at
20 Randy was the kind of banter that has a dig in it, that
21 personal -- a personal attack in it.

96
Daniel Luzer, For-Profit Colleges, Accreditation Gone Awry Retreived February 21, 2012
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/forprofit_colleges_accreditati.php The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 on
the notion that a handful of plucky young writers and editors, armed with an honest desire to make government work and a willingness to ask
uncomfortable questions, could tell the story of what really matters in Washington better than a roomful of Beltway insiders at a Georgetown
dinner party.
39
James Sawyer testified concerning Steve Korch as follows:
P47: 16 A. There was some longstanding dislike for Randy by Dean Korch.
169. Section 504 is a federal law designed to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in
programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education.97 At the
postsecondary level, the recipient is required to provide students with appropriate academic adjustments and
auxiliary aids and services that are necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to
participate in a school's program. Recipients are not required to make adjustments or provide aids or services that
would result in a fundamental alteration of a recipient's program or impose an undue burden.98 A school is out of
compliance when it is violating any provision of the Section 504 statute or regulations.99
170. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces Section 504 in programs and activities that receive
Federal financial assistance from U.S. Department of Education.100 OCR initially attempts to bring the school
district into voluntary compliance through negotiation of a corrective action agreement. If OCR is unable to achieve
voluntary compliance, OCR will initiate enforcement action. OCR may: (1) initiate administrative proceedings to
terminate Department of Education financial assistance to the recipient; or (2) refer the case to the Department of
Justice for judicial proceedings. 101
171.
In the educational context, OCR has been given administrative authority to enforce Section 504.
Section 504 is a Federal statute that may be enforced through the Department's administrative process or through the
Federal court system. In addition, a person may at any time file a private lawsuit against a school district. The
Section 504 regulations do not contain a requirement that a person file a complaint with OCR and exhaust his or her
administrative remedies before filing a private lawsuit. 102
172. If a postsecondary student meets the essential requirements for admission, a postsecondary school
may not deny admission simply because the student has a disability. However, if a postsecondary student wants the
school to provide an academic adjustment, the postsecondary student must identify himself/herself as having a
disability to the school. The appropriate academic adjustment must be determined based on the disability and the
student's individual needs. The appropriate academic adjustments are made when the student provides medical
documentation that the student has a current disability and needs an academic adjustment.
173. An appropriate professional, such as a medical doctor, psychologist or other qualified
diagnostician, prepares documentation. The required documentation may include one or more of the following: a
diagnosis of the students current disability; the date of the diagnosis; how the diagnosis was reached; the credentials
of the professional; how the students disability affects a major life activity; and how the disability affects the
students academic performance. The documentation should provide enough information for the student and the
postsecondary school to decide what is an appropriate academic adjustment. The postsecondary school will review
the request in light of the essential requirements for the relevant program to help determine an appropriate academic
adjustment. The school is not required to lower or waive essential requirements of the program.
174. Academic adjustments include modifications to academic requirements and auxiliary aids and
services, for example, arranging for priority registration; reducing a course load; substituting one course for another;
providing note takers, recording devices, sign language interpreters, and extended time for testing. In providing an
academic adjustment, the postsecondary school is not required to lower or effect substantial modifications to
essential requirements. For example, although the school may be required to provide extended testing time, it is not
required to change the substantive content of the test. In addition, the postsecondary school does not have to make
modifications that would fundamentally alter the nature of a service, program or activity, or anything that would
result in undue financial or administrative burdens.
175. According to U.S. Department of Education:
a. Practically every postsecondary school must have a personfrequently called the Section
504 Coordinator, ADA Coordinator, or Disability Services Coordinatorwho coordinates the
schools compliance with Section 504,Title II, or both laws.103

97
98
99
100
101
102
103
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/transition.html. First published July 2002. Reprinted May 2004. Revised September 2007. Revised
September 2011.
40
b.
A postsecondary student with a disability who is in need of auxiliary aids is obligated to
provide notice of the nature of the disabling condition to the college and to assist it in
identifying appropriate and effective auxiliary aids.104
c. In postsecondary schools, the students themselves must identify the need for an auxiliary aid
and give adequate notice of the need. The student's notification should be provided to the
appropriate representative of the college who, depending upon the nature and scope of the
request, could be the school's Section 504 or ADA coordinator, an appropriate dean, a faculty
advisor, or a professor.105
d. A college also may obtain its own professional determination of whether specific requested
auxiliary aids are necessary.106
e. The impairment must have a material effect on one's ability to perform a major life
activity107
176. A recipient of federal funds that employs fifteen or more persons shall designate at least one
person to coordinate its efforts. Normally, this person is referred to as a Section 504 Coordinator (34 CFR
104(7)(a)). The Section 504 Coordinator responsibilities and activities could include some or all of the following
suggested responsibilities:
a. Ensure nondiscriminatory educational practices
b. Establish and monitor a Section 504 referral/identification/review process
c. Maintain data on Section 504 referrals
d. Conduct staff and parent awareness and training activities concerning Section504
requirements
e. Implement Section 504 grievance procedures for the school (34 CFR 104(7)(b))
f. Monitor the local Section 504 budget
g. Consult with the director of special education
h. Serve as a liaison with the State Section 504 Coordinator
i. Serve as the liaison with the regional Office for Civil Rights
177. A recipient of federal funds, shall submit an assurance, on a form specified by the Assistant
Secretary, that the program or activity will be operated in compliance with Section 504. An applicant may
incorporate these assurances by reference in subsequent applications to the Department. (34 CFR 104(5)(a))
178. The school will provide notice, including identification of the responsible employee designated
pursuant to 104.7(a). (34 CFR 104.8) A sample notice appears as the following:
Any person having inquiries concerning Western Seminarys compliance with the
regulations implementing Title VI, Title IX, The Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) or Section 504 is directed to contact the following individual who has been
designated by the school to coordinate efforts to comply with the regulations
regarding nondiscrimination:
Name ________________________________________
Title: _________________________________________
Phone: ____________________________
ii. No proof was ever presented that Matt Tuck was disabled
179. During the fall of 2001, one of the students Randy Chapel graded as a Western Seminary
employee, fell way behind in his schoolwork. Matthew Tuck was then and continues to be the adult son of Gary
Tuck. Although Matt Tuck had time to grade and teach Greek courses in which Randy Chapel was enrolled that his
father, Gary Tuck, was assigned to teach, Matt Tuck continued to fall further and further behind in his required
schoolwork in CHS 501 for a master degree program. In essence, Matt Tuck was robbing Peter to pay Paul.
180. Gary Tuck and his wife went to the office of James Sawyer and used implied pressure from Gary
Tucks position as academic coordinator, with supervisory control over other faculty including granting extensions
of time to complete course work. Professor James Sawyer taught CHS 501 in which Matt Tuck was falling behind,

104
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/auxaids.html Revised September 1998
105
106
107
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq5269.html Last Modified: 10/15/2015
41
and Randy Chapel was grading assistant for Professor Sawyer. The Tucks requested extensions of time for Matt
Tuck without providing any documented medical reference of disability for their son, Matt. Simultaneously with the
Tuck's request for special treatment for Matt, Gary Tuck publicly harassed and discriminated against Randy Chapel
in academic matters. James Sawyer, a long time friend of Gary Tuck downplayed Tuck's adverse actions toward
Chapel, until Sawyer testified in his deposition about Tuck harassing Randy Chapel in front of other students.
181. There was no school involvement, no documentation, and no evaluation of Matts purported
disability by medical professionals provided to Jim Sawyer or to the Western Seminary administration, including
Lynn Ruark. Matt Tuck registered normally as any other student, and he filed no disability accommodation forms,
because none existed according to the deposition testimony of Mr. Ruark. In short, while there was no Section 504
coordinator or program at the school, those with administrative authority did not follow any Section 504 policies or
procedures, regardless if Western did or didnt have them.
182. Procedures for special needs students required by Section 504 of the ADA were never discussed
with employee, Randy Chapel, and there was no training about it by Lynn Ruark or any other Western Seminary
administrator or instructor. Randy Chapel knew about Section 504 due to his parents who taught at the Jr. high,
Senior high and College levels.
183. Even if Matt Tuck was disabled, for which no proof was ever presented throughout litigation other
than by verbal hearsay, it is extremely reasonable to expect Matt Tuck needed to provide medical documentation to
Western's administrators and/or professors in order to receive appropriate academic adjustments for CHS501 at
Western Seminary. Matt had just graduated from a four-year college prior to studying at Western Seminary, and he
would have suffered similar disabilities at that four-year school as Matt's parents claimed in order for Matt to receive
the special treatment they requested for him at Western.
184. Even if one believes the absurd notion that Western Seminary had a 504 program, policies or
coordinator prior to 2005, the 504 program requirements would have been common knowledge before September
2001 by Matt Tuck's father, Gary Tuck, as academic coordinator and instructor at Western Seminary.
185. Matt Tuck was subpoenaed for a deposition. Matt hid from the process server who was unable to
serve him. Because Matt Tuck refused to speak for himself and provide testimony or any proof of disability from a
medical doctor, psychologist or other qualified diagnostician, all references to his disability are verbal hearsay by
Western Seminary's attorneys (covering for the school and Gary Tuck), by spotty claims by his father Gary Tuck,
and by deposition testimony by M. James Sawyer about the events.
iii. No Section 504 Program, Policies, or Coordinator

