[Jim Campbell]

8.-----On or about May 19, 2006, having seen the media announcements of a half-dozen landowners “partnering” with the MCDC and realizing the huge impetus that such a large group of “partnering” landowners would have towards the successful start to the border fence project, a donor previously identified herein as Jim Campbell stepped forward and offered to contribute financially to help this border fence project succeed. Mr. Campbell was directed to Defendant KUNZ, who was identified as the Fence Project Manager. Defendant KUNZ represented to Mr. Campbell during the first of a total of two interstate telephone calls, that the border frontage owned by a Mr. Jack and a Mr. John Ladd would be the site upon which the model of the “Israeli-style” fence would be constructed. The Ladd’s owned and/or leased a total of 10 miles of border frontage upon which it was also represented to Mr. Campbell by Defendant KUNZ that the Ladd’s had granted the MCDC permission to build ten miles of an “Israeli-style” fence. Mr. Campbell responded by donating $100,000. with the express condition that his donation would be used exclusively to purchase the then-available structural steel from which to fabricate the heavy fence posts that would be then be placed along this 10-miles of border frontage. Mr. Campbell documented these conditions via an electronic mail transmission on May 21, 2006, directed to Defendants KUNZ, SIMCOX, and SHELDON. Both Defendants SIMCOX and SHELDON had a duty to instruct Defendant Kunz to immediately notify Mr. Campbell that his $100,000. donation would not be dedicated to the purchase of structural steel tubing from which steel posts would be fabricated and used along this ten miles of the Ladd’s border frontage, but -in part - would instead be used in the construction of ten miles of “cattle fencing”.

9.-----On May 22, 2006, Defendant LEWIS initiated an interstate telephone call from her residence in Seal Beach, California to Mr. Campbell requesting that Mr. Campbell wire-transfer his announced $100,000. donation to Declaration Foundation. (Which Mr. Campbell did.) In that first and subsequent interstate telephone conversations and electronic mail transmissions, Defendant LEWIS acknowledged that this steel "would be a linch-pin element" of the upcoming fence project on Ladds' property and talked frequently and knowledgeably with Mr. Campbell about subjects such as the ultimate design, fabrication, as well as the integration and the coordination of the steel posts into the construction activities that would already be going on on the Ladd’s property. At no time during these conversations did Defendant LEWIS disclose to Mr. Campbell that her attorney was then negotiating with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bureau of Charitable Organizations a Settlement Agreement relating to allegations (criminal) made by that Office of Defendant LEWIS’ having “Made material False statements in applications and documents required to be submitted to that Office. These were the falsified returns of the same Declaration Foundation in whose care Defendant LEWIS had already successfully induced Mr. Campbell to direct his $100,000. donation to.

10.-----On or about June 24, 2006, via electronic media transmission from Minuteman Headquarters, Defendant SIMCOX announced that: "We have a monumental challenge ahead to raise $55 million . . ". The $55 million figure was the "build-out" figure for 70 miles of contiguous border frontage and represents their “envisioned”, total, potential magnitude of the their fraudulent scheme.

11.-----Defendant SIMCOX - acting as a fiduciary - utilized his position of trust to obtain a benefit for himself and co-conspirators at the expense of the General Public - whose trust he thereby breached/abused. These breaches of duty were accompanied by misrepresentations and non disclosures that Defendant SIMCOX intended and contemplated would deprive the General Public (to whom the duty was owed) of some legally significant benefit: Specifically, the realization that (beginning with the “model fence”, of whatever length donations would permit) there would at least be sufficient cooperating landowners (6-9) with border frontage, to “potentially” allow this model to extend for considerable distances along their respective border frontages. . A ”potential” continuation of what was falsely “represented” to this General Public as a viable, and credible length of “Israeli-style” fencing. Instead, precious financial resources were diverted to the construction of 10 miles of “cattle fencing” and away from what has only been the partial completion of only a nine-tenths of a mile section of an “Israeli-style” fence. This nine-tenths of a mile section represents the TOTAL border frontage belonging to just the ONE participating landowner. Out of the total 6 to 9 landowners which Defendant SIMCOX and/or the MCDC media director had represented as having agreed to participate, this was the only landowner which had actually existed up until then, or has ever existed throughout the course of this fraudulent scheme.

