Foia Case 16-CV00104 Som RLP

4
Carol Nye-Wilson
Randy Chapel
PO Box 711419
Mountain View, HI 96771
E: carolnyewilson@yahoo.com
P: 808-756-0936
In Pro Per
1
2
3
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
CAROL NYE-WILSON, RANDY CHAPEL, ) Case No.:

)
) COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
)
EDUCATION, UNITED STATES
)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
)
)
)
Defendants
)
)
18
19
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Carol Nye-Wilson and Randy Chapel bring this action against Defendant U.S. Department
20
21
of State and U.S. Department of Education to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information
22
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 ("FOIA"), as the Government acts to withhold records from Plaintiffs in multiple
23
Departments as a common practice against the Plaintiffs and open record laws. As grounds therefore,
24
Plaintiffs allege as follows:
25
1.
The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B) and 28
26
27
28
U.S.C. 1331.
2.
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e).
FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 1

Records Custodian: Carol Nye-Wilson, PO Box 711419, Mountain View, HI 96771, E: carolnyewilson@yahoo.com, P: 808-756-0936
PARTIES
1
2
3
4
3.
Carol Nye-Wilson (NYE-WILSON) and Randy Chapel (CHAPEL) seek to
promote transparency, integrity, and accountability in government, and fidelity to the rule of law.
Plaintiffs regularly request records from federal agencies pursuant to the FOIA to seek an accounting
5
6
of what the Government has been done to harm NYE-WILSON, CHAPEL, and CHAPEL's family.
Plaintiffs will disseminate the findings and the requested records to the American public to inform
them about "what their government is up to.
9
10
4.
The Plaintiffs also will inform the public of the irreparable damage by the
Government in concert with several immoral and unethical Religious frauds, three insurance carriers,
11
12
two accreditors, approximately one dozen attorneys/ law firms, and members of the U.S. Departments
13
of Education and Justice to willfully and knowingly cause as much irreversible damage as possible,
14
while perpetuating known corruption and fraud via their principal actor, Assistant U.S. Attorney
15
James A. Scharf (SCHARF) for the Department of Justice.
16
5.
Defendant U.S. Department of State (STATE) is an agency of the United States
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Government and is headquartered at 2201 C Street N.W., Washington, DC 20520. Defendant STATE
has possession, custody, and control of records to which Plaintiffs seek access.
6.
Defendant U.S. Department of Education (USDE) is an agency of the United States
Government and is headquartered at U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20202. Defendant USDE has possession, custody, and control of records to which
Plaintiffs seek access.
7.
The United States Government has a history of withholding records and information
26
from Plaintiffs by refusing to be transparent, accountable, and by ignoring rule of law. It refuses
27
transparency and accountability. It refuses rule of law. The United States Government with other
28

parties have caused as much irreversible damage to Plaintiffs as possible, while perpetuating known
corruption and fraud that harms the public welfare.
3
4
8.
Jeffersons view of Government held that government can only do what is explicitly
enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. One hundred years later, Theodore Roosevelt
5
6
disagreed, holding that government can do anything that is not specifically prohibited in the
Constitution, and Government had to be more central and assertive than what the Constitution had
envisioned.1 Two hundred years after Jefferson, the Bush Administration's expansive vision of
executive power eclipsed the Constitution's mandated system of checks and balances. Some see the
10
11
12
Bush years as lurching toward an imperial presidency, posing a direct threat to the essence of
American liberty.2 The overall case and issues are in part, a symptom of that Administrations
13
obscene power-grab at the direct expense of individual liberties, parameters set forth in the U.S.
14
Constitution, State Constitutions, federal and state laws and decisional cases.
15
16
9.
For the record, all the Obama Administration (OA) had to do was steer clear of the
train wreck of Margaret Spellings (SPELLINGS), et al., and her explicit need to prostitute herself
17
18
for corporate America. Instead, the OA simply added to the massive SPELLINGS clusterfuck by
19
continuing the Governments cover up instead of enforcing rule of law that resulted in irreparable
20
damage and educational scandal, the likes of which America has not seen since the Teapot Dome and
21
Watergate scandals.
22
23
24
25
10.
In spite of everything going for Arne Duncan (DUNCAN) in 2009 to clearly skirt,
and distinctly distance himself from the massive SPELLINGS clusterfuck, he defended the
disastrously mishandled undertakings by SPELLINGS, and multiplied the damage.
26
27
28
1 Ken Burns: The Roosevelts: An Intimate History, Directed by Ken Burns, (2014; Alexandria, VA: PBS Distribution, 2014), DVD.
2 www.csmonitor.com/USA/2009/0114/p11s01-usgn.html . Read: Unchecked And Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror by Frederick
A. O. Schwarz Jr
1
2
3
WESTERN SEMINARY FUNCTIONS LIKE A CRIME SYNDICATE WITH OTHERS

AIDING ONGOING SCHEMES OF CORRUPTION AND FRAUD
11.
Over the course of a number of years, RICO parties Western Seminary
(WESTERN), Steve Korch (KORCH), Gary Tuck (TUCK), Lynn Ruark (RUARK), Randal
4
5
Roberts (ROBERTS), Rob Wiggins (WIGGINS) and Bert Downs (DOWNS) with their co-
conspirators: The Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS),
Daniel Aleshire (ALESHIRE), Jeremiah McCarthy (MCCARTHY), Charles Willard
(WILLARD), Tisa Lewis (LEWIS), The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
(NWCCU), Sandra E. Elman (ELMAN), GuideOne Insurance Company (GUIDEONE),
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (BROTHERHOOD) and Tudor Insurance Company