186. Western Seminary did not have a Section 504 program, policies, or a coordinator as required in
order to be compliant with Section 504.
187. No administrative or faculty meeting occurred at the outset of or during the 2001 fall semester to
discuss accommodations for any purportedly disabled student, including Matt Tuck, in any class Randy Chapel
graded. There were no Section 504 student placements, accommodations or forms, or evaluations by
professional(s). As an employee of Western Seminary who assessed the academic work of students, Randy Chapel
received no information (written or verbal) about procedures for making appropriate Section 504 academic
adjustments in order to accommodate educational experiences for any disabled students graded by Randy Chapel.
188. Gary Tuck was Western Seminarys Academic Coordinator, and he never trained Randy Chapel or
communicated any academic requirements, including Section 504, for the course work Randy Chapel graded and
coordinated for professor Sawyer.
189. Steve Korch was Western Seminarys Executive Dean over all employees in Northern California.
Korch never trained Randy Chapel or communicated to Chapel about any regulated requirements, including Section
504, for either of the classes Randy Chapel graded.
190. Randy Roberts was Western Seminarys Academic Dean and Accreditation Liaison Officer.
Roberts never trained Randy Chapel or communicated to Chapel about any academic or regulated requirements,
including Section 504, for the classes Randy Chapel graded.
191. Robert Wiggins was Western Seminarys Registrar, Dean of Student Services, and expert witness.
Wiggins never trained Randy Chapel or communicated anything to Chapel about Section 504 procedures for any
special needs students in the courses Randy Chapel graded.
192. Matt Tuck was admitted to Western Seminary as a normal student. No evidence of any disability
was ever provided to Western by Matt or his parents. No Section 504 accommodations were enacted by Western
Seminary on Matt Tucks behalf, including medical evaluations, accommodation forms, or meetings were part of his
student records, because they did not exist. A process server was sent to serve Matt Tuck with a deposition notice.
Matt Tuck hid to avoid being served and to defend his claim of disability.
42
iv. Scheming the government and court
193. The 1998-1999 Western Seminary Catalog contents:
a. No indication of a Section 504 Coordinator. pp. 102-108.
b. Lynn Ruark is listed under Core Donor Development. p. 102.
c. Nothing about Section 504 policies or procedures regarding how to secure accommodations
for any purported disabled student wishing to attend or seeking accommodations. pp. 16-28.
194. The 1998-1999 Western Seminary Student Handbook contents:
a. No indication of a Section 504 Coordinator.
b. Nothing about Section 504 policies or procedures regarding how to secure accommodations
for the purported disabled student wishing to attend or seeking accommodations.
a. No statement regarding how to seek disability accommodations on the Masters level student
application. pp. WS 0857 0863 (115-121)
b. No indication of a Section 504 Coordinator. pp. 104-109.
c. Lynn Ruark is listed as Associate Director of Student Development and Alumni Director. p.
104.
d. Nothing about Section 504 policies or procedures regarding how to secure accommodations
for any purported disabled student wishing to attend or seeking accommodations. pp. 15-28.
196. The 1999-2000 Western Seminary Student Handbook contents:
a. No indication of a Section 504 Coordinator.
b. Nothing about Section 504 policies or procedures regarding how to secure accommodations
for the purported disabled student wishing to attend or seeking accommodations.
197. The 1999 Western Seminary Employee Handbook contents, and according to Western Seminary it
is current for the issues of the fundamental case:
a. Nothing about Section 504 policies or procedures regarding how to secure accommodations
for the purported disabled student wishing to attend, or seeking accommodations or who to
talk to about purported disabilities, or where to seek any training for accommodating disabled
students.
b. No employee orientation regarding Section 504.
c. ADA statement provides no information about policies or procedures regarding how to secure
accommodations for any purported disabled student wishing to attend, etc. p. 11
d. No materials regarding Section 504 training to employees and/or instructors were produced
by Western Seminary in 2005 to OCR.
e. Subpoenas during litigation over a period of 8 years produced no Section 504 training
materials for employees or instructors.
f. Subpoenas during litigation over a period of 8 years produced no Section 504 materials to
Randy Chapel regarding required training that should have been provided to Randy Chapel
while Randy Chapel was a graduate assistant employee grading the work of students.
g. During litigation over a period of 8 years, there was no job description for a Section 504
coordinator and none was provided to OCR by Western Seminary.
198. The 1999 Western Seminary By-Laws of the Faculty contents, and according to Western
Seminary current for the fundamental case issues:
a. Nothing about Section 504 or policies or procedures regarding how to secure
accommodations for any purportedly disabled student; how to seek out such information; who
to talk to; training about Section 504, and so on.
b. No statement regarding Section 504.
c. No mention of a Section 504 coordinator participating with the admissions committee. p. 5.
d. No materials regarding Section 504 training to employees or instructors were produced in
2005 by Western Seminary to OCR.
e. Subpoenas served during litigation by Randy Chapel over a period of 8 years produced no
materials regarding Section 504 training to employees or instructors.
f. Subpoenas served during litigation by Randy Chapel over a period of 8 years produced no
materials regarding Section 504 training provided to Randy Chapel, while Randy Chapel was
a graduate assistant employee grading the course work of Western Seminary's students.
43
g. During litigation over a period of 8 years, there was no job description for a Section 504
coordinator at Western Seminary, and none was ever provided by Western Seminary to OCR.
a. No indication of a Section 504 Coordinator at Western Seminary. pp. 104-109.
b. Lynn Ruark is listed as Associate Director of Student Development and Alumni Director. p.
104.
c. Nothing about Section 504 policies or procedures, or regarding how to secure
accommodations for any purported disabled student at Western Seminary wishing to attend or
seeking accommodations. pp. 15-28
200. This sort of thing continued on for:
a. The 2000-2001 Western Seminary Student Handbook
b. The 2001-2002 Western Seminary Catalog
c. The 2001-2002 Western Seminary Student Handbook
d. The 2002-2003 Western Seminary Catalog
e. The 2002-2003 Western Seminary Student Handbook
f. The 2003-2004 Western Seminary Catalog
g. The 2003-2004 Western Seminary Student Handbook
201. During the time that OCR got involved, the 2004-2005 Western Seminary Catalog stated:
a. No indication of a Section 504 Coordinator at Western Seminary. pp. 117-122.
b. Lynn Ruark is now listed as Dean of Men, International Student Coordinator; interim
Financial Aid Director. p. 118.
c. Nothing about Section 504, or policies or procedures regarding how to secure
accommodations at Western Seminary for any purported disabled student wishing to attend or
seeking accommodations. pp. 17-32.
202. On March 26, 2004, Lynn Ruark's testimony included the following information in his deposition:
a. Lynn Ruark did not testify he was the Section 504 Coordinator.
b. Lynn Ruark under oath admitted he had only three responsibilities; none of the
responsibilities he listed was the Section 504 Coordinator.
203. It is a reasonable argument that a Section 504 Coordinator ought to clearly understand what his
job entails, how it impacts his employment/school, and for him to be able to clearly and concisely explain that
employee position under oath. Lynn Ruark's testimony did not describe himself as Section 504 coordinator. That
was 15 months prior to OCRs investigation of Western Seminary, and concurrent with a lawsuit that was filed in
2003, noting the issues related to Matt Tuck receiving special accommodations and favors requested by his father,
Gary Tuck and mother Lynn. Western Seminary and Gary Tuck wanted those material facts covered up. Gary Tuck
maintains to this day that he has never done anything wrong, including when he violated FERPA.
204. On April 30, 2004, M. James Sawyer testified the following in his deposition:
Western Seminarys attorneys claimed Matt Tuck had Aspergers syndrome WebMD states
Aspergers syndrome is a developmental disorder that makes it very hard to interact with other
people. (Matt graded tests, interacted with students about their school work as a GA/GF, and he
taught courses at Western Seminary with no masters degree, contrary to school policies).
There is no school review of Gary Tucks claim that his adult son had Aspergers
Matt Tuck was NEVER formally classified as a learning-disabled student.
Matt Tuck registered at Western Seminary as a normal functioning student.
Matts parents planned how Matt could successfully finish class work well after the allotted 6
week extension time (instead of Western planning it).
Sawyer gave Matt more time than was given to all other students.
No documentation given to Sawyer by Western or Lynn Ruark --the so-called Section 504
Coordinator.
Collegial courtesy to his co-worker that was not based on procedure.
a. Changes were made to the 2005-2006 catalog with parts sent to OCR that were based on other
schools statements, and due to on-going litigation. This is reflected in FOIA Data Requested
from OCR, and subsequent catalog changes due to OCR' investigation. At that time, Western
Seminary backdated materials to 2003 in order to appear that Western Seminary used forms
for several years that were unpublished as Ruark claimed to OCR. OCR did not identify
Ruark's misrepresentations at that time. On March 14, 2006, Western then gagged Carol Nye-
44
Wilson and Randy Chapel in order to control their free speech and no complaints to the
government so that the U.S. Department of Education cannot be told about the
misrepresentations by Western Seminary and the conspirators, if and when Carol Nye-Wilson
and/or Randy Chapel discovered them.
b. By 2008, Margaret Spellings, Kent Talbert, Nancy Regan, Cheryl Oldham, Chuck Mula, and
others within the government had no problem with schools gagging students and demanding
they not complain to the government as a requirement to earn two master degrees and to
recover previously earned, and paid for education.
206. On June 24, 2005 Steve Korch testified in his deposition:
a. Did not know the employment policies of nepotism.
b. Matt Tuck worked for his father, graded papers and taught individual classes.
c. Matt Tuck had the ability to interact with others, teach and grade papers.
d. Korch never claimed Matt Tucks purported disability limitations were an issue, if they
indeed existed, and for which his co-defendant Gary Tuck and his wife sought special
accommodations based on a purported disability. Instead, Korch praised Matt Tuck as being
very capable.
207. On May 26, 2005, Randy Chapel filed a complaint to the U.S. Department of Education, OCR in
San Francisco.
208. On June 9, 2005 the U.S. Department of Education, OCR (Dorothy Brady) sent a letter to Randy
Chapel concerning Chapel's complaint against Western Seminary, filed on May 26, 2005. (pp 6-13)
209. On June 9, 2005, the U.S. Department of Education, OCR (Charles Love) sent a letter to Bert
Downs concerning a discrimination complaint filed against Western Seminary. In 2010, under Randy Chapel's FOIA
request, the U.S. Department of Education, OCR did not produce that letter to Chapel, but in 2007, OCR did
produce it to Carol Nye-Wilson, including the following:
a. The letter notes a complaint was filed about the San Jose campus of Western Seminary that did not
have Section 504 policies and procedures for implementation.
b. The letter also notes that schools are not to intimidate, harass or retaliate against those who file
complaints with OCR. Should a complainant feel they have been the subject of intimidation,
harassment or retaliation, they can file an additional complaint with OCR.
210. On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Department of Education, OCR telephoned Western Seminary, and a
summary was created of the telephone interview with Michael Hohn, assistant to the President of Western Seminary.