Defendant SIMCOX, as well as his co-conspirators, were aware even prior to the April 19, 2006, fence announcement date that the Ladd’s (the landowners upon whose land the MCDC was to have its groundbreaking) had rejected outright the MCDC’s offer to build an “Israeli-style fence, yet Defendants SIMCOX, LEWIS, and KUNZ persisted in promoting their fraudulent fence scheme to Mr. Campbell and the General Public, alike.

12.-----The evidence shows that Defendants SIMCOX’s, LEWIS’, and KUNZ’s initial misrepresentations, false representations and omissions were "material" and demonstrated that these defendants never intended to be bound by any fiduciary duty to their victims; and these defendants had thus created an identifiable economic risk for their donors. ("the prosecution must prove only that the defendant intended to breach his fiduciary duty, and reasonably should have foreseen that the breach would create an identifiable economic risk.")

13.-----These misrepresentations, half-truths, omissions were 'material'. (At issue for an 'honest services' fraud conviction must be 'material' such that the misinformation or omission naturally tended to lead or was capable of leading a reasonable victim to change its conduct.")

14.-----Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER made deceitful statements of half-truths and/or concealed material facts and devised a scheme for obtaining money or property by such statements or concealment.

15.-----The evidence shows that the Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER concealed or failed to disclose material facts while also making partial or ambiguous statements that warranted additional disclosure to avoid having been misleading.

16.-----Defendants SIMCOX’, KUNZ’s, and MERCER’s failure to disclose can be regarded as intending to defraud or obtain money or property by deceit.

17.-----Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, LEWIS, and MERCER performed deceptive acts or contrivances such as the creation of, and subsequent failure to disclose the existence of: Minuteman Fence Fund, Minuteman Foundation, Inc., and Minuteman Border Fence Scheme. - which acts or contrivances were intended to hide information, mislead, avoid suspicion, or avert further inquiry into a material matter.

18.-----In May, 2007, Mr. Campbell filed a civil complaint against Defendants SIMCOX, LEWIS, KUNZ, and SHELDON alleging the fraudulent inducement of Mr. Campbell's $100,000. donation. Defendant SIMCOX mal-appropriated $30,900. of the MCDC donors' money to pay for the costs of these defendants’ collective defense. Additionally:

1. Defendant Simcox, "being first duly sworn upon my oath", made material and unconditional false statements in a declaration submitted into court in his attorney's "ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT”.

2. Likewise, Defendant Kunz (responding pro se) made material and unconditional false statements in a declaration submitted into court in his “MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS“.

Mr. Campbell then realized the futility of attempting to obtain legal redress in the civil arena and thereafter dismissed his civil suit.

19.-----Defendants SIMCOX, KUNZ, and MERCER made omissions and/or concealed material information which constituted fraud cognizable under the mail fraud statute, without proof of a duty to disclose the information pursuant to a specific statute or regulation.

20.-----Defendant SIMCOX, as a fiduciary, utilized his trusted position to obtain a benefit for himself and the other co-conspirators, but at the expense of the General Public whose trust he breached. The breach was accompanied by material non-disclosures and misrepresentations to the party owed the duty: the General Public.

21.-----Throughout the course of this fraudulent scheme, Defendants SIMCOX and KUNZ have caused to be utilized mass-mailing/ mass-marketing at frequent intervals in the promotion of this fraudulent scheme.

22.-----In the two and one half years since the February, 2007, failure and consequent abandonment of the border fence project, Defendant LEWIS (through Declaration Foundation and Declaration Alliance) and Defendants SIMCOX and MERCER (through the MCDC), have persisted in causing to be maintained viable donation links to the "designated fence donation webpage"; and in the case of the Minuteman Foundation, Inc., Defendants LEWIS and MERCER have caused to be solicited direct donations, thus bypassing the caging officer.

23.-----Between in or about December 30, 2005, and continuing to at least June, 2008, the defendants named herein have combined to engage on a continuing basis in conduct that violates the provisions of the felony statutes ARS 13-2310 and 13-2311. Under the provisions of ARS 13-2301, C., 7., these defendants meet the statutory definition of a Criminal Syndicate.