(TUDOR). WESTERN is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation engaged in activities affecting
interstate or foreign commerce.
12.
There are several enterprises involved. WESTERN's enterprise includes and is not
limited to employees KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, ROBERTS, WIGGINS and DOWNS. The
NWCCU enterprise includes and is not limited to employee ELMAN. The ATS enterprise includes
and is not limited to current and former employees ALESHIRE, MCCARTHY, WILLARD and
LEWIS.
13.
The enterprises, RICO parties, with their co-conspirators used the services of
attorneys, in an attempt to cover-up communications, plans, goals, and practices for the enterprises,
RICO parties, and their co-conspirators. The attorneys include:
23
24
25
26
27
a. ATS: Tom Johnson, John Barber, Lisa Sween, Jessica Luke and others.
b. NWCCU: Michael Madden and others.
c. WESTERN: Linda McPharlin, Jonathan Radmacher, Thomas Hadley, Anthony
Lauria, Mark Shem, Anthony Zand, Sam Phillips, Andrew Adler, Ellen Hung,
David Trent, and others.
d. KORCH: Linda McPharlin and others.
28

1
2
3
4
14.
The various RICO parties at all times relevant were employed by their respective
enterprises and practiced a pattern of racketeering activity, conducted or participated, directly or

indirectly, in their various enterprising affairs. Beginning in 2001, or earlier, and continuing through
2016, RICO parties and their co-conspirators engaged in a continuing pattern of racketeering activity,
5
6
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
10
CHAPEL, NYE-WILSON, Major Dr. Dale Wilson, PhD. (Army ret.) (WILSON), and by extension
11
12
13
14
15
16
Joel Chapel (JOEL) and Susan Allister (SUSAN), while supporting the personal and corporate
unlawful gain of the enterprises, RICO parties, and co-conspirators.
15.
The enterprises, RICO parties, and co-conspirators engaged in a pattern of
racketeering activity so deeply embedded, pervasive, and continuous that it was effectively
institutionalized as a business practice, thereby corrupting the very mission of the enterprises, while
17
18
donors to WESTERN, for example, believed they were supporting WESTERNs original and
19
approved mission.
20
16.
21
22
23
24
25
Unfortunately for America and the cause of justice, the enterprises, RICO parties, and
co-conspirators interfaced their schemes with the U.S. Government, which directly and indirectly
protected the enterprises, RICO parties, co-conspirators.
17.
The difference between the indictments against FIFA et al. and this case? The
enterprises, RICO parties, and co-conspirators cooperate with, rely upon, are encouraged by, and are
26
directly and indirectly protected by the U.S. Government to collectively, actively, knowingly, and
27
willfully promote the corruption and fraud of the enterprises, RICO parties, and co-conspirators. This
28

occurs because the corruption and fraud of the enterprises, RICO parties, and co-conspirators is
interwoven with the cover up for current and former U.S. Government employees who exceeded their
power and obstruct justice as the government did to Plaintiffs.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PROTECTION
5
6
18.
The conduct of the enterprises, RICO parties, and co-conspirators violates the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 28 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., among many other
federal and state laws, as well as the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution and decisional
cases. The Government, and in particular OA, has acted to cover up the racketeering, conspiracy,
10
11
wire fraud, money-laundering conspiracy, making willfully false statements and documents to federal
12
authorities, money laundering, and student aid fraud. In spite of this knowledge by the Government
13
and OA, it has acted to protect the enterprises, RICO parties, and co-conspirators at all costs over and
14
against CHAPEL, NYE-WILSON and their family members, causing irreparable damage.
15
FALSE CLAIMS ACT (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 - 3733
16
17
19.
The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 - 3733 was enacted in 1863 by a
18
Congress concerned that suppliers of goods to the Union Army during the Civil War were defrauding
19
the Army. The FCA provided that any person who knowingly submitted false claims to the
20
government was liable for double the governments damages plus a penalty of $2,000 for each false
21
claim. Since then, the FCA has been amended several times. In 1986, there were significant changes
22
23
to the FCA, including increasing damages from double damages to treble damages and raising the
24
penalties from $2,000 to a range of $5,000 to $10,000. The FCA has been amended three times since
25
1986. Over the life of the statute it has been interpreted on hundreds of occasions by federal courts.
26
In fiscal year 2015 alone, the Justice Department recovered over $3.5 Billion from false claim cases.
27
28