a. Michael Hohn noted that OCR should speak to Lynn Ruark.
b. Michael Hohn did not identify Ruark as the Section 504 Coordinator.
211. On June 30, 2005, the U.S. Department of Education, OCR telephoned Western Seminary and a
summary was created of the telephone interview with Lynn Ruark. (pp 55-56)
a. OCR claimed a need for a Section 504 Coordinator.
b. No claim was made to OCR that Lynn Ruark was the Section 504 Coordinator.
c. Lynn Ruark told OCR that Western Seminary had "unpublished policies and procedures" for
the last 5 years.
212. On July 8, 2005, the U.S. Department of Education, OCR (Stella Klugman) sent a letter to Bert
Downs concerning the complaint filed against Western Seminary on May 26, 2005, about which it notified Western
Seminary on June 9, 2005. The letter was a request for data, including: (pp 16-18)
a. Copy of Seminarys notice of nondiscrimination, how and where this is posted and/or
published
b. Name Seminarys Section 504 coordinator, how and where this was posted and/or published
c. Copy of Section 504 grievance procedures, how and where this was posted and/or published
d. Copy of policy and procedures for providing academic adjustments/accommodations
and auxiliary aids for students with disabilities, how and where this was posted and/or
published.
e. Any additional data Western Seminary wanted to provide relevant to the complaint against
Western Seminary.
213. On July 20, 2005, and unknown to the U.S. Department of Education, OCR, Randy Chapel, Carol
Nye-Wilson and their attorney William Dresser, Lynn Ruark sent interoffice email communications to Randal
Roberts regarding documents responsive to the OCR Data Requests. President Bert Downs, Rob Wiggins and
Randal Roberts signed off on materials they presented to the Department/OCR that were known at that time by
Roberts, Downs, Wiggins, and Ruark to have been created because of the OCR data request to Lynn Ruark.
45
a. Changes were then made to the 2005-2006 catalog released in the fall of 2006 after Lynn
Ruark copied statements and forms from other schools to present to OCR as Western
Seminarys that Lynn Ruark claimed Western Seminary "used for years" but had not
published.
b. Lynn Ruark didnt claim to Randal Roberts (Academic Dean) he was the Section 504
Coordinator, nor was that title used for years in any communications prior to the OCR
investigation.
c. The 2005-2006 Western Seminary Catalog, p. 188 claims Ruark is Dean of Men;
International Student Coordinator; Interim Financial Aid Director
d. The 2006-2007 Western Seminary Catalog, p. 118 claims Ruark is Financial Aid Director
with no statement about a Section 504 Coordinator.
e. After reviews by Randal Roberts, Rob Wiggins, and Lynn Ruark, then Bert Downs approved
everything Lynn Ruark produced to OCR (to get OCR and the investigation off their back).
f. The Department and OCR were never told by Western Seminary that none of those forms or
statements existed until a few days before Lynn Ruark produced them to OCR in 2005.
g. On March 14, 2006, Western Seminary and the conspirators then gagged Randy Chapel and
Carol Nye-Wilson to prevent them from ever complaining or saying anything to governmental
authorities if in the event either Randy Chapel or Carol Nye-Wilson learned what actually
happened. That gag order was made under threat that Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson
would have to pay $10,000 per document, or complaint, or transcript or exhibit to benefit
Western Seminary, Gary Tuck, Lynn Ruark and Steve Korch.
h. The persons who knew or should have known about the misrepresentations to OCR include:
i. Bert Downs, President, originally contacted by OCR, chaired Presidents counsel.
ii. Rob Wiggins, Registrar, Dean of Student Development, Lynn Ruarks boss. Maintains
catalog and handbooks.
iii. Randal Roberts, Academic Dean, Accreditation Liaison Officer, over all academic issues.
iv. Lynn Ruark, Author of communications to OCR in question, seeking to deceive and
misrepresent actual policies and procedures during a federal investigation with the help of
others.
v. Gary Tuck, Academic Coordinator, Matt Tucks father.
vi. Trusties, various persons approving those actions.
vii. Andrew Adler, Attorney to Western Seminary.
viii. Ellen Hung, Attorney to Western Seminary.
214. On July 25, 2005, Western Seminary responded to OCRs Data Request. (pp 38-54)
a. These events occurred, and materials were presented to OCR by Lynn Ruark without Randy
Chapel, Carol Nye-Wilson or William Dresser knowing about Ruark's materials to OCR.
b. Lynn Ruark claimed Western had at least two students with learning disabilities.
c. Lynn Ruark stated, specific policies and procedures in place for several years (at least 5
years), but they have not been published or posted on the website until now. This is a
known misrepresentation to intentionally misled federal investigators.
d. Lynn Ruark produced an undated form titled, Reasonable Accommodations
Questionnaire as though it existed prior to the federal investigation.
e. Lynn Ruark produced an undated form titled, Reasonable Accommodations Disability
Documentation [pages 51-52]
f. Lynn Ruark produced an undated form titled, Reasonable Accommodations Supplemental
Documentation For Learning Disabilities
g. Lynn Ruark claimed Western Seminary was committed to principles of the Bible and to
follow laws (both state misrepresentations and lying are wrong).
h. All of the forms that Ruark produced to OCR were undated in order to claim a nebulous
creation date. (NOTE: Lynn Ruarks dating style on his 07/20/05 communication to Randal
Roberts above is in a monthdayyear format when Lynn Ruark misrepresented the form titled,
Reasonable Accommodations Disability Documentation that he backdated to 2003
before he produced it to OCR.
i. OCR didn't catch on to Lynn Ruarks misrepresentations during the federal investigation.
46
j. Similarly, Lynn Ruark claimed to OCR that he was Western Seminarys Section 504
Coordinator, yet under oath in deposition, Lynn Ruark never testified of any Section 504
duties, and his job description for years also never cited him as Section 504 Coordinator.
215. On Aug 10, 2005 Lynn Ruark testified the following:
a. Lynn Ruark was unaware of my complaints regarding Matt Tuck on or before Feb 28, 2002.
b. Lynn Ruark was unaware that Gary Tuck and his wife sought Accommodations directly from
Professor M. James Sawyer, and testified he learned about it at his deposition ON THAT day.
(Remember, Ruark presented himself to OCR as the Section 504 Coordinator, and at the time
there was no evidence of that employment position in Western Seminarys documents,
policies, or procedures.)
c. Lynn Ruark testified, we now have a form
d. Lynn Ruark had no idea what Matt Tuck did as grading assistant.
e. Western Seminary did not have a Section 504 form in 2002 (i.e., Reasonable
Accommodations Disability Documentation, etc.). However, Lynn Ruark claimed to OCR on
07/25/05 Western had specific policies and procedures in place for several years (at least 5
years).
f. Matthew Tuck never filled out a form (related to Section 504) between 1999-2003, because it
never existed, yet Lynn Ruark claimed to OCR on 07/25/05 that specific policies and
procedures in place for several years (at least 5 years).
g. Western Seminarys defense attorneys repeatedly coached Lynn Ruark how and what to
answer during his deposition.
h. Lynn Ruark refused to answer any particulars regarding Matt Tuck and the lack of
documentation to support any claim that Matt Tuck had been determined by Western to
qualify under Section 504a program that did not exist at Western prior to 2005.
216. On Aug 11, 2005, MISSING communications from OCR to Lynn Ruark showing OCR requested
changes, and OCRs review of data OCR had requested. Ruark made changes that OCR requested, and documents
were backdated to be used in Randy Chapels pending 2005-2006 trial against Western Seminary that was
postponed five months after Lynn Ruark participated in OCR's investigation and he then became ill. Lynn Ruark
had irritable bowel syndrome brought on by all the stress stress due to lying to everyone.
217. On Aug 16, 2005, the U.S. Department of Education, OCR telephoned Western Seminary, and
OCR created a summary of the telephone interview with Lynn Ruark. (p 57)
218. On Aug 23, 2005, Bert Downs deposition testimony included the following:
a. Bert Downs learned of the Matt Tuck issues due to Randy Chapel's communications in 2002
that questioned Matt Tuck getting behind in class work and the lack of his process. (p50)
b. Bert Downs signed Matts employment contract knowing Matt would be working under his
father and violating the employee handbook (- p 61)
c. Gary Tuck was never disciplined (for professional conflict of interest favoring his son that
discriminated against all other students, since Tucks job as Academic Coordinator required
Tuck to equally serve all students at Western Seminary).
d. Defense attorneys repeatedly coached Bert Downs how and what to answer.
219. On Aug 26, 2005, Lynn Ruark wrote a letter to OCR concerning the complaint against Western
Seminary and the 8/15/05 conversation. pp 34-37
a. Includes various changes OCR required of Western.
b. One page fax cover by Lynn Ruark was not produced by OCR.
220. On September 21, 2005, Lynn Ruark wrote a letter to OCR pp 19-33 including:
a. Ruark made changes and provided them to OCR on the Section 504 forms.
b. Lynn Ruarks form stated, revised Reasonable Accommodation Disability
Documentation form [claimed to be revised on Aug 21, 2003] [pages 32-33]
c. The same form is also purported to exist and was provided on pp 51-52 as it was produced to
OCR on 07/25/05, and it has no revised date.
d. Differences between the forms include:
i. Notification wording at the top of the form, without the word "revised" and date of
" Aug 21, 2003."
ii. There are no other changes to the document other than revised and the backdating
e. This form was backdated to appear as if it existed in 2003, when it did not exist, while the
word changes in the note section happened between 08/11/05 and 09/21/05, after OCR told
47
Western how to change the documents. (Remember, Ruarks 7-20-05 E-mail to Roberts
admitted he copied and pasted those forms from other schools to provide to OCR while Ruark
told OCR Western had policies and procedures for over five years--but they were
unpublished.)
f. The U.S. Department of Education and OCR failed to catch Ruark's lies as they occurred.
221. On October 26, 2005, the U.S. Department of Education, OCR (David Rolandelli) wrote to Bert
Downs with cc: Lynn Ruark, concerning the complaint resolution. pp 14-15
222. On October 26, 2005, the U.S. Department of Education, OCR (David Rolandelli) wrote to Randy
Chapel concerning resolution of Randy's complaint against Western Seminary. pp 1-2
223. In and around Spring 2007, Western Seminary removed from its Teaching Position document
that the school is bound by the civil law (Romans 13)108 [This contrasts Lynn Ruarks claims to OCR on 08/26/05
concerning Western Seminary follows the Bible and laws.]
224. On February 10, 2010, Bert Downs testified during deposition and denied any complaint against
Western Seminary existed regarding OCR and Matt Tuck.
225. On Feb 12, 2010, Gary Tuck testified during his deposition, and denied a complaint to OCR
existed regarding Matt Tuck. Gary Tucks interrogatories claimed under penalty of perjury that his son, Matt,
attended Western Seminary under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in contradiction of Lynn Ruark's
deposition testimony under oath on August 10, 2005, and the evidence, showed Gary Tuck lied and wanted Matt's
involvement in Western's Section 504 problems covered up. Yet, prior to 2005, Western Seminary had no Section
504 Program, Policies, forms, or Coordinator.
226. Western Seminary never took the U.S. Department of Education or OCR seriously regarding
complying with Section 504. On April 25, 2014, OCR-Seattle wrote to Randal Roberts concerning complaint
10132035, dating back to events in the November / December 2012 time frame. That complaint to OCR concerns:
a. The seminary discriminated against an applicant, on the basis of age and disability, when it
denied his admission into the Seminarys counseling program; and
b. The Seminary discriminated against the applicant, on the basis of disability, when during the
same time-period, Western Seminary required the applicant to complete a mental health
personality inventory and made unlawful pre-admission inquiries as part of the admissions
process.
227. Western Seminary resolved that complaint, by entering into a Voluntary Resolution Agreement.
v. Implications of this scheme

228. Due to the actions of Western Seminary and what has been learned, schools in the US should be
advised that they can lie to the Department of Education, OCR, lie to students, lie to families, and lie to courts at
will, with no disciplinary action against the school.
229. Western Seminary did not have Section 504 policies, procedures or forms; they were created in
2005 when Lynn Ruark used what Linfield, OSU, Portland State and University of Oregon published. The
Reasonable Accommodations Disability Documentation form was modified in 2005 to include OCR input, and
then Western backdated it to 2003, having been previously based on other schools policies.
230. During federal investigations, schools cannot only lie, they can also falsify and back date
documents with the knowledge that the Department of Education, OCR does not care and will do nothing about any
of it. Schools will receive federal funds anyway.
231. Otherwise functional adult student(s) who can teach other master level students at the master level,
dont need to seek accommodations at the postsecondary level to receive a variety of accommodations for purported
special needs they have not proved by professional evaluation.
232. Students dont need to fill out or document their accommodation needs to schools in order to
receive accommodation benefits, and schools dont need to verify the purported needs.

108
Rom 13:1-7: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The
authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has
instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is Gods
servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are Gods servants, agents of wrath to
bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a
matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are Gods servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to
everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
48
233. Schools can rely on the fact that OCR will not do thorough investigations. Most of all, OCR will
not show up at the school unannounced to pull the records at the school to validate there are no modifications or
misrepresentations to OCR during federal investigations. OCR will look the other way concerning schools known to
falsify educational records and pass them off as valid.
234. Schools can harass, extort, and threaten students and third parties into signing contracts, including
settlement agreements that violate state and federal laws and previous court case decisions, and the Department of
Education, OCR will support the school, the accreditors, and their insurance companies to further damage students
and third parties.
235. A precedent is set to assure other schools, students, and parents that the Department of Education
will do nothing about schools harassing, extorting, and threatening students and third parties, and the Department of
Education will help damage the people who stand up against corruption, causing a chilling effect.
vi. Informed Government Covers For The Enterprise

236. On December 31 2010, Randy Chapel sent his "OCR-Review" to Secretary of Education Arne
Duncan, David Rolandelli Team Leader of OCR-SF, Charles Rose, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of
Education, attorney Susan Spelletich of OCR-SF, and Chuck Mula of the AAEU. The "OCR-Review" identified
documents sent to OCR by Western Seminary, deposition transcripts, and materials obtained through the FOIA from
OCR showing that in fact Western Seminary lied to federal agents during the federal investigation in 2005. The
Government covered for Western Seminary and the conspirators over and against Randy Chapel, while flushing the
school with millions of Title IV dollars.
237. Susan Allister filed for divorce from Randy Chapel on February 1, 2011, using the corruption as a
means to force the divorce.
238. On March 14, 2006, for Randy Chapel's civil case to settle, Western Seminary, Gary Tuck, Steve
Korch and Lynn Ruark demanded Matt Tuck as a particular 3rd party person about whom Randy Chapel or Carol
Nye-Wilson could not file complaints to the government. In addition Western Seminary, et al., demanded as
educational criteria 8 Non-Disparagement/Non-Disclosure/Non-Interference, 9 Confidentiality, 10 Selected
Speech, 11a Arbitration, 14 No-complaints; 15 No Cooperation with the government against Randy Chapel and
Carol Nye-Wilson, linking those demands as education criteria for Randy Chapel to retain previously earned and
paid for education and earn additional education leading to Master of Divinity and Master of Theology degrees and
under the threat of 11b Liquidated Damages. Western Seminary, et al., then used 6 Waiver of 1542, in an
attempt to cover their ongoing illegal activities unknown at that time by Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson, as
Western Seminary, et al., attempted to shield it/themselves from prosecution of criminal and civil activity when and
if it was discovered. All of these demands are required education criteria, for which Western Seminary, et al. has no
authority to link as education criteria nor demand of students and/or their family members as shown in other cases in
California.
239. Of particular interest, Matt Tuck refused to answer for claims of purported disability, and he went
into hiding in order to avoid service of his deposition notice. He continued on at Western Seminary as if nothing
happen.
B. The Conflict of Interest Scheme (ATS & NWCCU).

240. Accreditors are mandated to maintain and fulfill federal law and rules against conflicts of interest,
and to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest with member schools. (20 U.S.C. 1099b(b)(2), 1099b(a)(6)(C)
regulated at 34 CFR 602.15(a)(6))). On or about September 15, 2006, Western Seminary, Randal Roberts, and
Bert Downs solicited Sandra Elman and The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, as well as Daniel
Aleshire, Jeremiah McCarthy and The Association of Theological Schools to conspire together with Western
Seminary against Randy Chapel and the U.S. Department of Education. Shortly thereafter, Rob Wiggins became
involved in the conflict of interest scheme, and then others joined the enterprise. In spite of their knowledge that a
conflict of interest was ongoing between the school and accreditors, the U.S. Department of Education employees
encouraged, defended, and covered it up. This scheme continues to this day.
C. The Substantive Change Scheme (ATS).

241. As accreditors, it is mandatory that they maintain compliance with the law and regulations for
substantive changes by the member schools. (20 U.S.C. 1099b(a)(4)(A), xxxxxxxx regulated at 34 CFR
602.22). ATS never had substantive change policies and in fact, the U.S. Department of Education under oath
affirmed it had no copies of any ATS substantive change policy, in spite of repeated approving ATS as an
accreditor. This is further supported by the communications from Charles Willard and Tisa Lewis to Carol Nye-
49
Wilson that confirmed ATS did not use the language of substantive change. In addition this is further supported by
email communications from Chuck Mula to Randy Chapel and later Kevin Ford that ATS and NWCCU were not
compliant with 34 CFR 602.22. In spite of this starting September 15, 2006 and moving forward, Western
Seminary, Randal Roberts, and Bert Downs solicited Sandra Elman and The Northwest Commission on Colleges
and Universities, as well as Daniel Aleshire, Jeremiah McCarthy and The Association of Theological Schools to
conspire together with Western Seminary against Randy Chapel and the U.S. Department of Education. Since ATS
had no substantive changes policies, the exception scheme was developed to support the assorted false narratives
to support the enterprise and in particular the conspirators. This false narrative and conspiracy continues to this day.
D. The Substantive Change Scheme (NWCCU).
242. As accreditors, it is mandatory that they maintain compliance the law and with regulations for
substantive changes by the member schools. (20 U.S.C. 1099b(a)(4)(A), xxxxxxxx regulated at 34 CFR
602.22). On June 30, 2000, NWCCU requested Western Seminary to produce an Educational Assessment to clearly
define the relationship between Western Seminarys Master of Divinity program and its mission, and an
assessment plan for NWCCUs Focused Interim Evaluation Report Recommendations showing Western
Seminarys programmatic student outcomes. NWCCU further required Western Seminarys report to provide
evidence of Western Seminarys implementation of the assessment plan, the outcomes or results, the impact of
the outcomes on institutional planning, and the conduct of the educational program. NWCCU asked for 34
copies of Western Seminarys report before October 13, 2000, for its December 2000 meeting. By December 2000,
NWCCU had Western Seminarys Master of Divinity program, its assessment plan, the relationship between
Western Seminary's mission and Master of Divinity program, and its student outcomes to review and compare with
the two purported master degrees offered in the March 14, 2006, Settlement Agreement, and on June 23, 2008,
NWCCU requested Western to produce all related degree requirements and a copy of the Settlement Agreement by
July 1, 2008. NWCCU had imposed a Probation status against Western Seminary on January 8, 2003, and
NWCCU issued a Warning status against Western Seminary based on Standard 7.B., which continued for several
years. On February 20, 2003, NWCCU notified the U.S. Department of Education concerning Western Seminarys
Probation in a letter to John Barth, cc'd to CHEA, the Regional Accreditation Directors, Kenneth Alt, Editor,
Directory of Accreditated Institutions, Mary Rodenhouse, Higher Education Publications and the Chronicle of
Higher Education.
243. The NWCCU was approved twice prior to 2008 by the AAEU and NACIQI as compliant with the
Secretarys Criteria for Recognition. This evidence was produced by U.S. Department of Education in response to
FOIA requests by Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson. That approved and compliant NWCCU A-2 policy placed
member schools that were issued probation or warnings status within the last ten years on Level I. This leveling
approach, was approved as compliant with the Secretarys Criteria for Recognition under 34 CFR 602.22 and the
NACIQI, and it required member schools under "Level I" to obtain the NWCCU Commission approval of major or
minor changes to education programs prior to applying those proposed changes. According to NWCCU: Most
changes, such as adding or dropping courses, developing new concentrations that are allied with existing offerings,
and changing personnel, are not substantive and fall within the nature and scope of the institution as last evaluated.
However, a change of such magnitude as to significantly alter an institution's mission and goals; the scope or
degree level of its offerings; its autonomy, sponsorship, or the locus of control over it; offering academic
programs for credit through contractual relationships with external organizations; offering programs for
credit outside the NASC region; or adding a branch campus would constitute a major substantive change.
NWCCUs A-2 policy dated from February 15, 2006 April 5, 2006 remained the same and unchanged, and
included the oversight requirements at the time of the March 14, 2006 Agreement. Prior to, during, and after March
14, 2006, Western Seminary remained on Warning / Probation status. In 2007, Randy Chapel filed complaints
against ATS and NWCCU that resulted in a federal investigation in 2007 - 2008. At that time, NWCCU was judged
to be noncompliant with 34 C.F.R. 602.22 Substantive Change. Later, the government co-conspirators covered up
that fact, as they had a stake in the outcome, as did NWCCU and the conspirators. This was noted and covered up
by U.S. Department of Education employees acting to conspire with the enterprise, conspirators and co-conspirators:
1) January 1, 2008, email from Chuck Mula to Randy Chapel. We have already determined that the criteria related
issues with NWCCU and ATS are their failure to satisfactorily address your complaints, and their failure to
comply with the Secretary's Substantive Change requirements. [Emphasis bold] and 2) June 17, 2008, email
from Chuck Mula to Kevin Ford. I will talk to Ms. Wilson, I will not talk to Mr. Chapel. There has been no
conditions set by the Office of General Council. They only recommend that I do not talk to Mr. Chapel. We are
working with both ATS and NWCCU to make sure that they have complaint policies and substantive change
policies that are in compliance with the Secretary's Criteria. This is being done as a direct result of Mr.
Chapel's complaint.We are only allowed to address issues of non-compliance with the Secretary's Criteria for
50
Recognition of Accreditation Agencies. If accreditation agencies remain out of compliance with the Secretary
Criteria, they may be subject to Suspension, limitation or termination of their recognition, by the Department or may
be brought before the NACIQI.109 [Emphasis bold]
244. Between May and August of 2008 NWCCU changed its A-2 Policy by omitting the Level I and II
requirements, without any paperwork or process per 34 C.F.R. PART 602. NWCCU changed its A-2 policy,
because Western Seminary had violated the NWCCU A-2 policy on or about March 14, 2006, and thereafter. In
order to avert taking disciplinary action against Western Seminary and having since September 15, 2006 joined the
enterprise co-conspirators, NWCCU modified the A-2 policy requiring prior NWCCU approval for the changed
Master of Divinity and Master of Theology degree criteria. Then on August 29, 2008, Nancy C. Regans letter on
behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, as directed by co-conspirator Margaret Spellings, denied Western
Seminary was noncompliant with NWCCUs A-2 policy, which was based on NWCCU's changed A-2 policy and
the known lies and misleading statements made by Sandra Elman. During this whole time, employees at the U.S.
Department of Education knew about and possessed a copy of Western Seminarys September 15, 2006,
solicitations to NWCCU and ATS as authored by Randal Roberts and Bert Downs, and they ignored the solicitations
and conflicts of interest in direct support of the enterprise. During Randy Chapels and Carol Nye-Wilsons FOIA
litigation against the U.S. Department of Education, the Department denied any meeting took place with NWCCU or
involvement in any statements or affect between the Department and Sandra Elman or NWCCU. Asst. U.S.
Attorney James A. Scharf also denied before the court that no meeting or documents between the U.S. Department
of Education and NWCCU or Sandra Elman existed, yet in fact a document does exist referencing a meeting that
took place between the Department/Mula and Sandra Elman/ NWCCU.
245. These acts by the enterprise members were intended to obstruct justice and destroy two pending
civil cases against Western Seminary, Gary Tuck, Steve Korch and Lynn Ruark. (Randy Chapel V. Western
Seminary, Et Al., Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 07cv082457 And Carol Nye-Wilson Et Al., V. Western
Seminary, Et Al., Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 07cv089064). The approved NWCCU A-2 policy placed
member schools who were on probation or warnings within the last ten years on Level I, requiring NWCCU
Commission approval of any major or minor changes to education programs prior to applying proposed changes.
NWCCU also required all planned or enacted program changes to be documented in Western Seminarys Annual
Reports to NWCCU in 2006 and 2007, including changed program criteria related to Western Seminarys mission,
and changes to the delivery method of a program not previously included in its prior accreditation approval.
Western Seminary failed to document the changes to both master degrees offered in the Settlement Agreement in its
NWCCU Annual Reports and other required documentation. Western Seminarys administrative and financial
failures were known and memorialized by accreditation probation by NWCCU, and warnings and notations by
NWCCU and ATS. Because Western Seminarys educational programs offered to Randy Chapel on March 14,
2006, could have cost Western Seminarys already tenuous accreditation status, State approval, and Title IV
eligibility, and because the NWCCU A-2 policy required Western Seminarys prior approval by NWCCU, it was
NWCCU, the U.S. Department of Education, and various co- conspirators who willfully entered into a secret
agreement to scuttle two civil cases that had life-changing results on Randy Chapel, Susan Allister, Joel Chapel,
Carol Nye-Wilson and Dale Wilson. The acts of educational fraud by those aforementioned parties included
tampering with evidence, using unwritten and unregulated ad hoc policies at will, while they ignored published
policies accepted and approved as compliant that had been applied for many years. Chuck Mula used Sandra Elman
as his puppet for conspired writings after the U.S. Department of Education attorneys carefully studied all of the
NWCCU written policies and spoke with NWCCU according to records of the U.S. Department of Education. Had
there been no issues with the A-2 policy as the later false narratives claim, there would never have been need of all
the underhanded activities of the conspirators, and co-conspirators.
E. The Steve Korch Child Molestation Cover-up Scheme.