1
2
3
4
20.
To violate the FCA a person must have submitted, or caused the submission of the
false claim (or made a false statement or record) with knowledge of the falsity.
21.
As the OA is now chiefly aware, WESTERN has been in violation of the FCA due to
its false claims in the Program Participation Agreement (PPA) required by USDE under Title IV
5
6
and HEA requirements since 2003, in order for schools to apply for and receive Title IV federal
student financial aid. The OA supports schools like WESTERN circumventing the FCA through
intimidation, threats, coercion, and extortion of a students education and all future education
leading to master degrees. Some 40% of Western Seminary's income is from Title IV funds. The
10
Higher Education Act ("HEA") mandates that an educational institution is ineligible to request Title
11
12
IV student loan and grant funds without first executing a PPA with the Secretary of Education. The
13
PPA requires participating schools to maintain compliance with the HEA, Section 504, Title IV, Title
14
VI, FERPA, and etc. in order to receive Title IV federal student aid funds. If an institution submits
15
knowingly false promises to comply with the HEA and other federal statutes and regulations required
16
by the mandatory PPA, and willfully violates them or is knowingly and willfully violating them at the
17
18
time of signing the PPA, it is actionable under the FCA. The controlling case on point is United
19
States of America ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v. University of Phoenix; Civil Action
20
No. 2:03-cv-00457-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal.), which netted a $78.5 million settlement.
21
22
23
24
25
22.
Defended by the OA, schools like WESTERN can use settlement agreements to
prevent students, employees and members of the public from whistle blowing to the government or
filing FCA cases. Schools like WESTERN can falsify or destroy records, make false statements to
federal investigators, commit tax evasion, make false claims, block First Amendment rights of
26
students and their families, retaliate against whistle blowers reporting Section 504 fraud, obstruct
27
justice, conceal child molestations, and commit offenses of dishonesty in fiscal responsibilities, etc.
28

1
2
3
4
23.
WESTERN has been approved for Federal Student Aid Programs (FSAP) since
2003. Since that time, its tuition and fees has increased to $5,526,839 per fiscal year, whereby forty
percent coming from FSAP. That is a maximum cap of $71,848,907 for tuition and fees since 2003,
with a maximum of $28,739,562.80 paid by FSAP since 2003. Without FSAP in 2003, WESTERN
5
6
would have been out of business and insolvent, since it already had financial troubles for which
NWCCU placed WESTERN on institutional probation in 2003. The OA and most importantly, the
PRESIDENT, the Attorney General, the current and former Secretary of Education and other high
ranking members of Defendant USDE involved in FSAP are now chiefly aware of this due to the
10
investigative work by relator Plaintiffs.
11
12
24.
Under the FCA, if the government intervenes in the qui tam action, the relator is
13
entitled to receive between 15 and 25 percent of the amount recovered from the school by the
14
government through the qui tam action. If the government declines to intervene in the action, the
15
relators share is increased to 25 to 30 percent. These varieties provide for a possible recovery range
16
of $4,310,934.42 to $8,621,868.84 from the school for the relator Plaintiffs.
17
18
25.
CHOOSING TO NOT INVESTIGATE IS NOT AN OPTION FOR THE
19
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. The U.S. Congress makes it clear that (31 U.S. Code 3730) The
20
Attorney General diligently shall investigate a violation under section 3729. If the Attorney General
21
finds that a person has violated or is violating section 3729, the Attorney General may bring a civil
22
23
24
25
action under this section against the person.

26.
THE OA INSTEADS CHOOSES TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND ABUSE
POWER AGAINST PLAINTIFFS. We have learned, attorneys are reluctant to take the FCA
26
case against WESTERN in fear of retaliation directly or indirectly against themselves and
27
current or future cases by Justice. Because the United States Government is directly involved in
28

the corruption and fraud supporting and defending directly and/or indirectly the enterprises, RICO
parties, and co-conspirators, the OA is in violation of the law. Obstructing justice and abuse of
3
4
power by the OA in this case are grounds for impeachment (U.S. Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4.) and
clearly grounds for employment termination by Justice attorneys like James A. Scharf.
5
6
7
8
9
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)

27.
The FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, permitting citizens to
pursue some tort claims against the government. There are times when the Government screws up,
fails, and in some cases the subsequent damage can wipe out an entire family as in the controlling
10
11
case of Don Yoon, et al. v. United States, United States District Court for the Southern District of
12
California, Case No. 3:10-CV-1578 JM. In Yoon, Don Yoons wife, two daughters and mother-in-
13
law were tragically killed when a Navy/Marine Corps jet crashed into the Yoon home. The United
14
States Government fought, but finally admitted liability for the crash that was caused by improper
15
16
17
18
maintenance of the jet which is analogous to improper oversight of WESTERN, ATS and NWCCU
by the Defendant USDE which caused irreparable damage to Plaintiffs and their family members.
28.
Defendant USDE has an ongoing history of failing oversight of accreditors and thus
19
schools as noted in the 2003 audit by the Inspector General of Defendant USDE. This case and the
20
impact it has had on CHAPEL, and thus SUSAN, JOEL, NYE-WILSON and WILSON, underscores
21
22
23
24
this point. CHAPELs life is now eviscerated and his family has been completely destroyed.
SUSAN is off with someone else, and is raising JOEL as if CHAPEL doesnt exist as JOELs father.
29.
On October 7, 2011, Jill Siegelbaum, Attorney in the Office of General Counsel for
25
Defendant USDE admitted under oath that Defendant USDE had no responsive records and is
26
unaware of any other location where such records might be located regarding records required for
27
letters and actions in 2007-2008 by Defendant USDE. Similarly, on December 10, 2015, Defendant
28

USDE stated it does not have any records documenting any type of waiver or exception to
the provisions of the PPA. The OA and most importantly, the PRESIDENT, the Attorney
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
General, the current and former Secretary of Education, and other high ranking members of
Defendant USDE are aware that at the heart of this case are the ongoing enforcement failures by
Defendant USDE that have now completely and irreparably destroyed a family by all of this with
irreparable damage to the relationships.
30.
In 2012, Plaintiffs sued the USDE under the FTCA for over $40,000.000. The OA
continued to protect and cover for the school (WESTERN) and two accreditors, while flushing
millions of dollars of federal money from taxpayers to the school. The USDE and particularly the OA
11
12
13
brushed aside justice under two claims: 1) Sovereign, and 2) 28 U.S. Code 2680(h).
31.
Due to the U. S. Government intervening in this case to support the corruption and
14
fraud of the enterprises, the RICO parties, and the co-conspirators, due to SPELLINGS' underhanded
15
actions in 2008, WESTERN remains in business and unjustly accredited and as far as the unaware
16
public, courts, donors, students, alumni and U.S. Congress know, and did nothing wrong, while
17
18
CHAPEL, SUSAN, JOEL, NYE-WILSON, and WILSON unjustly suffer.
19
20
21
SPELLINGS
32.
It is time to publicly call out SPELLINGS for what she has done that has caused so
much damage to so many people. It should be clearly understood that Plaintiffs are not the only ones
22
23
24
impacted by all of this. While SPELLINGS only now admits her actions and statements regarding
the censorship of the TV show Postcards from Buster were wrong and a mistake, she is and has
25
been the controlling factor. Without her advocating for the corrupt and fraudulent Religious and
26
other educational leaders, it is reasonable to conclude that the Government would NEVER EVER
27
have become so deeply involved in this case.
28

1
2
3
4
33.
This SPELLINGS train wreck and her explicit need to prostitute herself for corporate
America is her problem and lifestyle choice, not the OAs. It is time the OA realizes that
SPELLINGS needs to be thrown under the bus rather than protect that corporate whore.
34.
The U.S. Government, and in particular, the OA claims sovereign privilege and 28
5
6
U.S. Code 2680(h) to support SPELLINGS, her special interests and corrupt Government
employees. By doing this, the U.S. Government and in particular the OA, has directly inserted itself
into the conflict, obstructing justice in two civil cases, while abusing power and destroying lives.
9
10
35.
It says a great deal about a sovereign that it must be deceitful and act with trickery. A
lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesnt become right and evil doesnt become good just because the
11
12
13
14
15
16
sovereign says so.

OBAMA AND OTHERS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON
36.
Who in Government knows about this case? The PRESIDENT, Attorney General
(Holder, Lynch) and other high ranking members in the Department of Justice, former and current
directors of the FBI, current and former U.S. Attorneys across the United States, each member of the
17
18
U.S. Congress, former and current employees of the U.S. Department of Education and State, and
19
many more. Each and everyone one of them in Government has received factual information about
20
this case of Government corruption and educational fraud that irreparably damaged Plaintiffs.
21
22
23
24
25
26
37.
The U.S. Government and in particular, the OA has fought for a lack of transparency
and the lack of accountability, and thereby perpetuating the massive SPELLINGS clusterfuck. It
was under SPELLINGS that the General Counsel Office (TALBERT) instructed Defendant USDE
employees via memo to disregard and not to speak with Plaintiffs CHAPEL, NYE-WILSON and
their attorney, John Hannon making things worse. SPELLINGS, et al., placed their desire to avoid
27
28

public scandal over the well being of a family, to nourish the Religious regarding a sex offender and
their corruption.
3
4
38.
SPELLINGS, et al., didnt merely obstruct justice and abuse power in 2007-2008.
SPELLINGS, et al., set the Governments vision to eviscerating CHAPEL and NYE-WILSON using
5
6
the Government as a means to an end. To the extent that the OA proceeded to continued that
evisceration, and most unquestionably by using James A. Scharf as a preferred weapon of the
Government, betrays the depths of grave depravity Government has been willing to take this case.
9
10
39.
Superintendent Beverly Hall was indicted for her involvement in the Atlanta Public
Schools cheating scandal. The GBI report said she knew or should have known what was going on.
11
12
Throughout this entire ordeal, CHAPEL and NYE-WILSON have repeatedly written to PRESIDENT
13
and others within the U.S. Government, often using certified letter to prove receipt and to show that
14
the OA knew or should have known what was going on.
15
16
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
40.
Plaintiffs and their family members are irreparably damaged by the U.S. Government
17
18
and in particular by the OA, while the OA continues to support, defend, and cover up educational
19
corruption and fraud with public money at all costs, since the cover up also serves the ongoing
20
failures by Defendant USDE, Defendant STATE, the Department of Justice, and a host of others.
21
22
23
24
25
26
41.
The OA is playing with fire and it doesnt care how many people or families are hurt.
As a result of the willful and unjustified damage perpetrated against Plaintiff CHAPEL, he has lost
his education, his house, his land, his things, his 2nd Amendment rights, his professional pursuits, and
most of all his family, because the Government will stop at nothing to cover for the enterprises, the
RICO parties, and the co-conspirators.
27
28