246. In 1975 Steve Korch molested a child with his mouth, hands, fingers and penis. Steve Korch's
victim confronted him about it in April 2002, unknown to Randy Chapel or Carol Nye-Wilson at the time. The
victim then contacted Randy Chapel, and on June 24, 2005, the victim confronted Steve Korch at his deposition.
Thereafter, Bert Downs, Randal Roberts, Rob Wiggins, and others began creating false narratives about Steve
Korch's molestation events and the relationship of his molestation to Western Seminary in order to obfuscate events
and documents, and to portray Steve Korch as a victim of Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson. On August 1, 2005
Bert Downs publicly confirmed Steve Korchs sexual misconduct. Subsequently, Steve Korch hired an attorney to
go after Western Seminary, Randy Chapel, and Carol Nye-Wilson. By January 19, 2006, Bard Marshall and Jeff

109
This is one of many communications that were withheld.
51
England of Faith Baptist Church, where Steve Korch was ordained, wrote an open letter to Steve Korch, his victim,
and others with the knowledge of the Deacon board, and stated, Had the church known of this moral failure in
1978, it is probable that they would not have called Steve Korch to be their pastor, and it is equally likely that, had
the ordination council in 1980 known of this moral failure, they would not have recommended his ordination the
leadership of Faith Baptist has expressed its opinion to Steve that, given the public nature of this sin, for the sake of
the name of Christ, the more honorable course of action may be for him to voluntarily step down from his position
of public ministry. Steve Korch did not step down, but bore his teeth at Carol Nye-Wilson and Randy Chapel with
continued threats using attorneys and the school. This has continued for years, as Steve Korch and others conspire
to cover up his molestation activities and the schools involvement.
247. The settlement agreement of March 14, 2006, was a cover-up attempt to conceal Steve Korch's
molestations of 1975 from Western Seminary's students, parents, donors, accreditors, and the government. Steve
Korch solicited charitable donations for the school. Western Seminary, et al., demanded as educational criteria 8
Non-Disparagement/Non-Disclosure/Non-Interference, 9 Confidentiality, 10 Selected Speech, 11a Arbitration,
14 No-complaints; 15 No Cooperation with the government against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson, linking
those demands as education criteria for Randy Chapel to retain previously earned and paid for education and earn
additional education leading to Master of Divinity and Master of Theology degrees and under the threat of 11b
Liquidated Damages. Western Seminary, et al., then used 6 Waiver of 1542, in an attempt to cover their ongoing
illegal activities unknown at that time by Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson, as Western Seminary, et al.,
attempted to shield it/themselves from prosecution of criminal and civil activity when and if it was discovered. So
important was their need to cover things up, that in and around September 15, 2006, Bert Downs and Randal
Roberts asked ATS, and NWCCU and their employees to conspire with them against Randy Chapel and federal
authorities during the federal investigation of Randy Chapel's complaints about Western Seminary's corruptly
changed degree criteria, and to support Western's false claims and narratives in order to enforce the settlement
agreement of March 14, 2006.
248. Third party accreditation agencies disagree (34 CFR 602.13, 602.17) with claimed standards,
objectives, policies, procedures, and decisions by used by ATS for this scheme. Third party accreditation agencies
were asked: Is it OK with accreditation if a school's agreement for education for masters degrees requires covering
up child molestations by a school administrator and not to complain to the government?
249. Dr. Belle S. Wheelan, Ph.D.110 Answer: No it is not okay.
250. Debra White,111 Answer: We have never had to address an issue such as this. Im sure that it is
not ok for a school to require a student to not report incidences such as this.
251. Dr. Ralph Enlow112 Answer: I must confess that I do not understand your question. Is the child
molester being awarded Masters degrees or is this person in charge of offering Masters degrees? What would
prevent someone from filing a complaint against a child molester with the government? I can assure you that the
ABHE Commission on Accreditation expects proper ethical and moral behavior on the part of all persons related to
our accredited institutions. Indeed, Standards #3 of our agencys criteria deals with integrity and enumerates
significant expectations for proper behavior, policies and procedures.
252. Dr. Steven Crow, Ph.D.113 responded to three similar questions concerning accreditation and
school agreements for education of masters degrees: The agreement for 2 masters degrees actually requires
concealment of the molestations and of the ADA violations--including no complaints to the government--if he wants
to finish his masters degrees and receive a diploma. Did the agency you directed have any policies that allowed

110
President of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges which accredits institutions throughout the 11 southern
states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) and Latin
America, and grant associate, baccalaureate, masters and doctoral degrees.
111
Director of Accreditation, Commission on Opticianry Accreditation.
112
Ralph Enlow serves as President of the Association for Biblical Higher Education (ABHE). He also served as ABHE Executive Director
from 1998-2000, overseeing a major relocation and strategic expansion of the Association. Dr. Enlow served for 28 years (1976-98; 2000-2006)
as an educational leader at his alma mater, Columbia International University, culminating in his six years as Senior Vice President and Provost.
Though primarily involved in educational leadership and administration, he has also taught courses in Bible, Theology, Marriage & Family,
Education, and Leadership. Dr. Enlow's extensive involvement in theological higher education includes service as a consultant; institutional self-
study director; accreditation team chair; and chair of ABHE's Commission on Accreditation. A founding member of Global Associates for
Transformational Education (see www.ite-net.org), his engagements in international teaching and consultation include Australia, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Thailand, and Ukraine. He has chaired the international mission agency boards of Bible Christian Union (1990-
1993) and The Evangelical Alliance Mission [TEAM] (1996-2002), and continues to serve as a TEAM board member. His Ed.D. (Higher
Education Administration, Vanderbilt University) dissertation topic was, Student Outcomes in General Education: A Comparative Analysis of
Bible College Quality. His various publications include works on higher education accreditation, general education, and Bible college renewal.
113
Former President/Executive Director, The Higher Learning Commission of The North Central Association of Colleges And Schools. August 8,
1997June 30, 2008 (title change to President, February 27, 2007).
52
schools to require students to not file complaints to the government? Did you have any policies that allowed schools
to make education agreements that required students to cover up something like molestations? Do you know of any
agency that has policies that allow that sort of thing? Answer: The answer is "no" to all of your questions.
253. For over seven years the Obama Administration has defended and supported the enterprise that
religious child molesters can kiss, fondle, finger, thrust and use an erect penis on a child. That covering up child
molestations by the religious and fraud against the government is valid criteria to retain previously earned
education and earn additional education to receive two master level degrees (Master of Theology, Master of
Divinity).
F. The Steve Korch Secret Agreement and Tax Evasion Scheme.

254. After the child molester Steve Korch was exposed by his victim at a deposition in 2005, Bert
Downs published a written confirmation of Steve Korchs sexual misconduct. Upset, Steve Korch then hired Linda
McPharlin who threatened Western Seminary, Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson concerning the outing of her
child molester client. Unknown at the time by Randy Chapel, Carol Nye-Wilson or William Dresser at the time of
the settlement agreement of March 14, 2006, Western Seminary and Steve Korch entered into a secrete agreement to
conceal his child molestation activities from the accreditors, the government, students, families, the Christian
Church and donors from whom Steve Korch sought money. Western Seminary and Steve Korch then used the
mediation of Randy Chapel's civil case as a means to devise a cover up payment of $25,000 that was laundered
through the Boornazian, Jensen & Garthes bank account to conceal any trace of payment with no written contract,
billing, or tax obligation. Steve Korch testified that there was no paperwork concerning that payoff the money just
appeared as he repeated dodged answer basic questions under oath. Subsequently, Bert Downs and others
conspired to obfuscate events and documents in order to cover up Western Seminarys, GuideOne Insurance, Tutor
Insurance, various law firms and their attorneys involvement as well as to cover for the child molester Steve Korch.
At one point, events were denied, and false statements and narratives were made in order to even further obfuscate
their cover up and the lead-up dealings. Gary Tuck, Lynn Ruark, Steve Korch, Bert Downs, Randal Roberts, Rob
Wiggins, Andrew Adler, Ellen Hung, Raymond Gates, their various law firms and the two insurance companies
(GuideOne Insurance and Tutor Insurance) were involved in the pay-off conspiracy. Eventually, Western
Seminary's more recent law firms and attorneys became involved in the payoff cover-up and conspiracy, including
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance. Finally, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance filed litigation against GuideOne Insurance
in order to force GuideOne to help pay for Western Seminary's defense designing to cover for the child molester
Steve Korch, the schools fraudulent degree programs and conspirators and co-conspirators criminal activities.
G. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2003.

255. In order to participate in various student loan and grant programs established under Title IV of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, a post-secondary educational institution must first enter into a program
participation agreement ("IPA) (20 U.S. Code 1094) with the U.S. Department of Education. In turn, each
program participation agreement expressly conditions a schools initial and continuing eligibility to receive funds
under Title IV programs on compliance with specific statutory requirements.114 Initial and continuing eligibility to
receive federal funds under Title IV programs requires compliance with specific and numerous statutory
requirements. In all cases, Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701), and The Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) are among other mandated statutory
requirements. On December 15, 2009, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division of the
Department of Justice stated and reminded all schools publically, "we must ensure that all educational
institutions comply with the law and do not misuse taxpayer funds"115
256. It is the position of the United States of America that promissory fraud claims do not require a
false certification of any sort. Instead, an actionable promissory fraud claim requires only that the contract or
extension of government benefits was obtained originally through false statements or fraudulent conduct. Harrison
v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 787-88 (4th Cir. 1999) at 787. This is simply an application of
the FCAs prohibition on using a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim approved by the
Government. 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(2). See also United States ex rel. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 929
F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1991) at 1420 (noting [t]hat a contract based on false information is a species of false

114
Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Peter D. Keisler. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Appellant.
Regarding case United States of America ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v. University of Phoenix; Ninth Circuit Case No. 04-16247.
115
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/university-phoenix-settles-false-claims-act-lawsuit-675-million
53
claim).116 It is the view of the United States that, where an educational institution knowingly makes false
promises to comply with specific requirements that are a prerequisite to obtaining a government benefit, and
later submits (or causes others to submit) claims for payment predicated upon those false statements, this
conduct is actionable under both Section 3729(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the FCA, even if the claims themselves do
not contain express false statements.117
257. In 2003, when Bert Downs signed the PPA, Western Seminary and its administrative staff knew
that Western Seminary was not in compliance with Section 504, as noted above. Western Seminary was not in
compliance with Section 504, and the conspirators led by Lynn Ruark willfully and knowingly covered up Western
Seminary's non-compliance by making false statements and submitting backdated documents and materials during
the federal investigation in 2005, in order to create a false paper trail to appear that Western Seminary was
compliant with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at the time that Bert Downs signed the 2003 PPA.
Conditions related to Western Seminary's 2003 PPA:
a. Compliance with FERPA was a known prerequisite to Western Seminarys initial or continued
participation in any Title IV, HEA Program. However, Randy Chapel had filed complaints to the
Family Policy Compliance Office and the California Bureau of Private Post Secondary and Vocational
Education concerning Western Seminary withholding his records. In addition, Western Seminary did
not abide by the protections afforded to students under FERPA. For example, it was common for
Western Seminary employees to gossip among themselves about the students, as was the case in 2002
when Steve Korch gossiped to Gary Tuck who in turn gossiped to Roy Low about Randy Chapel.
b. Western Seminary's participation in Title IV funding was subject to the PPA terms and conditions.
c. Western Seminary entered into the 2003 PPA based on a provisional certification for a limited period
of participation in Title IV, HEA programs, because Western Seminary did not meet the standards of
financial responsibility set forth in 34 CFR 668.171, and had been on probation in 2003 by NWCCU
for financial problems.
d. Western Seminary's participation in Title IV funding was subject to revocation for cause, which
includes without limitation, a failure to comply with any provision set forth in the PPA, a violation of
U.S. Department of Education regulations deemed material by the U.S. Department of Education, or a
material misrepresentation in the materials submitted to the U.S. Department of Education as part of
Western Seminarys application process for certification.
e. That recitation of any portion of the statue or regulation cited in the agreement does not limit Western
Seminarys obligation to comply with other applicable statutes and regulations.
f. Western Seminary agreed to comply with The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and it also agreed as part of the PPA to comply with
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975.
g. In fact, Western Seminary agreed that upon entering the PPA, it would comply with all statutory
provisions applicable to Title IV of the HEA.
h. Western Seminary also agreed that it would not contract with or employ anyone who was
administratively or judicially determined to have committed fraud or any other material violation of
law involving Federal, State, or local government funds.
i. Western Seminary agreed to meet the requirements established pursuant to Part H of Title IV of the
HEA by the Secretary, State (authorizing bodies], and nationally recognized accrediting agencies.
j. Western Seminary agreed per Executive Order 12549, that Western Seminary or its principals have not
within a three-year period preceding the application of the Agreement been convicted or had a civil
judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or
contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antirust statutes or commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, or receiving stolen property.
k. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity
(Federal, State, local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) [listed
previously].

116
Keisler. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Appellant.
117
Ibid.
54
258. Knowing that Western Seminary was not compliant with the 2003 PPA and Section 504, on
March 14, 2006, the conspirators and Western Seminary with their attorneys at the time, willfully made retaliatory
extortion threats and demands upon Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson in order to force the substantively
changed degree criteria for two master degree programs requiring them to file no complaints to the government and
to dismiss complaints already filed, among other demands intended to prevent the U.S. Department of Education
from discovering Western Seminarys promissory fraud. In September 15, 2006, the conspirators then involved co-
conspirators to cover up Western Seminary's PPA fraud from the U.S. Department of Education, by insuring that the
substantively changed criteria for two master degree programs was supported as valid and not illegal.
H. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2007.

259. As shown above, Western Seminary knew it was not compliant with the PPA of 2007 due to the
following: 1) Requirements of the Agreement itself; 2) Prior to 2005, Western had no Section 504 program, policies,
or coordinator; 3) In 2005, Western Seminary made false statements to the Office for Civil Rights to appear
compliant; 4) Western Seminary's unlawful demands upon Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson in the settlement
agreement of March 14, 2006; 5) Western Seminary's unlawful actions to cover up child molestations by Steve
Korch and his secret pay-off agreement; and 6) Western Seminary, et al.'s unlawful educational criteria in the
Settlement Agreement of March 14, 2006, with extortion threats of great financial vengeance against Randy Chapel
and Carol Nye-Wilson if they said anything, including to the government or if they helped the government attorneys
against Western Seminary. So important was it to have a second PPA signed in 2007, that the conspirators and
Western Seminary solicited and involved co-conspirators in order to cover up Western Seminary's fraud from the
U.S. Department of Education, while they defrauded justice for two ongoing civil cases.
I. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2013.

260. Finally, Western Seminary knew it was not compliant with the PPA in 2013, for all the same
stated reasons. However, at this point the enterprise had become so successful, due to Western Seminary's ability to
leverage the corruption that the co-conspirators and governmental employees willfully and knowingly added to the
enterprise, and also because Western Seminary manipulated the co-conspirators to its advantage. The culminated
activities of the enterprise were in full force at arbitration over and against federal and state laws and Randy Chapel.
At this point, Western Seminary continues to receive Title IV funds, continues to be accredited, and publicly claims
it did nothing wrong in spite of government and accreditation employees knowing they furthered the enterprise
activities with Western Seminary conducting its operations illegally violating the law.
J. The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3733) Scheme.

261. The U.S. Department of Education has stated under oath that there are no policies that give
Western Seminary authority to exceed or waive Federal law. The Department also stated under oath, ATS and
NWCCU do not have policies that give schools authority to exceed or waive Federal law. The False Claims Act (31
U.S.C. 3729-3733) itself provides no authority for Western Seminary or any accreditor to circumvent the law.
Indeed, no law or decisional case allows Western Seminary to circumvent laws and knowingly make false claims
and/or false promises to the government and still receive Title IV funding. In spite of those facts, since 2008 the
employees of the U.S. Department of Education determined that Western Seminary, et al. can demand 8 Non-
Disparagement/Non-Disclosure/Non-Interference, 9 Confidentiality, 10 Selected Speech, 11a Arbitration, 14
No government complaints; 15 No Cooperation with the government against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson,
linking those demands as education criteria for Randy Chapel to retain previously earned and paid for education and
earn additional education leading to Master of Divinity and Master of Theology degrees under the threat of 11b
Liquidated Damages. Western Seminary, et al., then used 6 Waiver of 1542, in order to cover their ongoing
illegal activities unknown at that time by Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson, as Western Seminary, et al.,
attempted to shield it/themselves from prosecution of criminal and civil activity when and if it was discovered. In
doing so, Western Seminary, et al., premeditated the following: 1) Blocking Randy Chapel and/or Carol Nye-Wilson
from filing a false claim act case; and 2) to prevent them from helping the U.S. Attorney General, the FBI, or the
U.S. Department of Education about Western Seminary's false claims and promises for which Western receives
millions of dollars from Title IV funding. In spite of this unambiguous point of law, the U.S. Department of
Education, with the knowledge of the President, the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the FBI, continues to
support Western Seminarys enforcement of the settlement agreement of March 14, 2006, as criteria for education to
circumvent the law, and to commit fraud against the United States of America.
55
262. According to recently obtained claims, if they are true, by the U.S. Department of Education,
Western Seminary has been paid in and around $15,000,000 from students using student aid programs. Under the
FCA, if the government intervenes in the qui tam action, the relator is entitled to receive between 15 and 25 percent
of the amount recovered from the school by the government through the qui tam action. If the government declines
to intervene in the action, the relators share is increased to 25 to 30 percent. These varieties provide for a possible
recovery range of $2,250,000 to $ 4,500,000 for the relator. Because the government is supporting the enterprise
and the educational fraud of Western Seminary, the Obama Administration has actually voided any FCA action
against Western Seminary before it could ever be filed.
K. The Exception Scheme.

263. Under 20 U.S.C. 1099b, accreditation agencies must enforce standards as criteria to evaluate
education (20 U.S.C. 1099b(a)(4)(A) regulated at 34 CFR 602.20). The conspirators knew they were losing the
underlying case in 2006. The school also faced a possible civil case for exposing Steve Korch as a child molester.
The conspirators were aware of the fact that they would lose donors (i.e., charitable donations of $797,614 to
Western in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015), the Seminary's accreditation, and current and future students unless
Western Seminary silenced Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson from informing the public, the government, and
others about the conspirator's violations of the law and defrauding the government. Thus, the conspirators leveraged
Randy Chapels desire to finish his education, and threatened him and his education directly and through counsel. If
Randy Chapel refused to accept and comply with the criteria of the settlement agreement for his education, then
Western Seminary, et al., would prevent him from finishing his degrees (threats are memorialized in writing) and
damage Randy Chapel and anyone linked to him. It is now known that the conspirators knew they could not
legitimately offer the changed education and degree criteria they demanded, but they did it anyway in order to
silence and extort Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson.
264. The conspirators used their standard tactic of false claims, false promises and extortion to get it
their way. This is why Western Seminary, et al., demanded 8 Non-Disparagement/Non-Disclosure/Non-
Interference, 9 Confidentiality, 10 Selected Speech, 11a Arbitration, 14 No-complaints; 15 No Cooperation
against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson. They linked those demands as criteria to Randy Chapel to retain
previously earned, graded, and paid for education as well as to earn additional education leading to degrees for a
Master of Divinity and Master of Theology under the threat of 11b Liquidated Damages. Western Seminary, et al.,
then used 6 Waiver of 1542, in order to cover up Western Seminary's ongoing illegal activities unknown to
Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson in March 2006, as the conspirators attempted to shield themselves when their
unlawfulness was discovered in the future.
265. Finally, knowing that a settlement agreement could be invalidated based on fraud, nondisclosure
of fraud, duress, illegality and undue influence, Western Seminary, et al., used threats of Randy Chapel losing
everything as a means to control him, and then the conspirators conspired with co-conspirators in an effort to
maintain the settlement agreement at all costs by ATS using unwritten, unpublished, and unregulated
accreditation policies claimed to exist, in order to override the U.S. Constitution, each state constitution,
federal and state laws and decisional cases. Government employees, the co-conspirators and conspirators have
insisted since 2007-2008 that Western Seminary's false claims and false promises in the settlement agreement of
March 14, 2006, are valid and compliant education criteria.
266. This is not the first time the U.S. Department of Education was facing such outrageous claims
being made by accreditors and schools. Each accreditor is reviewed for compliance with 34 C.F.R. PART 602 at
regular intervals. One such review occurred in December 2006 for the ABA, Counsel of the Legal Education and
Admission to the Bar. In and around December 2006, U.S. Department of Education had concerns the ABA,
Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar was utilizing unwritten, unpublished standards when
determining compliance with its standards,118 and the agency had also failed to establish that it has controls against
inconsistent application of a standard or that the standard is capable of being consistently applied without the
agency having to rely on unpublished standards.119
267. At the time, the ABA, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar was unable to
explain how the standard in question could be applied consistently without resorting to unpublished standards.120
Thus, the agency was deficient in demonstrating that it complied with 602.18(a), 18(b), and 602.23(a)(3).121 The

118
Transcript of the proceedings, December 2006. American Bar Association, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. p. 6
119
Ibid. p. 7
120
Ibid. p. 8
121
Ibid. p. 9
56
U.S. Department of Education at the time determined that such claims by the ABA, Counsel of the Legal Education
and Admission to the Bar might lead to schools violating state law122 or the U.S. Constitution.123 U.S. Department
of Education also noted for an institution to respond to some unpublished criteria124 that are not subject to the
kind of scrutiny125 as, published policies.
268. Deputy General Counsel Jeff Taylor for the U.S. Department of Education noted, Regulations do
require published standards so that individual institutions can understand what criteria is being used to judge
them.126 [34 C.F.R. 602.18(b), and 602.23(a)]
269. The U.S. Department of Education position in and around December 2006 was
Its certainly reasonable that the Department and the law anticipates that schools will conduct themselves,
will make sure that their behaviors are lawful. And certainly we would not want to approve an agency that
has standards or requirements that would require an institution to violate the law or the Constitutionbut
I get the impression from this, that what it says is that to meet, to comply with the standard as this agency
has written it would require or invite institutions to have to do things that would violate the law or the
Constitutionwould encourage or even require institutions to do things that were unlawful.127
270. After much research, the NACIQI advised the Secretary to hold ABA, Counsel of the Legal
Education and Admission to the Bar to provide to the U.S. Department of Education with an interim compliance
report demonstrating compliance with the Criteria for Recognition concerning the issues identified in the Summary
of Findings.128
271. Shortly after the confrontation of the ABA, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the
Bar in December 2006 and their unwritten policies, which were being used to trump the law, John Barth was
removed as Director of Accreditation and State Liaison, to a position in the Federal Student Aid Ombudsmans
office.129
272. In his place, a pro-business operative who would fall inline with the political hackery of and
under Margret Spellings, Nancy C. Regan became Director of Accreditation and State Liaison who Margret
Spellings used against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson. Nancy C. Regan was later removed, but like in the
case of John Barth, the reasons for her dismissal remain hazy.
L. The Settlement Scheme (A.K.A. Educational Fraud).

273. Conspirators knew they were losing the underlying case, and were facing a possible civil case
from exposing Steve Korch as a child molester. They knew if the conspirator's unlawfulness was exposed, the
school could lose donors, decreased numbers of students would attend, and the Seminary could lose its accreditation.
The conspirators strategically leveraged Randy Chapels desire to finish his education for two master degrees, and
threatened him directly and through counsel. If Randy Chapel refused to accept the entire settlement agreement as
criteria for his education (threats memorialized in writing), he would never have his education returned to him and
if he won the underlying lawsuit, the conspirators would block his education. It is now known that the conspirators
knew they could not legitimately offer the changed education and degree criteria they demanded, but they did it
anyway in order to silence and extort Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson. The conspirators used their standard
tactic of false claims, false promises and extortion to get it their way. This is why Western Seminary, et al.,
demanded 8 Non-Disparagement/Non-Disclosure/Non-Interference, 9 Confidentiality, 10 Selected Speech, 11a
Arbitration, 14 No-complaints; 15 No Cooperation against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson, and they linked
those demands as criteria for Randy Chapel to retain previously earned, graded, and paid for education and to earn
additional education leading to degrees for a Master of Divinity and Master of Theology and under the threat of
11b Liquidated Damages. Western Seminary, et al., then used 6 Waiver of 1542, in order to cover up Western
Seminary's ongoing illegal activities unknown to Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson in March 2006, as the
conspirators attempted to shield themselves when their unlawfulness was discovered in the future. Finally, knowing
that a settlement agreement could be invalidated based on fraud, nondisclosure of fraud, duress, illegality and

122
Ibid. p. 20
123
Ibid. p. 24
124
Ibid. p. 21
125
Ibid. p. 22
126
Ibid. p. 23
127
Ibid. p. 24
128
Ibid. p. 218
129
Doug Lederman. U.S. Accreditation Official Out of a Job. Access. May 19, 2012. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/29/barth
57
undue influence, Western Seminary, et al., used threats against Randy Chapel losing everything as a means to
control him, and Western Seminary et al conspired with others in an effort to maintain the settlement agreement at
all costs by using ATS' unwritten, unpublished, and unregulated accreditation policies claimed to exist, in
order to override the U.S. Constitution, each state constitution, federal and state laws and decisional cases.
Government employees, the co-conspirators and the conspirators have insisted since 2007-2008 that Western
Seminary's false claims and false promises in the settlement agreement of March 14, 2006, are valid and compliant
education criteria.
M. The Punitive or Exemplary Damages Scheme.

274. Because Western Seminary, et al. continued to act with malice, oppression, and fraud they faced
punitive or exemplary damages. In order to escape punitive or exemplary damages (California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 425.14), in particular Bert Downs, Rob Wiggins and Randal Roberts conspired with co-
conspirators from September 15, 2006, forward to ensure that no established evidence could substantiate a clear and
convincing standard of proof under Civil Code 3294.
VIII. POSSIBLE FEDERAL LAWS

275. 18 U.S.C. 241, 371, 875(d), 876(d), 880, 1001(a)(1), 1001(a)(2), 1001(a)(3), 1341, 1343, 1349,
1503, 1505, 1510, 1511, 1512(c)(1), 1512(c)(2), 1512(k), 1513(b)(1), 1513(b)(2) 1513(f), 1519, 19611968; 26
U.S.C. 7201, 7212.
IX. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JAMES A. SCHARF

276. The Department of Justice takes with utmost seriousness the public trust committed to it to
represent the interests of the American people in the courts of the United States, and insists that its attorneys adhere
to the high standards of ethical conduct and professionalism required to carry out that critical mission The
Department of Justice is committed to maintaining high standards of ethical conduct and professionalism for its
attorneys130
277. James Scharf has been and appears to be the preferred weapon of the Obama Administration
against Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson.
278. The California Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to regulate professional conduct of
members of the State Bar through discipline. The Rules were adopted by the Board of Trustees and approved by the
California Supreme Court pursuant to statute to protect the public and to promote respect and confidence in the legal
profession. The Rules and any related standards adopted by the Board are binding on all members of the State Bar.
Three Rules stand out regarding James Scharf's conduct:
a. A member shall not suppress any evidence that the member or the member's client has a
legal obligation to reveal or to produce. Rule 5-220 Suppression of Evidence.
b. A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member knows or should
know that the objective of such employment is: (A) To bring an action, conduct a defense,
assert a position in litigation, or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of
harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or (B) To present a claim or defense in litigation
that is not warranted under existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument
for an extension, modification, or reversal of such existing law. Rule 3-200 Prohibited
Objectives of Employment
c. A member shall not advise the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal unless the
member believes in good faith that such law, rule, or ruling is invalid. A member may take
appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.
Rule 3-210 Advising the Violation of Law
279. While the government is well aware of those Rules, including the U.S. Department of Justice and
the Obama Administration in general, they continued to use Scharf (and his conduct) as a weapon against Randy
Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson, causing life long damage in the process.
280. Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson have not simply had to fight the actions of the enterprise,
conspirators, and co-conspirators over the years, but they also had to fight the Obama Administration with James
Scharf supporting and defending the enterprise, conspirators, and co-conspirators over and against Chapel and Nye-
Wilson.

130
From DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY MAY 19, 2016 ORDER PENDING FURTHER REVIEW in State of Texas, et al., v. United
States of America, et al. United States District Court Southern District of Texas Brownsville Division, No. 14-cv-254-ASH
58
281. Carol was so disturbed by the Administration's weaponry use of James Scharf, she filed a
complaint131 against Scharf with the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Department of Justice, after
Scharf's maliciously mendacious comments to her in an email appearing as a means to an evil end. She stated in the
complaint:
The genesis of Mr. Scharfs conduct that caused this complaint occurred on March 20, 2012, I
asked Mr. Scharf in my e-mail if he objected to me attending our April 24, 2012 Case
Management Conference (CMC) telephonically. Mr. Scharf repied, No objection. I then
asked, Do you foresee any possible compromise as possible? Mr. Scharfs reply included
the following:
..the Agency has made a reasonable search and has produced responsive documents. If Judge
Grewal wants us to conduct more searches, we will. We are not intentionally withholding
documents, despite your sons belief to the contrary. Its time for him to move on, dont you
think? [emphasis bold]
Six hours later I replied to Mr. Scharfs mendacious question when I stated:
The calloused nature and actions of your clients and you against Randy and our family has
destroyed Randys lifeand it causes us deep pain as witnesses standing up for justice. This
is something that none of us can move on fromsince we are acting as responsible
Americans. This is not only Randys fight for justice....rather, it is our entire familys fight
for justice. Your statement, Its time for him to move on... demonstrates the calloused nature
and attitudes of you and your clients concerning the wrong that has been done against Randy
and us and the related damages we endure from your clients lies.
A person cannot simply move on when their whole life has been destroyed as has happened
to Randy due to government lies and fraud, and calloused disregard about the damages
theyve caused. We question why you and your clients claim to be concerned about possible
tragedy and at the same time you continue to push the same modus operandi against us that
you know harmed usto withhold or destroy records and lie about it in order to cover up
government negligence. No Americanstudent or family should be forced by the U.S.
government or accreditation agencies to live under this corruption forced on Randyand us.
Since 2010, I have experienced intense emotional anguish concerning the potential that my
son might fatally perish as a result of the governments corruption and ongoing cover up
rather than accountably coming clean about its negligence of duty. Ive had horrifying
nightmares about the destruction perpetrated by Department employees cooperating with
accreditors whose goals are to force my son and me to accept their unconscionable and
unlawful acts to help Western Seminary conceal fraud and a child molester as the only way
my son could finish his education.
Now Im not only fearful about my son harming himself due to his utter despair, but I now
fear my governments continued abuse and retaliation against me will take my son over the
edge. I have no sense of being protected by the government. Instead, I now feel I need to be
protected from the governments assaults against me, intending to willfully and maliciously
harm me, as it has been willing to do against Randy.
Ultimately, this is going to end badly. Destroying someones life leaves people depressed
and suicidal. That is what Western did, that is what ATS did to help its member school
(Western Seminary), and that is what the government has done with taxpayer money. I fear
Randy wont make it and this mega-corruption will cost his life. He has nothing to live for.
Based upon the malice conducted against me by U.S. Attorney, James Scharf, I expect that
this may be intended by the government to end tragically rather than doing whats right and
enforcing federal regulations which is also linked to Western, ATS, and NWCCU. People can

131
http://www.jamesscharf.com/20120402_ComplaintAgainstScharfFINAL.pdf
59
only be pushed so far. Randys damages are immense. Randy has nowhere to move on to,
and corrupt government acts working to divide us were a very bad choice.
282. The final blowup with James Scharf occurred after the complaint against James Scharf was filed
and he was confronted with it. James Scharf made it out that Randy Chapel intended to kill him, which was not true.
283. As a result, the Federal Marshals, FBI and Santa Cruz County law enforcement came to question
Randy Chapel. However, just as Carol Nye-Wilson noted in her complaint against James Scharf, Randy Chapel was
suffering and pushed to a point of wanting to die due to all that he had been through and forced to endure. He was
taken to the Mental Health center of the local hospital, where he stayed. Then, instead of releasing him, they
extended their hold by Scharf's false statement to insure that Randy Chapel would never be able to own or operate a
gun again. In the hospital meeting about Randy Chapel's case, evidence from the Federal Marshals was concealed
from the "Judge" until Carol Nye-Wilson introduced the evidence at the hearing. Only then did the hospital
representative for Randy provide confirmation of the Federal Marshal's statements regarding James Scharf, and that
there was no concern about Randy. The hospital refused to release the U.S. Marshal's notes, in spite of Randy's
several requests for them to the hospital representative.
284. Randy Chapel then faced the Santa Cruz County District Attorney at a hearing intent to take away
Randy's Second Amendment Rights. The attorney representing the Santa Cruz County District Attorney then
claimed and misrepresented to the Court that Randy Chapel made threats against the Santa Cruz County District
Attorney.
285. The discriminatory actions by the Santa Cruz County District Attorney office, the hospital, and the
Obama Administration did not amuse everyone. Subsequently, a person from the hospital provided Randy Chapel
his private hospital records, wherein it is written that no records were ever found by the attending psychologist
reviewing Randy Chapel whereby Randy Chapel had threatened James Scharf.
X. SUSAN ALLISTER
286. Susan Allister did not know the full extent of the corruption centered at Western Seminary or the
corruption involving the enterprise. Susan Allister took no part in any aspect of the case.
287. Unfortunately, Susan Allister used the corruption as a means to force a divorce and to retain Joel
indefinitely.
288. The events after and including May 10, 2010 would not have transpired, IF, the enterprise had
been dealt with.
289. The impact of the ongoing corruption of the enterprise on the marriage and lives of Joel Chapel,
Susan Allister, and Randy Chapel, and the marriage of Susan Allister and Randy Chapel (April 5, 2008) would have
negated, had Margaret Spellings and others within the U.S. Department of Education not supported the corruption of
the enterprise, nor defended it.
290. While Susan Allisters choices have caused damage, Susan Allister has been damaged as well, and
would be entitled to claims if it were not for the Obama Administrations actions to cover for and defend the
enterprise at all costs.
XI. JOEL CHAPEL

291. Joel Chapel has not seen or been with his father for at least 2041 days.
292. Joel Chapel will pay the highest in terms of physical, emotional, medical and financial damage.
293. The damage to Joel will be with him for the rest of his life and will impact others, betraying the
adverse reach the act of government supporting and defending the enterprise will have on his life.
294. Joel Chapel will never be who Joel Chapel was meant to be. Rather, he will be someone that was
shaped by an evil and immoral group of people hell bent to get their way, regardless the costs.
XII. CAROL NYE-WILSON & DALE WILSON

295. They have watched their son go from a life full of promises and joy to a person who has no future.
296. They have experienced physical, emotional, medical and financial damage.
297. They have spent their own money, savings and time not only defending against the enterprise but
also supporting Randy Chapel from being killed off by the enterprise.
298. They have never met Joel Chapel and will likely never will.
60
XIII. FORESEEABLE AND PREVENTABLE
299. A settlement agreement can be invalidated based on fraud, nondisclosure of fraud, duress,
illegality and undue influence. However, because the government has supported and defended the enterprise, no
civil action will succeed against Western Seminary. Not because of the merits, since the settlement agreement of
Western Seminary, et al. is based on illegal considerations (illegal contract), but because the government is
overruling the rule of law with rule by law. In essence, the governments actions to support and defend the criminal
activities of the enterprise by declaring Western Seminarys illegal considerations valid because it is sovereign, not
only violates the tenth amendment, but also makes the government a stakeholder in the corruption. Indeed, the
Obama Administration denied Federal Tort Claims Act demands: 1) Joel Chapel $500,000; 2) Dale Wilson
$1,050,000; 3) Carol Nye-Wilson $1,555,000; 4) Randy Chapel $40,000,000 under the claims of sovereignty and 28
U.S. Code 2680(h) protecting the enterprise and concealing the corruption, including corruption in government
instead.
300. The damages and losses were foreseeable and preventable had the government agencies, officials
and/or officers involved simply followed the laws, regulations and/or procedures. Instead of ensuring that these
egregious acts of misconduct never occur again, government fought Randy Chapel and Carol Nye-Wilson from
discovering the extent of the criminal conduct parties involved themselves with.
301. The government employees, conspirators, co-conspirators instead acted to suppress evidence and
created, maintained and defended a false narrative in order to protect the enterprise and conceal the corruption.
302. The government has now permanently damaged lives and has unjustifiably imposed irreparable
injury on Randy Chapel, Joel Chapel, Susan Allister, Dale Wilson and Carol Nye-Wilson. The aggressive, abusive,
ongoing misrepresentations by the Government and its attorneys in vivid support of the enterprise stand as a stark
contrast before the nation as to what American expect of the Department of Justice.
303. In particular to the irreparable injury, Randy Chapel has lost his family, home, land, things,
savings, Second Amendment rights, and future. Randy has over $40,000 in student loans.
304. Western filed a lien against Randy Chapel, which was achieved due to the support of the
enterprise operation. Instead of dealing with the government corruption and educational fraud, Randy Chapel was
instead psychologically tortured and emotionally water boarded.
305. On April 2, 2012 Carol Nye-Wilson wrote to the President Obama, Eric Holder, Robin Ashton,
Melinda Haag and many others and stated:
Ultimately, this is going to end badly I expect that this may be intended by the government to end
tragically rather than doing whats right and enforcing federal regulations which is also linked to Western,
ATS, and NWCCU.
306. Carol Nye-Wilson was right and this has now ended tragically against Randy Chapel and his
family.
XIV. CONCLUSIONS
307. My time at and dealing with Western Seminary, et al., involves some conspicuously wicked
people masquerading as and attempting to convince others that they are holy men. It is time to accept that Western
Seminary, child molester Steve Korch, Lynn Ruark, Gary Tuck, Randal Roberts, Rob Wiggins and Bert Downs are
common criminals, masquerading as holy men.
308. These individuals have stopped at nothing to maintain their faade before students, the Christian
Church, donors, the court, accreditors and the government. To remain accredited, licensed to operate and to
continue receiving Title IV funds, they are willing to damage beyond repair anyone and anything that gets in their
way.
309. Western Seminary, et al., make holy wars against those who question or stand up or refuse to
accept their demands under threats. Western Seminary, et al., will never stop, this is who they are and they see no
reason to change. As frauds with twisted religious, moral and ethical beliefs, there is practically no end to the
damage they are willing to cause. Persons interfacing with such people, as history has repeatedly shown are crushed,
damaged and destroyed if they are no successful over such parties.
310. Because the United States of America bares the nations teeth and made war to support and defend
the enterprise at all costs, it has created three particular problems.
1. Broadly speaking, the gestalt of the Government for years has been to misrepresent the issues
to favor the corruption. By doing the mental gymnastics one can reason that regardless of the
evidence and legal arguments the Randy Chapel or Carol Nye-Wilson uncover and note, it
61
follows that it doesn't matter if Randy Chapel is a model citizen or not, because the
Government will continue to misrepresent the issues to favor the corrupt actors. Thus, the
Government created a dilemma: why should Randy Chapel make the effort to be a model
citizen without the benefits and justice he deserves are being withheld from him by the
Government -- A Government hell bent on damaging his family and him? Government has
done this; Government has caused this dilemma; Government is furthering the problems
needlessly.
2. Because the government has taken the position to misrepresent the issues to favor the
corruption, the government simply cannot be trusted any longer regarding this case.
3. Regardless if the government wants to admit to it or not, by misrepresenting the issues to
favor the corruption, this has become a state sponsored assassination of Randy Chapels life,
everything to do in his life and those around him.
311. In adding up these various issues and the scope this document covers, it should be concluded that
there is no way the issues of this case can be or could be resolve through the justice system of the United States.
Bullying, abusing and damaging persons and families to the extent that Joel Chapel, Susan Allister, Carol Nye-
Wilson, Dale Wilson and Randy Chapel has endured produce diametric consequences. There are repercussions for
obstructing justice, abusing power, destroying and damaging the lives of a family and a person. Abusing people to
such a degree requires justice. Justice in this case will never be found through the government who has protected
the enterprise or through the courts.
312. The only way for the victims in this case to attain justice is to take justice into their own hands.
The Obama Administration is aware of this, has recently escalated matters and will use the outcome for its political
advantage. Government doesnt care how much damage this case causes.
20160602_AbridgedVictimImpactStatement.doc
62

AbridgedVictimImpactStatement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AbridgedVictimImpactStatement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

To: Barack Obama (Certified)

Loretta Lynch (Certified)

From: Randy Chapel

ABRIDGED VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT

REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND EDUCATIONAL FRAUD

CENTERED AT WESTERN SEMINARY

Cover to President Obama ...........................................................................................................................................5

President Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

April 28, 2008

May 31, 2011

Instead, I have lost everything now. I have lost

May 13, 2013

November 12, 2014

April 12, 2015

You got what you wanted - Catastrophic Personal Injury

II. THE ENTERPRISE

Figure 1. Legal Entities and Individuals of the Enterprise

C. The Association of Theological Schools

D. The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities

IV. THE CO-CONSPIRATORS

B. The Legal Side Of The Enterprise

iii. The States Role in Education (Degree Authority)

iv. Accreditations Role in Education (Quality & Gatekeeper)

d. The dark side of ATS accreditation

C. The Centrality of the U. S. Financial System

D. The Centrality and Failure of the AAEU // Accreditation Group

VI. STATEMENT REGARDING THE RACKETEERING CONSPIRACY

VII. STATEMENTS REGARDING THE SCHEMES

P57: 2 Q. Has it ever been your impression right up

iii. No Section 504 Program, Policies, or Coordinator

v. Implications of this scheme

vi. Informed Government Covers For The Enterprise

B. The Conflict of Interest Scheme (ATS & NWCCU).

C. The Substantive Change Scheme (ATS).

E. The Steve Korch Child Molestation Cover-up Scheme.

F. The Steve Korch Secret Agreement and Tax Evasion Scheme.

G. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2003.

H. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2007.

I. The Program Participation Agreement Scheme of 2013.

J. The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729-3733) Scheme.

K. The Exception Scheme.

L. The Settlement Scheme (A.K.A. Educational Fraud).

M. The Punitive or Exemplary Damages Scheme.

VIII. POSSIBLE FEDERAL LAWS

IX. ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY JAMES A. SCHARF

XI. JOEL CHAPEL

XII. CAROL NYE-WILSON & DALE WILSON

You might also like