1
2
3
4
42.
Plaintiff CHAPEL no longer has any will to continue. He sees no future for himself,
and has become a shell of a human. His life, his 2nd Amendment rights, his things and property, and
most of all his family were eviscerated before his eyes. Acting on behalf of the Government,
SCHARF says CHAPEL should just move on.
5
6
7
Basically, .......... Government, et al., screwed your life completely over, now move
on and live with it.
43.
The Government's lack of rule of law and cover up of corruption and fraud--beginning
8
9
with SPELLINGS through the present OA--resulted in a magnitude of educational fraud and chaos
10
that devastated Plaintiff's very will to live, while it also damaged the integrity of higher education and
11
accreditation. Should anything happen to Plaintiff CHAPEL, there is a paper trail for third parties
12
interested in this case tracing back to the Government sources, and their willful and knowing actions
13
and inactions.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAPEL IS A PROTECTED PARTY UNDER THE LAW

44.
On or about the fall 2001, CHAPEL became aware of Matt Tuck (son of TUCK) being
cheated through WESTERN under false claims of disability (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973). WESTERN did not have a Section 504 program, coordinator, or any required policies or
procedures. Through FOIA responses in 2010, CHAPEL was able to piece together WESTERN's lies
to OCR-SF in 2005. DUNCAN and OCR-SF received CHAPELs OCR Review exposing
WESTERNs lies the first week of January 2011 (SUSAN filed to divorced CHAPEL 30 days later).
45.
RUARK, with other administrators at WESTERN, willfully made known
misrepresentations to OCR by false statements and backdated documents (CA Penal Code 134) in
order to mislead federal authorities during a federal investigation in order to appear that WESTERN
26
27
28
was compliant with Section 504. Plaintiffs now know that this was done, because such impacted
WESTERNs signed PPA since 2003 and involvement in FSAP. CHAPEL has been at all times
protected from retaliation. Barker v. Riverside County Office of Educ. (9th Cir. 2009) 584 F.3d 821,
and now 31 U.S.C. 3730(h)(1) IN GENERAL.Any employee, contractor, or agent shall be
3
4
entitled to all relief necessary to make that employee, contractor, or agent whole, if that employee,
contractor, or agent is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner
5
6
discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done by the
employee, contractor, or agent on behalf of the employee, contractor, or agent or associated others in
furtherance of other efforts to stop 1 or more violations of this subchapter.
9
10
46.
CHAPEL's protection from WESTERNs retaliation would also include, 31 U.S.C.
3730(h)(2) RELIEF.Relief under paragraph (1) shall include reinstatement with the same
11
12
seniority status that employee, contractor, or agent would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times
13
the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages
14
sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
15
An action under this subsection may be brought in the appropriate district court of the United States
16
for the relief provided in this subsection.
17
18
47.
In the fall of 2001, CHAPEL was an employee of WESTERN and he was forced out
19
of his position and as a student in 2002, due to actions taken by WESTERN, RUARK, KORCH,
20
TUCK, ROBERTS, WIGGINS, and DOWNS. Further, as CHAPEL was also a student, The harm of
21
wrongful expulsion is immediate, real and irreparable. Carlos Martinez v. University of Colorado,
22
23
24
25
District Court, County of Boulder, State of Colorado OF, Case No. 2000 CV 658. Private
universities may not act arbitrarily and capriciously towards students. Babcock v. New Orleans
Baptist Theological Seminary, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. November 16, 1989.
26
(An ATS accredited school. The court determined that the seminary acted in a manner that was
27
grossly unfair and arbitrary.) The doctrine prohibiting arbitrary and capricious discipline
28

prevents universities from disciplining students maliciously or dishonestly because a university does
not have the right of arbitrary dismissal Robinson v. University of Miami, 100 So. 2d 442, 444 (Fla.
3
4
Dist. Ct. App. 1958).

48.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Tinker v. Colwell, 193 U.S. 473, 24 S.Ct.
5
6
505, 48 L.Ed. 754, approved the famous definition of malice by Bayley, J., in Bromage v. Prosser (4
Barn. & C. 247), whose remarks have become a classic in the law, as follows: Malice, in common
acceptation, means ill will against a person, but in its legal sense it means a wrongful act, done
intentionally, without just cause or excuse. If I give a perfect stranger a blow likely to produce death,
10
I do it of malice, because I do it intentionally and without just cause or excuse. If I maim cattle,
11
12
without knowing whose they are, if I poison a fishery, without knowing the owner, I do it of malice,
13
because it is a wrongful act, and done intentionally. If I am arraigned of felony, and willfully stand
14
mute, I am said to do it of malice, because it is intentional and without just cause or excuse. And if I
15
traduce a man, whether I know him or not and whether I intend to do him an injury or not, I
16
apprehend the law considers it as done of malice, because it is wrongful and intentional. It equally
17
18
19
works an injury, whether I meant to produce an injury or not. This case is well beyond malice at
this point.
20
21
22
23
24
SILENCE IS NOT GOLDEN

49.
The United States has gone silent in this case three times. The first time was in 2008
at the direction of the General Counsels Office (TALBERT) of Defendant USDE. At that time, the
General Counsels office instructed Defendant USDE employees via a memo to disregard and not to
25
speak with Plaintiffs CHAPEL, NYE-WILSON and their attorney, John Hannon, to further obstruct
26
Plaintiff's justice by abuse of power after the 2008 letters were written at the direction of
27
SPELLINGS. Plaintiffs are aware of this due to earlier FOIA responses. SPELLINGS, et al., placed
28

their desire to avoid public scandal over the well being of a family, to nourish the Religious and cover
up multiple acts of deceit and corruption..
3
4
50.
The second time of silence was in January 2011, thirty days prior to SUSAN filing for
divorce from CHAPEL, and after CHAPEL filed his "OCR REVIEW" to Defendant USDE noting
5
6
the corruption of the enterprises, RICO parties, with their co-conspirators that has been protected
through today by United States Government and in particular the OA. At that time, DUNCAN and
others within the Defendant USDE were made aware of the facts that WESTERN has been lying to
Defendant USDE, making false statements and misrepresentations regarding Section 504 compliance.
10
Plaintiff CHAPEL was able to piece together the lies by WESTERN, et al., due to FOIAs he had
11
12
13
14
15
16
filed, which resulted in him and Plaintiff NYE-WILSON filing additional lawsuits to force Defendant
USDE to produce records it was intentionally holding, having gone silent in January 2011.
51.
This instant action marks the third USDE period of silence to Plaintiffs. The OA
knows it has destroyed lives, including CHAPEL and his family (SUSAN and JOEL), and caused
significant damage to NYE-WILSON and WILSON, yet the OA remains silent, apparently hoping
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything will go away. This is not the leadership America expects and needs. Rather this is
cowardice by the OA.
52.
OA is chiefly aware that its claims of 2007-2008 are baseless, and that it clearly had
no evidence to do what it did or continues to do. OA is also chiefly aware that the enterprises, RICO
parties, with their co-conspirators claims are not simply baseless, but are in violation of 127 years of
stare decisis, the U.S. Constitution, each of the states constitutions, federal and state laws and
decisional cases, which has caused major problems. (Failed oversight (Navient letter of 9/5/15, p. 1-
26
2), lacked evidence (10/29/15 letter to David Berger, p. 3), lacked legal support (10/29/15 letter to
27
David Berger, p. 1-2), violated public policy (Navient letter of 9/5/15, p. 2-3, 10-29, p. 3 ATS
28

standards or procedures that override Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp., 149 Cal. App. 3d 308, etc.),
colluded with NWCCU and ATS (Navient letter of 9/5/15, p. 5), obstructed justice, abused
3
4
government power in order to destroy two civil cases (Navient letter of 9/5/15, p. 5-6), violated the
False Claims Act with student aid fraud (10/29/15 letter to David Berger, p. 4), and the U.S.
5
6
Department of State (10/29/15 letter to David Berger, p. 5-6, 11/14/15 letter to David Berger, p. 1-
5) mishandled a child abduction.) Yet, the OA continues to cover everything up, causing further
damage to CHAPEL, SUSAN, JOEL, NYE-WILSON, and WILSON.
9
10
53.
CHAPEL has made final notice and has clearly and conclusively noticed the serious
nature of this case. Every step of the way, the Government, the enterprises, the RICO parties, with
11
12
their co-conspirators, has fought to silence, cover up and damage Plaintiffs because so much is on the
13
line. For the Government, it used James A. Scharf as a preferred weapon. Now irreparable damage
14
has occurred on multiple fronts and in multiple areas. It is reasonable that, if the roles were reversed,
15
the people in government, the enterprises, the RICO parties, with their co-conspirators would not
16
want the irreparable damage to occur to them or their families. Both CHAPEL and NYE-WILSON
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have acted to reason with the OA, to seek documents and perform an intensive investigation to prove
their points, but the Plaintiffs limit has been reached.
54.
There are some who are concerned that CHAPEL might do something. Broadly
speaking, in Plaintiff's case, 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 Plaintiffs uncover and note, it follows that it doesn't matter if
CHAPEL is a model citizen or not, because the Government will continue to misrepresent the issues
26
to favor the corrupt actors. Thus, the Government created a dilemma: why should CHAPEL make the
27
effort to be a model citizen without the benefits and justice he deserves are being withheld from him
28

by the Government -- A Government hell bent on damaging his family and him? Government has
done this; Government has caused this; Government is furthering the problems needlessly. It is not
3
4
CHAPEL the public should be worried about, rather it is the OA and ironically, these are the
arguments of the National Rifle Association (NRA). OA is actually supporting the NRA narratives
5
6
by abusing CHAPEL and his family. To the extent that, apparently, no Government employee has
done the mental gymnastics on this is exasperating. Apparently, James A. Scharf has not, as his law
degree came from a Cracker Jacks box.
9
10
55.
Indeed, society is an aggregate of people living together in an ordered community that
relies upon the notion that by collaboration, people can be governed by accepted norms, laws, and
11
12
values allowing members of society to live together in peace. America's Founding Fathers invoked
13
this idea with the phrase Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for which they believed
14
governments are created to protect their citizens. But when members of a government denounce
15
those central core values, a society turns from being based on rule of law, to rule by law which
16
17
18
19
20
governments use to oppress members of society.

56.
There is very, very limited time left now to see if the PRESIDENTs promise,
Transparency and the Rule of Law will be the Touchstones of this Presidency is actually true,
or if this case will erupt into societal chaos to envelope the Obama Administrations legacy. The
21
time is overdue for the PRESIDENT to exterminate the last segments of SPELLINGS massive
22
clusterfuck harming education, students, and families. Now is the time for justice.
23
THE FOIA FACTS
24
25
26
27
16-00200-F
57.
On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff NYE-WILSON submitted a FOIA request to Defendant
USDE, seeking access to the following:
28

1. Any and all records concerning the funds made available to Western Seminary for
students using the Federal Family Education Loan Program from 2003 to current
year.
students using the Federal Direct Student Loan Program from 2003 to current
year.
students using the Federal Perkins Loan Program from 2003 to current year.
students using the Federal Work-Study Program from 2003 to current year.
5. Each Fiscal Operations Report and Application to Participate (FISAP) by
Western Seminary submitted for 2003 to current year.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
58.
On October 27, 2015, Defendant USDE acknowledged Plaintiff NYE-WILSONs
request and assigned it No. 16-00200-F.

59.
On December 7, 2015, Defendant USDE stated, that your request has been forwarded
to the appropriate office to search for documents that may be responsive to your request, but, due to
the Departments voluminous amount of FOIA requests, your request, FOIA Request No. 16-00200-
14
15
F may not be processed within the 20 working-day timeframe. The Department apologizes for any
16
inconvenience this may cause you. Please be assured that your request will be processed as soon as
17
possible. The Department apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause you.
18
19
60.
On that same day, Plaintiff Nye-Wilson informed Defendant USDE, a component
may extend the twenty-day response time "only in unusual circumstances." 34 CFR 5.21(e) Unusual
20
21
22
circumstances exist when: the component needs to collect responsive records from separate offices;
the request involves a "voluminous" amount of records that must be located, compiled, and reviewed;
23
or the component needs to consult with another federal agency or other DOJ components that have a
24
substantial interest in the responsive information. Plaintiff Nye-Wilson went on to note that
25
26
27
28
Defendant USDEs assertion doesn't fall within the requirements of the law. Further, according to
34 CFR 5.21(d) or 34 CFR 5.21(e) a requestor can be notified to modify the FOIA request so it can
be processed within the 20 day period or arrange with the Department an alternative time period

within which the FOIA request will be processed. What you have cited to us doesn't fall within the
statutory requirements of FOIA. This is key since, the court looks if the request has been fulfilled. It
3
4
has not.
61.
On December 17, 2015, Defendant USDE stated The Department of Education (the
5
6
Department) anticipates responding to your FOIA request with an interim response by the end of
January 2016, and if the date changes, you will be notified in advance. At that time, Defendant
USDE notified Plaintiff Nye-Wilson of her right to appeal within 35 days of the date of the letter.
9
10
62.
On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff notified Defendant USDE: We understand that the
Department of Education has punted. Let's work together and attempt to make the request more
11
12
streamlined: We are not asking for the Department to provide total amounts, unless it has them. We
13
are not asking for the Department to perform any action such as adding up all the various times
14
Western Seminary has been paid with federal funds. We are not asking for the Department to go
15
through all the various applications and documents for federal student aid for students attending
16
Western Seminary, if such can be avoided, so that we can perform the math to reach the total amount
17
18
of money Western Seminary has been paid with federal funds. If the Department has a REPORT or
19
PRINT SCREENS, that provides information for the years 2003 to the current, concerning the federal
20
funds for the different programs noted in the request, we can do the addition and so on. IF THIS IS
21
EASIER, then we will accept a REPORT or PRINT SCREENS, and do the math. The bottom line is
22
23
24
25
26
27
we are looking for the total amount of federal money that has been paid to Western Seminary
since 2003.
63.
As of the end of January, Defendant USDE has produced no records and made no
effort to contact Plaintiff NYE-WILSON.

F-2015-13699
28

1
2
3
4
64.
On August 19, 2015 Plaintiffs sent seven FOIA requests to Defendant STATE with
details to ensure that the records could be reasonably found in short order, including names of people
who might hold such records and places where records might be located.
65.
On Sept 18, 2015, Defendant STATE acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs request, and
5
6
7
assigned it Case Control Number F-2015-13699.

66.
The requested records from Defendant STATE were:

Request 1:
Seeking any record(s) that document Susan Anne Chapel or Susan
Anne Allister of England is unable to enter the United States of America as of fall
2009.
8
9
10
Request 2:
Seeking any record(s) between (Susan Chapel or Susan Allister or her
legal representative) and the London embassy.
11
12
13
Request 3:
Seeking any record(s) between (Susan Chapel or Susan Allister or her
legal representative) and the U.S. Department of State.
14
Request 4:
15
16
Request 5:
Seeking any record(s) that references Susan Chapel or Susan Allister.
(Same person)
17
Request 6:
Seeking any record(s) that references Carol Nye-Wilson.
18
Request 7:
Seeking any record(s) that references Randy Chapel.
19
67.
Seeking any record(s) that references Joel Chapel.
Defendant STATE responsive records were due on Oct 19, 2015. Defendant STATE
20
21
22
never produced any records. An appeal was sent on Oct 19, 2015 and a response was made on Oct
23, 2015 stating that an appeal was not necessary.
23
68.
As of this date, Defendant STATE has produced no responsive records.
24
69.
It is reasonable to conclude, considering the history between the U.S. Government and
25
26
27
in particular the OA, that the OA will continue to act to damage and harm Plaintiffs and their family,
even if it means destroying records to cover up what it has done.
28

1
2
3
4
70.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i), Defendants were required to determine
whether to comply with the request within twenty (20) working days of receipt and to notify
Plaintiffs immediately of its determination, the reasons therefore, and the right to appeal any adverse
determination.
5
6
71.
As of the date of this complaint, Defendants each of them, have failed to: (i) determine
whether to comply with the request; (ii) notify Plaintiffs of any such determination or the reasons
therefore; (iii) advise Plaintiffs of the right to appeal any adverse determination; and/or (iv) produce
the requested records or otherwise demonstrate that the requested records are exempt from
10
production.
11
12
72.
Because the Defendants, each of them, have failed to comply with the time limit set
13
forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A), Plaintiffs are deemed to have exhausted any and all administrative
14
remedies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C).
15
16
73.
COUNT 1
(Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552)
Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fully stated herein.
74.
Defendants STATE and USDE are unlawfully withholding records requested by
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiffs pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552.

75.
Plaintiffs have been irreparably damaged by reason of both Defendants unlawful
withholding of records responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA request, by both Defendants actions and will
continue to be irreparably harmed unless both Defendants are compelled to conform its conduct to the
requirements of the law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (1) order both Defendants to
26
conduct searches for any and all records responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA requests and demonstrate that
27
it employed search methods reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of records responsive to
28

Plaintiffs FOIA requests; (2) order both Defendants to produce, by a date certain, any and all non-
exempt records responsive to FOIA requests and a Vaughn index of any responsive records withheld
3
4
under claim of exemption; (3) enjoin both Defendants from continuing to withhold any and all nonexempt records responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA requests; (4) grant Plaintiffs an award of attorney's fees
5
6
and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E); and
(5) grant Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: March 7, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
9
10
11
12
13
/s/ Carol Nye-Wilson

P.O. Box 711419
Tel: 808/968-7423
Email: carolnyewilson@yahoo.com
In Pro Per
14
15
16
17
/s/ Randy Chapel

P.O. Box 711419
In Pro Per
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Foia Case 16-CV00104 Som RLP

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Foia Case 16-CV00104 Som RLP

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CAROL NYE-WILSON, RANDY CHAPEL, ) Case No.:

Plaintiffs allege as follows:

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(e).

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 1

Carol Nye-Wilson (NYE-WILSON) and Randy Chapel (CHAPEL) seek to

them about "what their government is up to.

James A. Scharf (SCHARF) for the Department of Justice.

Defendant U.S. Department of State (STATE) is an agency of the United States

Defendant U.S. Department of Education (USDE) is an agency of the United States

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 2

corruption and fraud that harms the public welfare.

WESTERN SEMINARY FUNCTIONS LIKE A CRIME SYNDICATE WITH OTHERS

Daniel Aleshire (ALESHIRE), Jeremiah McCarthy (MCCARTHY), Charles Willard

(NWCCU), Sandra E. Elman (ELMAN), GuideOne Insurance Company (GUIDEONE),

Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (BROTHERHOOD) and Tudor Insurance Company

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 4

enterprises and practiced a pattern of racketeering activity, conducted or participated, directly or

The enterprises, RICO parties, and co-conspirators engaged in a pattern of

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 5

power and obstruct justice as the government did to Plaintiffs.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PROTECTION

FALSE CLAIMS ACT (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729 - 3733

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 6

No. 2:03-cv-00457-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal.), which netted a $78.5 million settlement.

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 7

investigative work by relator Plaintiffs.

of $4,310,934.42 to $8,621,868.84 from the school for the relator Plaintiffs.

CHOOSING TO NOT INVESTIGATE IS NOT AN OPTION FOR THE

action under this section against the person.

THE OA INSTEADS CHOOSES TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND ABUSE

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 8

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)

The FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, permitting citizens to

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 9

CHAPEL, SUSAN, JOEL, NYE-WILSON, and WILSON unjustly suffer.

have become so deeply involved in this case.

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 10

sovereign says so.

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 11

the OA knew or should have known what was going on.

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 12

CHAPEL IS A PROTECTED PARTY UNDER THE LAW

RUARK, with other administrators at WESTERN, willfully made known

and now 31 U.S.C. 3730(h)(1) IN GENERAL.Any employee, contractor, or agent shall be

furtherance of other efforts to stop 1 or more violations of this subchapter.

CHAPEL's protection from WESTERNs retaliation would also include, 31 U.S.C.

for the relief provided in this subsection.

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 14

Dist. Ct. App. 1958).

SILENCE IS NOT GOLDEN

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 15

up multiple acts of deceit and corruption..

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 16

damage to CHAPEL, SUSAN, JOEL, NYE-WILSON, and WILSON.

FOIA COMPLAINT PAGE: 17

degree came from a Cracker Jacks box.

Indeed, society is an aggregate of people living together in an ordered community that

governments use to oppress members of society.

THE FOIA FACTS

On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff NYE-WILSON submitted a FOIA request to Defendant

USDE, seeking access to the following: