This Document Is Part of A Larger Case, Which Is Posted On: WWW - Westernseminary.info

standardheader.
doc 04/08/12
This document is part of a larger case, which is posted on

www.educationalfraud.com

www.stevekorch.org, www.steve-korch.com,
www.religioushypocrites.com, www.westernseminary.info

Forward and let others know what is going on.
RANDY CHAPEL
P.O. Box 1050
Boulder Creek, CA 95006
Cell: 831/331-9653
Email: randychapellegal@gmail.com

CAROL NYE-WILSON
Maj. DALE WILSON, Ph. D. (Ret. USA)
610 West Dr.
Cell: 808/756-0936
Email: carolnyewilson@gmail.com
docdale6@gmail.com

In Pro Per

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
RANDY CHAPEL, CAROL NYE-
WILSON, and DALE WILSON,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ACCREDITING OF
THE ASSOCIATION OF THEOLOGICAL
SCHOOLS, a corporation; THE
ASSOCIATION OF THEOLOGICAL
SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, a corporation; DANIEL
ALESHIRE, individually and in his official
capacity; JEREMIAH MCCARTHY;
individually and in his official capacity;
UNITED STATES and DOES 1 through
200, inclusive;
Defendants.

CASE NO. __________________

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION RELIEF,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, ANCILLARY
RELIEF AND DAMAGES

12CV-03236

ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.............................................................................................. 8
III. PARTIES AND STANDING............................................................................................... 10
A. Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................... 10
B. Defendants ................................................................................................................. 10
C. Other Parties .............................................................................................................. 13
IV. CHOICE OF LAW............................................................................................................... 15
V. RELATED CASES ............................................................................................................... 16
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 17
A. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 17
B. ALLEGATION ASSERTIONS ................................................................................ 18
C. DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT..................................................................... 18
1. Education in America..................................................................................... 18
2. Accreditation .................................................................................................. 20
3. Defendant UNITED STATES operates a negligent accreditation system:
OIG 2003 AUDIT...................................................................................... 22
4. Third Parties Experts Question Accreditation as a Reliable Quality
Indicator .................................................................................................... 29
5. American Bar Association: Enabler, Caught ................................................. 34
6. Emily Brooker: Unlawful Accreditor Policies in Action............................... 36
7. ATS Exceptions and Unwritten Policies that Trump Written Policies .......... 37
8. Current with the Obama, Holder, Duncan administrations............................ 40
D. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS AND THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ...... 40
1. Composition ................................................................................................... 41
2. An Incestuous Relationship............................................................................ 42
3. Conspiracy...................................................................................................... 48

iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. INSTEAD OF CUSTODIANS OF EDUCATIONAL QUALITY,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS ENABLE FRAUD AND ABUSE............ 49
1. Western Seminary .......................................................................................... 49
2. Revolving Door of Sex and Graduation at Western Seminary ...................... 50
3. The Sex Pervert Steve Korch ......................................................................... 54
4. Cover up for Sex Pervert Steve Korch........................................................... 57
a. Faith Baptist Church of Lincoln City, OR.......................................... 57
b. Secret Agreement ............................................................................... 58
c. $25,000 Tax Evasion Scam................................................................ 59
d. First Baptist Church of Junction City, OR......................................... 68
e. Korch is the victim he is a righteous, moral man and leader of
the Church. .................................................................................... 71
5. Section 504 Investigation and Cover-up ........................................................ 72
6. FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99)............................................... 78
a. Brief History....................................................................................... 79
b. FERPA and Defendant UNITED STATES ....................................... 80
c. WESTERN and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS...................... 82
d. Known negligence that could have been avoided .............................. 85
F. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS SUPPORT WESTERNS VEHICLE FOR
FRAUD AND ABUSE.......................................................................................... 87
1. Paragraph 1(d) ................................................................................................ 89
2. Paragraph 8..................................................................................................... 89
3. Paragraph 9..................................................................................................... 90
4. Paragraph 10................................................................................................... 91
5. Paragraph 11................................................................................................... 91
6. Paragraph 12................................................................................................... 92
7. Paragraph 13................................................................................................... 92
8. Paragraph 14................................................................................................... 93
9. Paragraph 15................................................................................................... 94

iv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10. Paragraph 17................................................................................................. 94
G. INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................................................. 95
1. Statements by Daniel Aleshire ....................................................................... 96
2. Statements by Jeremiah McCarthy............................................................... 103
3. Sandra Elman and Defendant UNITED STATES ....................................... 104
a. Motive............................................................................................... 104
b. Opportunity ...................................................................................... 105
c. Means ............................................................................................... 106
d. Structured Outcome to Obstruct Justice and Destroy Two Civil
Cases, which left RANDY damaged for life. .............................. 107
e. Miscellaneous ................................................................................... 108
H. NOT RELIABLE AUTHORITIES......................................................................... 110
1. Defendants Dysfunctionally Enforce a Culture of Silence and Deceit ........ 110
2. Duty of Directors and Responsibilities to Public......................................... 114
3. Defendant UNITED STATES underhandedly used NWCCU against
Plaintiffs and tried to cover it up............................................................. 116
4. Third parties disagree with claimed standards, objectives, policies,
procedures, and decisions by DEFENDANTS (34 C.F.R. 602.13
and 602.17) used by Western Seminary or 260 other member schools .. 119
5. State (licensing authority) already rejects claims by DEFENDANTS (34
C.F.R. 602.13) ...................................................................................... 120
6. Court already rejected claims by DEFENDANTS....................................... 121
7. Defendant UNITED STATES already rejected claims regarding
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS standards, policies, procedures
(34 C.F.R. 602.13) in other cases......................................................... 122
8. Defendant COMMISSION Noncompliant with Critical Sections of 34
C.F.R. PART 602 .................................................................................... 124
9. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS: No Intention to Comply and
Misled Defendant UNITED STATES..................................................... 126
10. NWCCU: Noncompliant with 34 C.F.R. 602.18, 602.20, 602.22
and 602.23 ............................................................................................ 127
11. Exceptions............................................................................................... 128

v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. THIRD PARTIES ROPED IN UNWILLINGLY WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE
OR CONSENT, REFLECTING BACK ON THEIR SCHOOL AND
PROGRAMS....................................................................................................... 129
VII. OUTCOMES .................................................................................................................... 131
A. Defendant UNITED STATES................................................................................. 131
B. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS...................................................................... 133
C. WESTERN.............................................................................................................. 134
VIII. SPELLINGS FRAUD: SCHOOL, ACCREDITORS AND GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY ALIGN TO DEFRAUD STUDENT AND FAMILY. .................................. 135
IX. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND DAMAGES..................... 137
X. IRREPARABLE INJURY, IRREPARABLE HARM, IMPOSED DEMANDS AND
OUTCOMES................................................................................................................... 144
XI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................... 146
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.......................................................................................... 146
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION..................................................................................... 148
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION........................................................................................ 149
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION..................................................................................... 151
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ......................................................................................... 152
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION......................................................................................... 154
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.................................................................................. 156
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION...................................................................................... 159
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION........................................................................................ 163
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ....................................................................................... 167
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION................................................................................ 169
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION.................................................................................. 172
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION............................................................................ 174
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION............................................................................... 176
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION............................................................................... 179
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION............................................................................... 181
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION........................................................................ 183

vi
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ........................................................................... 185
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ........................................................................... 187
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION ............................................................................. 189
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ....................................................................... 191
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.................................................................. 193
TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION...................................................................... 194
TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION.................................................................. 196
TWENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION....................................................................... 197
TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION....................................................................... 200
XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................... 202

- 1 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. INTRODUCTION
1

In practical affairs, [a degree] 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. Supreme Court of Vermont in Townshend v. Gray, 62
Vt. 373, 19 A. 635 (1890).

An investigation in 2004 by the General Accounting Office found twenty-eight
employees of the federal government who had bogus degrees, and another
463 federal employees who were enrolled in unaccredited institutions.
2

A professor in California who was named the states poet laureate claimed to
have a college degree, but had not earned one.
3

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.
4

1. 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.
5
The problem is substantial in
scope.
6
Supported by the government and two accreditors, there is now an accepted third
way to misrepresent a degrees validity as shown in this action.
2. Using a phony degree at this time is not a crime in most states,
7
however, as Yahoo
CEO Scott Thompson learned,
8
applicants may risk job loss. Generally, the court has not delved

1
This document and supporting materials is available for public review at www.educationalfraud.com/DistrictCourtCase.html.
2
Stephen Barr, An Endless Search for Accountability, WASH. POST, May 16, 2004, at C2.
3
Robin Wilson, Fall From Grace, CHRON. HIGHER EDUC., Apr. 4, 2003, at A10
4
Scott Smallwood, Should Colleges Check up on Professors?, CHRON. HIGHER EDUC., Sept. 12, 2003, supra note 7.
5
An entity that sells diplomas and transcripts to individuals.
6
Julianne Basinger, 4 Years After a Scandal, a President Steps Down, CHRON. HIGHER. Educ., Mar. 5, 2004, at A23. See also Lindsay Bosslett,
President Quits after Resume is Questioned, CHRON. HIGHER EDUC., Nov. 8, 2002, at A29. Mar. 5, 2004, at A23. See Elizabeth F. Farrell,
Californias Poet Laureate Admits to Lie on Resume, CHRON. HIGHER EDUC., Nov. 15, 2002, at A15. Robin Wilson, Lab Official Resigns Over
Lack of a Ph.D., CHRON. HIGHER EDUC., Sept. 17, 1999, at A18. Welch Suggs, Athletic Director Caught in 2002 Resume Scandal Gets a
Second Chance, CHRON. HIGHER EDUC., May 7, 2004, at A41. UCLA Soccer Coach Concedes that Degree Came From Diploma Mill, supra
note 17.
7
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. Will Potter, States Try to
Crack Down on Diploma Mills, CHRON. HIGHER EDUC., Dec. 19, 2003, at A26. And 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-

- 2 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deeply into the issue of misrepresenting educational attainments as being illegal, but one court
did.
9
Generally, the public and courts are unsympathetic to employees discharged due to resume
fraud.
10
With the governments blessing, people can now obtain a degree that at its core is to
cover up criminal activity of the school and the people running it.
3. Widely recognized, Californias program for regulation of private postsecondary
and vocational education institutions failed in spite of various iterations of laws, Bureaus and
Counsels. During that time, 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 of the schools the accreditation
agencies oversaw basically, a guild designed to protect the guild.
11
It is here that this lawsuit
intersects with the academic fraud of one such guild -- the Commission on Accrediting of ATS,
the Association of Theological Schools, and their 260 member schools
12
-- and the United States
of America, U.S. Department of Education, Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit.
4. On January 21, 2009, President Obama stated on camera, The way to make
Government responsible is to hold it accountable. And the way to make government accountable is
make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made,

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)).
8
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.
9
Greenhouse v. MCG Capital Corp., 392 F.3d 650 (4th Cir. 2004).
10
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 acvademe 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.
11
Vickie Schray, Assuring Quality in Higher Education: Recommendations for Improving Accreditation, 14th Issue Paper for The Secretary of
Educations Commission on the Future of Higher Education, unknown publication date.
12
As of April 24, 2012

- 3 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
how they're being made, and whether their interests are being well served Let me say it as
simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.
13

5. Transparency. Plaintiffs filed several Freedom of Information Act Requests
(FOIAs) in order to ascertain how in the world did the United States agree to the claims by the
accreditor.
14
As discussed herein, the United States fought discovery and even went so far as to
claim Plaintiffs were victimizing the government in their efforts to seek records
15
while COA/ATS
refuses to produce records or to even communicate with the Plaintiffs.
6. Rule of Law is an ambiguous term that can mean different things in different
contexts. While some may think Rule of Law, means the government shall exercise its power in
accordance with well established, clearly written regulations and legal principles that have not
occurred for this case during the Obama/Holder/Duncan administrations. In the context of this
case: the United States made a decision allowing the 260 Association of Theological Schools (9%
of ATS schools are in California) unprecedented authority over and against the U.S. Constitution,
state Constitutions, laws of Canada, federal and state laws, community standards, decisional court
cases, and public policies. This association of 260 schools now has the unprecedented authority to
issue accredited degrees they insist are valid in spite of conditional criteria that includes: (1)
they violate published accreditation standards; (2) they are based on covering up criminal acts
(such as underage sexual abuse/child molestation [kissing, penetration, sexual contact between the
genitals]; (3) they require covering up falsified documents/lying to the government [18 U.S.C.
1001]); (4) they deny inalienable rights such as defending life and liberty; (5) they deny freedoms
of speech and religion; (6) they deny complaints to governmental representatives; (7) they require
concealing tax evasion through the commission of fraud; (8) they require concealing insurance

13
Defendant UNITED STATES. REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN WELCOMING SENIOR STAFF AND CABINET SECRETARIES TO
THE WHITE HOUSE Accessed May 12, 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-welcoming-senior-staff-and-
cabinet-secretaries-white-house
14
The right of citizens to see records showing their governments diligent efforts to hide and cover up government negligence and fraud at the
expense of the public is at the core of American values. United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press,
489 U.S. 749, 772-73 (1989) ([A] democracy cannot function unless the people are permitted to know what their government is up to.). The
Public interest far outweighs any harm and undue hardship in seeking those records, since "the words of a statute [FOIA] are, of course, dead
weights unless animated by the purpose of the statute. The purpose of this statute is to shed light on an agency's performance of its statutory
duties." United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772-73 (1989). Court should
analyze FOIA requests by "recognizing the enduring beliefs underlying freedom of information laws: that an informed public is desirable, that
access to information prevents governmental abuse and helps secure freedom, and that, ultimately, government must answer to its citizens. Pansy
v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 792 (3rd Cir. 1994).
15
Ironically, Judicial Watch to date has filed more than 832 FOIA and other open records requests to the Obama administration, including no fewer
than 65 lawsuits. Plaintiffs are nowhere close to this.

- 4 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
fraud; (9) they require covering up Section 504 fraud; (10) they require concealing FERPA
violations; (11) they require dismissing prior complaints filed to the government, and more.
7. Unconscionably, the Defendants have instituted a legislative precedent without
legal authority or just cause. They allow schools and their employees to make exceptions to
anyone, at any time or place (including to students or family members) that violate the U.S.
Constitution, state Constitution, federal and state laws, decisional court cases and public policy so
that schools can cover up their own civil or criminal misconduct. They tied concealment to
earning and retaining educational credits including 81 accumulated credits the student
previously paid for and earned. This injustice allows schools to trump the U.S. Constitution, states
Constitution, federal and state law authority, decisional law, community standards, and public
policy authority at will.
8. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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. Since education is not mentioned in the
Constitution, it is one of those powers reserved to the states and People. Thus, states have plenary,
or absolute, power in the area of education.
16
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 withholding or
withdrawing recognition from those that do not,
17
and these agencies develop and enforce
standards for institutions and programs.
18
[Emphasis bold] Where the issues raised by a
complaint concerning compliance with Commission [accreditation] standards, and/or whether or
not an institution or a program being offered to one or more individuals is accredited by the
Commission [accreditation agency], We note that recognition entails obligations to, among
other things, enforce agency standards, make publicly available the accreditation status of its
institutions and programs, and ensure that public disclosures by institutions and programs of their

16
Russell Dennis, The role of the Federal Government in public education in the United States. Accessed May 27, 2012.
www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/federal.html
17
Ibid, Page 28
18
U.S. Department of Education, International Affairs Staff, Accreditation and Quality Assurance:Postsecondary Accreditation, Washington, D.C.,
12/2007.

- 5 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accreditation stratus are accurate. 34 C.F.R. 602.20, 602.23 (2007). These obligations cannot
be transferred to, or discharged effectively by, third parties or courts in third party
litigation. This is so because, among other reasons, issues of accreditation status and of
compliance with agency standards are not susceptible to resolution by anyone other than the
agency, moreover, from a practical standpoint, litigation can be prolonged.
19
(Emphasis bold)
9. In 2008, Defendant United States knew of the incestuous relationship
20
between
Commission On Accrediting Of The Association Of Theological Schools, The Association Of
Theological Schools In The United States And Canada and WESTERN, where Defendants
ATS / COMMISSION favor associated schools over the public and students. It took until
December 2011 for the Commission On Accrediting Of The Association Of Theological
Schools, The Association Of Theological Schools In The United States And Canada to finally
admit that it actually does not maintain the factual knowledge (34 C.F.R. 602.15(a)(2)(3)(4)) and
does not have the monetary resources to purchase the legal expertise resources (34 C.F.R.
602.15(a)(1)) to make determinations that the Defendant UNITED STATES relied upon in 2008,
and whether or not a member school is complying with applicable laws as required by the ATS
Standard 2.2. Further, Defendants COMMISSION and ATS refuses to enforce its standards (34
C.F.R. 602.20), regardless of what the UNITED STATES has previously demanded of it.
21

Instead, according to WESTERN and Commission On Accrediting Of The Association Of
Theological Schools, The Association Of Theological Schools In The United States And
Canada, the basis for the authority for what is claimed supra 6, is unwritten policies that 260
schools rely upon. WESTERN also testifies that their authority also comes from the Northwest
Commission on Colleges and Universities.
10. Ironically, Defendant United States has previously cited the American Bar
Association, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar in 2006, because they
violated 34 C.F.R. 602.18(a), 602.18(b) and 602.23(a)(3) for using and relying upon unwritten
policies. In the case of the American Bar Association, according to Defendant UNITED STATES,
it is wrong for this accreditor for the legal profession to use conjured up unwritten policies to
deal with and get around the law. However, other accreditors (two known so far) can use conjured
up unwritten policies to trump written policies, the U.S. Constitution, state Constitution, federal

19
Defendant UNITED STATES, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Diane Auer Jones, Letter to Defendant ATS, May 8, 2008.
20
Chuck Mula, U.S Department of Education, July 17, 2008, 7:45 a.m. PST.
21
As referenced in the May 8, 2008, Diane Auer Jones citation letter We note that recognition entails obligations to, among other things,
enforce agency standards. 34 C.F.R. 602.20

- 6 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and state law authority, decisional court law, community standards, and public policy authority so
that schools and their employees can cover up civil and criminal acts (such as underage sexual
abuse/child molestation [kissing, penetration, sexual contact between the genitals]; falsify
documents/lying to the government [18 U.S.C. 1001]); denial of inalienable rights such as
defending life and liberty; freedom of speech, religion and filing complaints to governmental
representatives; covering up tax evasion through the commission of fraud; insurance fraud;
Section 504 fraud, and more. Furthermore, the 422 schools from these two accreditors can tie the
fraud and concealment with education, as an accommodation to the student.
22
These unlawful
conditions are approved by the final agency action (ACTION) authored by Nancy C. Regan on
August 29, 2008 and September 29, 2008 and approved by Defendant UNITED STATES
Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings.
11. What you are about to read happened as a result of the support of dysfunctional and
negligent government and accreditation operations. The governmental unit that was audited nearly
ten years ago continues to be mismanaged regarding accreditation oversight in America. Due to
inadequate written policies, it fails to enforce written regulations and procedures upon
accreditation agencies.
12. Arne Duncan has maintained the negligence that started with Margaret Spellings.
His administration has refused to correct itself voluntarily in spite of the mounting pressure for it
and the damage that continues against property and life.
13. President Obama has been briefed on these issues, and the Plaintiffs requested
President Obama to stand up against this fraud. As of this date, the President has not taken action,
as he did in the winter of 2009 with Nye-Wilsons FOIA lawsuits.
14. It was only a matter of time that such a combination of dysfunctional and nefarious
circumstances would culminate to severely aggravate and irreparably injure the personal,
academic, and professional life of a student, destroy the students family, and cause great losses to
the students family of origin. There is no recovery now. In spite of these facts, Defendant
UNITED STATES claims it is the true victim being victimized by the Plaintiffs.
15. For obvious reasons, the Defendants want speech silenced concerning these events
in order to prevent the public from learning how that government unit used and damaged the
Plaintiffs and the People, while ushering power and authority to schools over and against the U.S.
Constitution, state Constitution, federal and state laws and decisional court cases and public

22
Defendant ALESHIRE on June 22, 2007, may make exceptions to accommodate students...

- 7 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
policy. Currently, the United States intends to use whatever means necessary, while using tax
payer dollars to insure that the public doesnt find out what it has done to cover up everything
about this case, while covering for accreditors and the school. In dealing with a prostitution
scandal in Cartagena, Columbia, the Secret Service has demonstrated that agencies can conduct
investigations swiftly, determine responsibility, and act decisively to hold wrongdoers
accountable.
23
The U.S. Department of Educations response, however, has been conspicuously
different in most important respects as covered in this complaint. Secretary Duncan has yet to
hold individuals responsible for facilitating the fraud and corruption within the Department or by
the accreditor and school. Instead, the Department has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
fighting with the Plaintiffs to keep important documents from them and to cover up what has been
done by the government, the accreditors, and the school.
16. It is reasonable that Americans will view these actions with the impression that the
government is trying to run out the clock and bury everything about this case, so that the public
never learns what really went on, how the government actually operates, and the extent it [some
will claim the Obama administration] will go to destroy anyone who gets in its way. In spite of 5
U.S.C. 3331, James A Scharf has indicated on behalf of the government, that the government
intends to fight the claims noted in this case with tax money in order to defeat the Plaintiffs at all
costs and in doing so to support all those who seek to undermine the U.S. Constitution, state
Constitutions, federal and state laws, decisional court cases, community standards and public
policy. It is expected that given the ongoing bullying by the government to cover for itself and
others, this case will end in tragedy.
17. This case has been filed for the following reasons including and not limited to:
a. To ensure a citable federal case FOR THE WELFARE OF THE
PEOPLE concerning the quality and legal character of a postsecondary degree before the general
public, businesses and third party schools is a valuable property right of great pecuniary value
with an enduring moral and material credit.
b. To assure education/degrees cannot be used as vehicles by schools to
cover up THEIR immoral, unethical, and heinous acts that a decent and civilized society has
already determined are intolerable with catastrophic results, and are currently insulated
and promoted by the government as approved conductagainst the PEOPLE, because
accreditors made up by schools claim they can do it as exceptions with impunity;

23
Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Update on Operation Fast and Furious May 3, 2012 p17

- 8 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. To seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court to be forwarded to
the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity against the Defendant
Commission On Accrediting Of The Association Of Theological Schools. The National Advisory
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity has the power to initiate a limitation, suspension
or termination of the agencys recognition in accordance with the procedures set forth in 34
C.F.R. PART 602, as well as to instruct the agency to take prompt and appropriate action to
correct the violation(s) as sought through this action as declaratory and injunctive relief;
d. To inform the public and the press about the unconscionable and heinous
standards against civilized decency and utterly intolerable conduct by schools, as they obsessively
seek to protect sexual perverts like Steve KORCH, who with their schools espouse the indulging
in sexual gratification with minors and its cover up, to cover up Section 504 fraud, academic
fraud, tax evasion, insurance fraud, governmental waste, FERPA violations, academic
misrepresentations and etc., that were contrived by WESTERN, its administration, its various
lawyers hired by insurance companies who willfully and knowingly aided WESTERNs unlawful
conduct, and approved its demands as the only means for RANDY to earn an education and to
retain 81 accumulated educational credits previously paid for and earned; and
e. To inform, to arouse, and to anger public opinion about the dysfunctional
Republican Margaret SPELLINGS administrations errors and omissions that the
Obama/Holder/Duncan administrations have negligently failed to correct, and subsequently
required this action that the government is using tax money to fight against Plaintiffs, rather than
to hold accountable those who are responsible for this treachery.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. This Courts jurisdiction over claims against the Defendant UNITED STATES
arises under the Federal Question Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1331; Federal Tort Claims Act (hereinafter
FTCA), and 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680.
19. This Courts jurisdiction over this action concerning federal questions fall under the
United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment and the
Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983, with original jurisdiction over these federal claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
made herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 and accreditation 20 U.S.C. 1099b.
20. This Court has authority to award the requested damages pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1343; the requested declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201-02; the requested injunctive

- 9 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1343 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; and costs, other costs, disbursements in
this action and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988.
21. An actual controversy presently exists between the parties concerning the
constitutionality and legality of the ACTION. That controversy is justifiable in character, and
speedy relief is necessary to preserve Plaintiffs rights most of all rights eviscerated by all
Defendants to benefit themselves and other special interest parties.
22. A judgment that will terminate the uncertainty and controversy between the parties,
invalidating the ACTION and prohibiting Defendants from taking any action to enforce it will
protect the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights.
23. Plaintiffs RANDY, CAROL and DALE individually filed Administrative Claims
on June 24, 2011, that were received on July 5, 2011.
24. RANDY also filed on behalf of Joel Chapel (hereinafter JOEL) on that same date.
Due to the divorce enacted in the UK by RANDYs now former wife (hereinafter SUSAN),
RANDY is unable to act on behalf of JOEL.
25. Plaintiffs also repeatedly communicated with the Defendant UNITED STATES,
but the Defendant UNITED STATES negligently and willfully refused to engage Plaintiffs in any
meaningful communication or with any responsible administrative action, and they left Plaintiffs
to suffer while the Defendants actually attempted to cover up their negligent acts from the
Plaintiffs and the public.
26. Defendant UNITED STATES never responded to the Plaintiffs Administrative
Claims. Plaintiffs Administrative Claims are perfected under the FTCA to the extent that such
perfection is required. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have standing to sue the UNITED STATES in law
(FTCA).
27. RANDY, CAROL and DALE individually filed an additional Administrative
Claim on March 16, 2011. Plaintiffs anticipate Defendant UNITED STATES will never respond,
thus, the Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint or a second complaint in addition to this.
28. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1402(b) because it is the
federal district in which at least one plaintiff, RANDY, resides, where CAROL retains real
property, and a substantial part of the tangible property that is the subject of this action is situated
within this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these
claims occurred in this district.

- 10 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and Civil L.R. 3-
2(c), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated in this venue.
III. PARTIES AND STANDING
A. Plaintiffs
30. Plaintiff RANDY is a United States citizen, and a resident of the State of
California. RANDY holds sincerely held religious beliefs on issues of morality and ethics.
31. Plaintiff CAROL is a United States citizen, and a resident of the State of Hawaii.
CAROL is a retired teacher, and she holds sincerely held religious beliefs on issues of morality
and ethics.
32. Plaintiff DALE is a United States citizen, and a resident of the State of Hawaii.
DALE is a retired 100% disabled veteran who served with distinction for Defendant UNITED
STATES, and he taught at the Defendants UNITED STATES Military Academy at West Point.
Dale holds sincerely held religious beliefs on issues of morality and ethics.
B. Defendants
33. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege, that Defendant UNITED
STATES is the employer of the employees (civil servants, support staffs and superiors) within the
U.S. Department of Education.
34. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege, that Defendants Commission
On Accrediting Of The Association Of Theological Schools (hereinafter COMMISSION) and The
Association Of Theological Schools In The United States And Canada (hereinafter ATS) are
corporations authorized to do business, they have regularly done business, and they are continually
and systematically doing business in the sovereign country of Canada and 35 sovereign states
within Defendant UNITED STATES, including the State of California, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico.
35. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege, that Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS are Pennsylvania corporations, whose principle places of business and
headquarters are in the State of Pennsylvania, United States.
36. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege, The Commission is a
membership organization of schools that are Accredited Members and Candidates for Accredited
Membership of the Association of Theological Schools. Accredited Members are institutions that,

- 11 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
after review on the basis of the Commission's standards, are voted by the Board of Commissioners
("Board") into Accredited Membership.
24

37. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege, The Board of
Commissioners is recognized by the United States Secretary of Education for the accreditation and
pre-accreditation of freestanding theological schools, as well as schools affiliated with larger
institutions, that offer graduate professional education for ministry and graduate study of
theology.
25
34 C.F.R. PART 602, the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition of Accrediting
Agencies.
38. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege, Accreditation is governed
by standards adopted by the member schools of the Commission. These standards cover a broad
range of institutional issues and require the approval of degree programs offered by member
schools. All decisions regarding accredited status are made by the Board of Commissioners, which
is elected by the Commission membership. The work of the Board and accreditation in general
are conducted according to procedures formally adopted by the Commission member schools. The
standards of accreditation and the procedures are published both in electronic format on this
website and in Part 1 of the ATS Bulletin.
26

39. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendant ATS is a
membership organization of more 250 [260] graduate member schools in the United States and
Canada that conduct post-baccalaureate professional and academic degree programs.
27

Defendant ATS represents over 81,000 enrolled students (81,063), of these, 56% are protestant,
while 20% are Roman Catholic.
28

40. Defendant DANIEL ALESHIRE (hereinafter ALESHIRE) is employed as the
current Executive Director and he acted on behalf of Defendants COMMISSION and ATS in that
role during the events that led to this action.
41. Defendant JEREMIAH MCCARTHY (hereinafter MCCARTHY) was employed as
Director, Accreditation and Institutional Evaluation, and he acted on behalf of Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS during the events that led to this action.

24
ATS. Commission on Accrediting. Accessed January 23, 2012. http://www.ats.edu/Accrediting/Pages/default.aspx
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
ATS. ATS - Overview. Accessed January 23, 2012. http://www.ats.edu/about/Pages/default.aspx
28
ATS. ATS The Association at a Glance Accessed January 23, 2012. http://www.ats.edu/about/Pages/AtaGlance.aspx

- 12 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
42. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued
herein as DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, and Plaintiffs therefore sue these Defendants by
fictitious names, until such time when Plaintiffs are able to ascertain their names to be held
personally liable for their reckless acts. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true
names and capacities of these Defendants when ascertained and additional claims will be made as
needed. Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that each of the fictitiously-named
Defendants is responsible for the occurrences herein alleged, and that the damages sustained by
Plaintiffs were proximately caused by the conduct of each of the fictitiously-named Defendants.
43. Plaintiffs allege DOES 101 through 200, inclusive may also include parties
unrelated to Defendants COMMISSION and ATS. Plaintiffs intend to conduct extensive
discovery to ascertain facts concerning these fictitious-named Defendants in order to hold them
personally liable for their reckless acts. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true
names and capacities of these Defendants at that time.
44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Defendants
COMMISSION, ATS, ALESHIRE, MCCARTHY and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive were at all
times mentioned as agents, servants and employees of each other, agents, servants and employees
of another corporation or otherwise acting with the full knowledge and consent of each other.
Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and on that basis allege that in doing all the things
alleged in this Complaint, these Defendants were acting within the scope and authority of their
agency, in servitude or employment, or otherwise within the scope of such knowledge and
consent.
45. Defendant COMMISSION, Defendant ATS, Defendant ALESHIRE, Defendant
MCCARTHY and DOES 1 through 100 shall be referred to collectively as ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS.
46. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, that allegation shall mean that each defendant acted
individually and jointly with the other defendants. Any allegation about acts of any corporate or
other business defendant means that the corporation or other business did the acts alleged through
its officers, directors, employees, agents and/or representatives while they were acting within the
actual or ostensible scope of their authority.

- 13 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
47. At all relevant times, the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS committed the acts,
or caused or directed others to commit the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in
this Complaint.
C. Other Parties
Entities: Corporate and Governmental
48. 1st Baptist Church of Junction City, Baptist Church in Junction City, OR
49. Faith Baptist Church of Lincoln City, Baptist Church in Lincoln City, OR
50. Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (hereinafter NWCCU),
Accreditor
51. Brotherhood Mutual, Insurance Company for WESTERN
52. GuideOne, Insurance Company for WESTERN
53. Tudor Insurance Co., Insurance Company for WESTERN
54. Family Policy Compliance Office (hereinafter FPCO), oversees 20 U.S.C.
1232g; 34 CFR 99 et seq.
55. California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education
(hereinafter BPPVE), State Bureau that oversees education in California.
56. Western Seminary (hereinafter WESTERN), ATS school
57. Accreditation and State Liaison (hereinafter ASL), Office in U.S. Department of
Education
58. Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit (hereinafter AAEU), Unit within ASL.
Governmental Related
59. John Barth, Former ASL Director
60. Arne Duncan, Current Secretary of Education
61. Kay Gilcher, Director Accreditation Division
62. Carol Griffiths, AAEU Chief
63. DeNise L. Hill, FSA
64. Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General
65. Diane Auer Jones, Former Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education
66. Edgar Mayes, Director of Correspondence and Communications Control Unit
67. Barack Obama, President of the United States of America
68. Regina Miles, FERPA Inspector, U.S. Department of Education
69. Chuck Mula (hereinafter MULA), AAEU Investigator

- 14 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
70. Cheryl Oldham, Former Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education
71. Nancy C. Regan (hereinafter REGAN), Former ASL Director
72. Charles P. Rose, Former General Counsel
73. Philip Rosenfelt, Acting General Counsel
74. James Scharf, Assistant United States Attorney
75. Harry Yee, Assistant United States Attorney
76. Margaret Spellings (hereinafter SPELLINGS), Former Secretary of US
Department of Education
77. Kent Talbert, Former Secretary of US Department of Education
78. Sally Wanner, Attorney Office of General Counsel, US Department of Education
Western Seminary and Accreditors
79. Tom Johnson, Attorney for ATS/COA
80. Tisa Lewis, ATS Director
81. Charles Willard, Former ATS Director
82. Andrew Adler, Attorney for WESTERN
83. Thomas Hadley, Attorney for WESTERN
84. Ellen Hung, Attorney for WESTERN
85. Anthony Lauria, Attorney for WESTERN
86. Mark Shem, Attorney for WESTERN
87. Anthony Zand, Attorney for WESTERN
88. Jonathan Radmacher, Attorney for WESTERN
89. Linda McPharlin, Attorney for WESTERN and Steve Korch
90. Sam Phillips, Attorney for WESTERN
91. Bert Downs (hereinafter DOWNS), Former President at WESTERN
92. Steve Korch (hereinafter KORCH), Instructor at WESTERN
93. Randy Roberts (hereinafter ROBERTS), President at WESTERN, Former ALO
94. Lynn Ruark (hereinafter RUARK), Former staff member at WESTERN
95. Gary Tuck (hereinafter TUCK), Instructor at WESTERN
96. Jan Verbruggen, Instructor at WESTERN
97. Rob Wiggins (hereinafter WIGGINS), Registrar, Educational expert for
WESTERN
98. Sandy Wilson, Former instructor at WESTERN

- 15 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
99. David Eckman, Instructor at WESTERN
100. Sandra Elman, President NWCCU
101. Michael Madden, NWCCU Attorney
3
rd
Parties
102. Rob Bryceson, Pastor and former student at WESTERN
103. Gary Correll, Witness
104. Jane Doe, underaged girl who was molested by the sex pervert Steve Korch
105. William Dresser, Attorney for Randy
106. Kevin W. Ford, former WESTERN student
107. Jill Ford, wife of Kevin
108. Matthew Geyer, Arbitrator at AAA
109. Michael Hoch, Pastor at 1st Baptist Church of Junction City
110. Gregory L Katz, Psychologist
111. Bard Marshall, Pastor, Faith Baptist Church
112. M. James Sawyer, Instructor at WESTERN
113. Ted Slaeker, Pastor at 1st Baptist Church of Junction City
114. Grant Smith, Witness
115. Leonard Sprinkles, Mediator
116. Gladstone Stevens, School Administrator at St. Patrick's Seminary
Family
117. Donald Allister, Lord Bishop of Peterborough and Father of Susan Chapel Allister
118. Janice Allister, mother of Susan Chapel Allister
119. John Allister, brother of Susan Chapel Allister
120. Susan (Chapel) Allister, ex-wife of RANDY
121. Joel Chapel, RANDY's son, grandchild to CAROL and DALE
122. Justin Nye, brother to RANDY, son to CAROL and DALE
IV. CHOICE OF LAW
123. California law applies to the claims of Plaintiffs. Application of California law is
constitutional, and California has a strong interest in deterring unlawful business practices of
resident corporations and compensating those harmed by activities occurring in and emanating
from California.

- 16 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
124. California is the state in which ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS negotiated,
entered into, implemented, monitored, and enforced the conspiracy and associated agreements,
considering 9% of Defendant ATS schools (28 of them) have a main or branch campus in
California.
125. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS actively concealed their participation in the
conspiracy, and actively concealed the existence of their unlawful agreements, in California.
126. California is the State in which Plaintiffs relationship with the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS is centered. More specifically, Santa Clara is the County in which Plaintiffs
relationship with ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS is centered.
127. Plaintiffs are injured by conduct occurring in and emanating from California. The
overwhelming majority of the conduct causing the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs occurred within
the County of Santa Clara and as well as the County of Santa Cruz.
128. For these reasons, among others, California has significant contacts, and a
significant aggregation of contacts creating state interests with all parties and the acts alleged
herein.
129. Californias substantial interests far exceed those of any other state. However,
other state Attorney Generals are free to join in this case.
V. RELATED CASES
130. United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, San Jose
Division, CHAPEL, et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 12-01919
EJD
131. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, NYE-WILSON, ET AL, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 11-
05678 PSG.
Division, CHAPEL v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 11-04344 PSG.
Division, CHAPEL v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND MARGARET
SPELLINGS, 08-04982 RS.
134. Hawaii District Court, NYE-WILSON v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, Margaret Spellings And Does 1 - 20, 08-00498 ACK.
135. As predicted by Plaintiffs, Defendant UNITED STATES undermined their FOIA

- 17 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lawsuits for records of evidences concerning Defendant UNITED STATES errors and omissions.
In NYE-WILSON 08-00498, Defendant UNITED STATES made false and misleading statements
by employee MULA in order to cover up and hide materials concerning MULA directing
NWCCU to make claims found in this case. MULA did so under oath.
136. In Plaintiffs FOIA requests in 2010-2012, Defendant UNITED STATES once
again continued making misleading statements that this time included Asst. U.S. Attorney James
A. Scharf, in order to attempt to not produce records Plaintiffs sought. Repeatedly, even through
Plaintiffs outlined records they sought in their FOIA requests, Defendant UNITED STATES failed
and refused to produce them. Plaintiffs sought records that either should or should not exist based
on Defendant UNITED STATES claimed conclusions in 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, and
2010. Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education actually destroyed records it was
required by written policy to retain.
137. To combat Plaintiffs and the publics right to know what the government is
doing and covering up, Defendant UNITED STATES Asst. U.S. Attorney James A. Scharf
portrayed Plaintiffs as harassers and abusers of the government and that Defendant UNITED
STATES was the victim that needed to be protected by the Court (i.e., the superpower country
United States is being victimized by Plaintiffs). Ironically, Judicial Watch to date has filed more
than 832 FOIA requests and other open records requests to the Obama administration, including
no fewer than 65 lawsuits. Plaintiffs are nowhere close to this, but a 100% disabled vet, a retired
teacher in her 70s and their kid has brought government to its knees with their FOIA requests and
litigation for which Defendant UNITED STATES claims it is a victim. Further, Defendant
UNITED STATES misled the Court by claiming the requested materials dont exist as Defendant
UNITED STATES continued withholding requested records from Plaintiffs, in spite of Plaintiffs
clear outlines of what records were sought and the claim that Defendant UNITED STATES was
willing to produce records as requested. (See CMC statements by Plaintiffs outlining these and
other issues. Available online on Pacer).
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. BACKGROUND
138. Understanding this case requires knowledge of the egregious events that span the
last forty years of government and accreditation activity, and how they converged with the
Plaintiffs. The case reviews facts in sections. The series of events noted below caused personal
injuries and personal property damage to such an extreme and irreparable amount to RANDY that

- 18 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
he can never recover his academic, professional, or personal life. CAROL and DALE have also
suffered personal injuries and personal property damage, andconsidering their ages, they have
little hope to recover.
B. ALLEGATION ASSERTIONS
139. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU intentionally mangle and reject
these terms and concepts. Defendant UNITED STATES has previously cited ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS and NWCCU, and rejected ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU
claims. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU have continued to disregard Defendant
UNITED STATES since receiving noncompliance citations on May 8, 2008.
140. Accreditation (34 C.F.R. 602.3) means the status of public recognition that an
accrediting agency grants to an educational institution or program that meets the agency's
standards and requirements.
141. Accrediting agency or Agency (34 C.F.R. 602.3) means a legal entity, or that part
of a legal entity, that conducts accrediting activities through voluntary, non-Federal peer review
and makes decisions concerning the accreditation or preaccreditation status of institutions,
programs, or both.
142. Program (34 C.F.R. 602.3) means a postsecondary educational program offered
by an institution of higher education that leads to an academic or professional degree, certificate,
or other recognized educational credential.
143. Complaints regarding a Program (34 C.F.R. 602.23) and the adherence to Agency
standards regarding a Program (34 C.F.R. 602.20) involve even one program offered to one
student.
29

C. DYSFUNCTIONAL GOVERNMENT
1. Education in America
144. Defendant UNITED STATES already determined, the Tenth Amendment (1791)
of the U.S. Constitution (1787) states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the

29
Diane Auer Jones, Letter to Defendant ATS, May 8, 2008. Where the issues raised by a complaint concerning compliance with Commission
standards, and/or whether or not an institution or a program being offered to one or more individuals is accredited by the Commission, we
cannot agree that initiation of third party litigation would supercede or toll the requirement that the Commission investigate and resolve the
complaint through its complaint procedures, and take action, if appropriate, with respect to the program or institution in question. We note that
recognition entails obligations to, among other things, enforce agency standards, make publicly available the accreditation status of its
institutions and programs, and ensure that public disclosures by institutions and programs of their accreditation stratus are accurate. 34 C.F. R
602.20, 602.23 (2007). These obligations cannot be transferred to, or discharged effectively by, third parties or courts in third party
litigation. This is so because, among other reasons, issues of accreditation status and of compliance with agency standards are not susceptible
to resolution by anyone other than the agency, moreover, from a practical standpoint, litigation can be prolonged. (Emphasis Bold)

- 19 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.
30

145. Defendant UNITED STATES already determined, 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
withholding or withdrawing recognition from those that do not.
31
and these agencies
develop and enforce standards for institutions and programs.
32
[Emphasis bold]
146. Defendant UNITED STATES already determined, the accrediting organizations
develop the quality standards or criteria for accreditation, develop and manage the
accreditation process, and make the final decision on accreditation.
33
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.
34
[Emphasis bold]
Accreditation provides no legal authority for degree authorization, simply 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. Defendant UNITED STATES is aware that NWCCU and ATS require as a
matter of accreditation approval that schools will conduct their operations lawfully as a
matter of quality education, and they have made such claims before Defendant UNITED
STATES in order to gain and retain recognition.

30
U.S. Department of Education, International Affairs Staff, Education in the United States: A Brief Overview, Washington, D.C., 2005. Page 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.
31
Ibid, Page 28
32
U.S. Department of Education, International Affairs Staff, Accreditation and Quality Assurance:Postsecondary Accreditation, Washington, D.C.,
12/2007.
33
"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).
34
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)

- 20 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Accreditation
147. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Defendant UNITED
STATES already determined the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit (hereinafter AAEU) has
been established within the Department of Education to deal with accreditation matters. Located in
the Office of Postsecondary Education, the Unit carries out the following major functions with
respect to accreditation: 1) Conduct a continuous review of standards, policies, procedures, and
issues in the area of the Department of Education's interests and responsibilities relative to
accreditation; 2) Administer the process whereby accrediting agencies and State approval agencies
secure initial and renewed recognition by the Secretary of Education; 3) Serving as the
Department's liaison with accrediting agencies and State approval agencies; 4) Providing
consultative services to institutions, associations, state agencies, other federal agencies, and
Congress regarding accreditation; 5) Interpreting and disseminating policy relative to accreditation
issues in the case of all appropriate programs administered by the Department of Education; 6)
Conducting and stimulating appropriate research; and 7) Providing support for the Secretary's
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.
35

148. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Defendant UNITED
STATES already determined, accrediting agencies desiring recognition by the Secretary of
Education must apply and demonstrate their compliance with the Criteria for Secretarial
Recognition (34 CFR PART 602 Subpart B). An agency's application for recognition generally
consists of a statement of the agency's requested scope of recognition, evidence of the agency's
compliance with the criteria for recognition set forth in part 602, and supporting
documentation.
36
[Emphasis bold] An agency's application for initial recognition or renewal of
recognition consists of a narrative statement, organized on a criterion-by-criterion basis, showing
how the agency complies with the Criteria for Recognition. For many recognition requirements,
the narrative statement need only consist of a brief narrative demonstrating how that agency
complies with a particular requirement. This statement must, however, be accompanied by clearly
referenced supporting documentation demonstrating that the agency meets the requirement. For
example, 602.15(a)(6) of the regulations requires an agency to have clear and effective controls
against conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest by the agency's board

35
Defendant UNITED STATES. College Accreditation in the United StatesPg 3 Accessed January 30, 2012.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg3.html
36
Ibid.

- 21 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
members, commissioners, evaluation team members, consultants, administrative staff, and other
agency representatives. The agency's narrative statement addressing this issue might simply be a
statement that the agency's policies against conflicts of interest may be found in a particular policy
document. The agency would have to submit a copy of that document and identify the pages
on which the relevant policies were located. The agency might also choose to include a copy of
the minutes of a meeting at which an agency representative abstained from voting because of a
conflict of interest to demonstrate that it adheres to its written policies.
37
[Emphasis bold]
STATES already determined, NACIQI primary function is to provide recommendations to
the Secretary concerning whether accrediting entities standards are sufficiently rigorous
and effective in their application to ensure that the entity is a reliable authority regarding the
quality of the education or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits. To meet
that high standard, accrediting entities must demonstrate compliance with all the criteria for
recognition.
38
[Emphasis bold] The AAEU sends its reviews to NACIQI to insure compliance
with 34 C.F.R. PART 602.
STATES already determined accreditation agencies are regulated through 34 C.F.R. PART 602
The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies. The Secretary recognizes accrediting
agencies to ensure that these agencies are, for the purposes of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
as amended (HEA),
39
or for other Federal purposes, reliable authorities regarding the quality of
education or training offered by the institutions or programs they accredit. 34 C.F.R.
602.1 [Emphasis bold] ALL accreditation agencies approved by the Secretary must have
Organizational and Administrative Requirements 602.14-15; Required Standards and Their
Application 602.16-21; Required Operating Policies and Procedures 602.22-28. [Emphasis
bold]
151. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege failures by the Defendant
UNITED STATES to enforce and ensure that accreditation agencies actually comply with the
requirements for recognition as publicly posted and required by statute forms a claim for

37
Ibid. This would be the same for 34 C.F.R. 602.20, 602.22, and 602.23
38
Defendant UNITED STATES. National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity Accessed January 30, 2012.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi.html
39
The Higher Education Act of 1965 was reauthorized in 1968, 1971, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, and 2008. Current authorization for the
programs in the Higher Education Act expires at the end of 2013. Before each reauthorization, Congress amends additional programs, changes the
language and policies of existing programs, or makes other changes.

- 22 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
negligence of duty, errors and omissions against the Defendant UNITED STATES itself.
Defendant UNITED STATES conducts and enforces PART 602 for overseeing accreditation
agencies as published by statute 602.30-45 The Recognition Process. When this process breaks
down, students and families can be damaged for life. The Defendant UNITED STATES has
intentionally withheld and deliberately has misled the PEOPLE and the Courts concerning its own
conduct related to its compliance with this mandate by Congress. This failure by the Defendant
UNITED STATES has inflicted particular and unequivocal damage to the life of Plaintiffs and
most of all RANDYhis life, his academic pursuits, his home and property, his marriage to
SUSAN and his fatherly relationship with his little son, JOEL, to the point that RANDY has
repeatedly become suicidal, because he has lost everything meaningful to his life. The damage to
RANDY is irreparable. The Defendant UNITED STATES is unable to fix and restore RANDY
to his pre-damaged state, and most revealing, the Defendant UNITED STATES experiences the
irreparable harm RANDY has suffered.
40
It is noteworthy that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS are not particularly interested in the damage they caused to RANDY and his
family. Rather they have been particularly interested in covering for themselves and their paid
member school, WESTERN.
3. Defendant UNITED STATES operates a negligent accreditation
system: OIG 2003 AUDIT
152. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege it is 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.
41

153. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Defendant UNITED
STATES already determined the AAEU is known to be a FAILED UNIT as noted by the
Defendant UNITED STATES 2003 OIG Audit.
42
Defendant UNITED STATES knows it
committed acts and omissions cited in this action that remain uncorrected, and it is doing its best
to cover up those facts that further implicate the Defendant UNITED STATES U.S. Department of

40
DOE experiences the irreparable harm suffered by those students whose privacy interests are violated see United States v. Miami University,
No. 00-3518, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 12830, (6th Circuit) June 27, 2002, Decided.
41
Defendant UNITED STATES. Office of Inspector General Accessed January 30, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/index.html
42
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

- 23 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Education and AAEU for not taking immediate corrective actions to resolve and fix inherit
Department problems.
STATES already determined in the 2003 Audit claims that were completed to ensure that
accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary (3) take consistent enforcement action when
institutions are not in compliance with the standards.
43
[Emphasis bold]
STATES already determined the following facts that apply to this case including:
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.
44

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.
45

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.
46

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.
47

43
Ibid. Audit cover letter dated July 23, 2003
44
Ibid. Executive Summary, Page 1
45
46
47

- 24 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
48

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.
49

STATES already determined, 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.
50
Section 496 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 as amended (hereinafter HEA) 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

48
49
50
Ibid. Page 3

- 25 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
51

STATES already determined, 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.
52
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.
53

STATES continues to cover up material facts of evidence from Plaintiffs that show 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) 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 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.
54
Defendant UNITED STATES

51
Ibid. Page 3
52
Ibid. Page 4
53
Ibid. Page 4
54
Ibid. Page 7

- 26 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
continues to withhold records from Plaintiffs that demonstrate and expose the fraud in which the
Dysfunctional Republican Spellings administration also participated while using public money
rather than the Dysfunctional Republican Spellings administration proactively protecting the
public and the PEOPLE against fraud, waste and mismanagement as mandated.
159. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the Defendant
UNITED STATES already determined as noted on pages 7 and 8 of the Audit: 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.
UNITED STATES already 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.
55

UNITED STATES already determined as noted on page 11 of the Audit, 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.

55
Ibid. Page 8

- 27 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES has already determined that and as noted on page 11, 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. Defendant UNITED
STATES fought against making readily available for examination the record responses Plaintiffs
requested in their FOIA lawsuit. Instead of producing records Plaintiffs requested, Defendant
UNITED STATES took a joy ride with the District Court system by obstructing justice and
withholding requested records from Plaintiffs. Defendant UNITED STATES claimed under
penalty of perjury that the CDs with materials that are required by federal retention regulations to
be maintained for eleven years had been destroyed prior to their regulated termination date, or
Defendant UNITED STATES stated the records requested did not exist. To date, Defendant
UNITED STATES has never been able to fully document or prove its claims made in 2008 were
based on written policies or tangible material facts. In spite of that fact, Defendant UNITED
STATES refuses to correct itself.
UNITED STATES already determined as noted on page 11, 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]
UNITED STATES already determined as noted on page 12, 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

- 28 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
regulation section and the documentation reviewed for the section, but provided no information
explaining the basis for the specialists determination. [Emphasis bold]
UNITED STATES already determined as noted on page 15, 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 for designing and conducting the entire review, with minimal
supervision, could subject the specialist to undue influence by the accrediting agency being
reviewed.
UNITED STATES already determined as noted on page 16, 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]

- 29 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES already determined, and concluded as noted on page 19, 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.
168. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the problems cited
above remain problems to this day within Defendant UNITED STATES.
169. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege, Accreditation
basically just doesnt work to ensure quality. This is true of both for-profit intuitions and real
colleges.
56

4. Third Parties Experts Question Accreditation as a Reliable Quality
Indicator
170. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege 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?
57
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 decision-makers almost no useful information about
institutions of higher education.
58
[Emphasis bold] ACTA notes that there is little evidence
that accreditation is a reliable quality indicator.
59
Accreditation agencies do not look at
learning outcomes and give no assurances about the quality of individual courses or
programs.
60
[Emphasis bold] ACTA publicly questions the assumption that accreditation is a

56
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.
57
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.
58
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."
59
Leef. Page 2
60
Leef. Page 2

- 30 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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."
61

171. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege accreditation does not
equate to quality and in the case of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, accreditation does not
equate to following Standards. As shown in the following sections below, ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS created a tangle and deceitful web of claimed standards and policies to allow
their member schools to make exceptions, without being held accountable. ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS claim that it is not their role to enforce standards upon schools. Defendant
UNITED STATES historically rejects these arguments.
172. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS have predetermined that they will act collegiality one to another, to cover for
one another, rather than as an association, ensure that the member schools meet and continue to
retain certain standards in their operations (with public announcements when they dont) -- a
point observed by Milton Greenberg in 2000 regarding the failure of accreditation association and
a point that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS dont want the public to know.
62

173. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege by July 2007, the
ACTA published a policy paper titled, Why Accreditation Doesnt Work and What Policymakers
Can Do About It
63
noting that things had only become worse since 2002. This white paper notes:

61
Leef. Page 7
62
Milton Greenberg, Americas Colleges Should Rank Themselves, Chronicle of Higher Education, 16 June 2000.
63
American Council of Trustees and Alumni, "Why Accreditation Doesnt Work and What Policymakers Can Do About It: A Policy Paper." July
2007.

- 31 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a. There is absolutely no indication that Congress ever intended the system of
accreditation to reach into areas of governance already controlled by state statute, charters, and
bylaws. p. 3
b. Accreditor American Bar Association expects law schools to find unique
ways to violate state laws and of having, secret standards that the ABA has failed to publish (34
C.F.R. 602.23). Specifically, actions by Defendant UNITED STATES and NACIQI called for
the ABA to explain itself and force it to publish all standards.
64
p. 4. Above the Law.
Accreditors have also at times imposed standards that would require institutions to break the law.
There is something deeply troubling in the willingness of the organization that oversees the
training of those who are tasked with upholding the law encouraging others to ignore the law
when it suits them.
65
This is analogous to the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS (religious
leaders) secret and unpublished exceptions so that they can get around the lawful standards of
public morality and ethics.
c. Nothing in the accreditation process concretely measures student learning,
instructional quality, or academic standards... If the accrediting process were applied to
automobile inspection, cars would pass as long as they had tires, doors, and an enginewithout
anyone ever turning the key to see if the car actually operated. p. 6.
d. A school with low, mediocre, or even eccentric goals could be judged to be
of acceptable educational quality so long as the school was meeting the goals it set for itself. p. 7.
e. Accreditation agencies have unchecked power. p. 12.
f. Federal accreditation creates serious conflicts of interest. When colleges
and universities seek accreditation, they are being evaluated by an association of which they
themselves are members. They pay annual dues and an accreditation fee to this association. The
fact that accreditation is rarely denied or revoked may be explained, at least in part, by the
reluctance of accreditors to cast off paying members. The accreditation review process is also a
closed, clubby system. The desire to maintain collegiality and not to lose paying association
members raises conflict of interest issues. p. 14 Chuck Mula, AAEU analyst of Defendant

64
See also John Nussbaumer, quoted in Elizabeth Redden, Rough Ride for Law School Accreditor, Inside Higher Ed 5 Dec 2006
<http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/12/05/aba> 20 Jun 2007. And Doug Lederman, Spellings Gets Tougher on the
ABA, Inside Higher Ed, 29 Jun 2007 <http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/29/aba> 2 Jul 2007.
65
Gillen, Andrew, Daniel Bennett, Richard Vedder. The Inmates Running the Asylim? An Analysis of Higher Education Accreditation Center for
College Affordability and Productivity: Washington, DC. October 2010 p. 16

- 32 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES observed this as well by calling the WESTERN and ATS relationship an
incestuous relationship.
66

g. The historic collegiality between accrediting associations and their
members has resulted in a system that is virtually unknown to the public. Institutions would be
more apt to prevent serious weaknesses from developing, especially academic ones, if they knew
that they would be exposed to public scrutiny. p. 17.
174. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege on January 25, 2007,
the Congressional Research Service issued a report for members and committees of Congress.
67

The report openly questions a key point being raised before Congress and the PEOPLE, Whether
accreditation can be equated with the provision of a quality education. Accreditation is used as an
indicator that an institution or program has met at least minimal standards and as evidence of
fiscal stability. Nearly all institutions that have lost their accreditation or have been put on
probation by their accrediting agency have been cited for fiscal mismanagement or lack of fiscal
integrity. Based on testimony provided before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee, few institutions have lost their accreditation due to poor educational performance.
68

The CRS goes on to state, if Congress does decide to require accrediting agencies to increase
their focus on outcome measures, there may be a debate about what outcome measures to use and
how they should be measured. For example, would student grades be a valid indicator of the
quality of an institution? Would students standardized test scores (e.g., Graduate Record Exam,
Graduate Management Admission Test) be a useful indicator of institutional quality? Would
graduation rates or job placement rates be valuable measures? Outcomes such as these have
various measurement problems, such as grade inflation, possible biases on standardized tests,
differences in how graduation rates might be calculated, or which jobs should constitute a
successful placement.
69
Plaintiffs case against all Defendants shows how schools act out-rightly
diabolical, and can seek predatory self interests that harm students, their families, and the public if
they are left unregulated and unattended by accreditation agencies who in turn act in predatory self
interests if left unregulated and unattended by the Defendant UNITED STATES.

66
Chuck Mula, U.S Department of Education, July 17, 2008, 7:45 a.m. PST.
67
Skinner, Rebecca R. and Jody Feder. Accreditation and the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congressional Research Service.
January 25, 2007
68
Ibid. Citing U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Higher Education Accreditation: How Can the System
Better Ensure Quality and Accountability?, hearings, 108th Cong., 2004.
69
Ibid.

- 33 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
175. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege administrator Alan
Contreras
70
saw the writing on the wall regarding changes by the Spellings administration that
further harmed Americas education system, whereby he publicly stated the following on May 4,
2007: The feds are trying in a very crude, clumsy way to transform accreditors into things that
they were never intended to be and cannot be effectively: enforcement arms of the federal
government. If the federal government wants to impose standards on schools that want federal aid,
fine. Standards must be met for most federal aid, and that is as it should be. But the feds should
not hide behind a third party in a shotgun wedding, when the bride would rather be anywhere else
and the children think their new daddy is made by Frankenstein.
71

176. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Andrew Gillen
of the Center for College Affordability and Productivity notes there have been four eras of
Accreditation. Of the current era that focuses on the accountability and assessment (1985-) Gillen
notes that accreditors, such as the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS resist attempts to perform
the quality assurance function.
72
This, and at the direct demands of Defendant UNITED STATES,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS continue to avoid the increasing pressure to emphasize their
public accountability role.
73
Rather, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS act as if they are
accountable to no one. Aware of this problem, Defendant UNITED STATES has moved to the
development and enforcement of standards that emphasize compliance over consultation.
74

[Emphasis bold] Thus, Defendant UNITED STATES requires agencies to be compliant to 34
C.F.R. PART 602 with their policies and enforce those policies upon their member schools. The
current paradigm for this era used by Defendant UNITED STATES is faulty, as the current
accreditation paradigm adds little value to higher education.
75
As shown in the following
sections, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS admit to not maintaining knowledge and legal

70
Contreras has served as Administrator of the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization since 1999, (recently now retired). He previously worked for
the University of Oregon, Oregon Community College Association and Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education. He is an internationally
known expert on diploma mills and state regulation of postsecondary education. A graduate of the University of Oregon and its law school, he has
published frequently on higher education issues in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Education, International Higher Education,
and other venues. He has testified before a U.S. Senate committee investigating degree mills and has assisted agencies such as the U.S. Secret
Service, Postal Inspection Service, and Inspector General of the Department of Education, in addition to serving as a program evaluation consultant
for the states of Ohio and Minnesota.
71
Alan Contreras. Time for a Shotgun Divorce. Retrieved February 7, 2012. app3.insidehighered.com/layout/set/popup/views/2007/05/04/contreras
72
Gillen, Andrew, Daniel Bennett, Richard Vedder. The Inmates Running the Asylim? An Analysis of Higher Education Accreditation Center for
College Affordability and Productivity: Washington, DC. October 2010
73
Ibid. p. 6.
74
Ibid. p. 6.
75
Peter T. Ewell, Assessment and Accountability in America Today: Background and Context, New Directions for Institutional Research,
2008.S1 (Autumn 2008).

- 34 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
expertise to perform their jobs. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS actually hold positions that
are heinous, and beyond the standards of civilized decency and are utterly intolerable in a civilized
society as a means for students to earn an education. Yet, Defendant COMMISSION remains
recognized by Defendant UNITED STATES Arne Duncan. Again, none of the Defendants wants
the public to learn any of this.
177. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege that as observed,
accrediting agencies were started by colleges to serve their own interests.
76
This is clearly the
case with the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, who set up shell corporations to benefit the
member schools and their obscene demands to cover up their actions over and against students and
families. As noted by Gillen, ultimately, its not surprising that a system that is created,
maintained, paid for and governed by institutions is necessarily more likely to look out for
institutional interests.
77
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, which is a national specialized
accreditor for religious schools, act as a guild designed to protect the guild
78
and do so with
impunity.
5. American Bar Association: Enabler, Caught
178. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege that 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.
179. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege in and around December
2006, Defendant UNITED STATES 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,
79
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.
80
The ABA, Counsel of the
Legal Education and Admission to the Bar was unable to explain how the standard in question

76
Gillen. p. 9.
77
Ibid. p. 9.
78
Vickie Schray, Assuring Quality in Higher Education: Recommendations for Improving Accreditation, 14th Issue
Paper for The Secretary of Educations Commission on the Future of Higher Education, unknown publication date.
79
Transcript of the proceedings, December 2006. American Bar Association, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. p. 6
80
Ibid. p. 7

- 35 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
could be applied consistently without resorting to unpublished standards.
81
Thus, the agency
was deficient in demonstrating that it complied with 602.18(a), 18(b), and 602.23(a)(3).
82

180. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege the concerns that Defendant
UNITED STATES 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 law
83
or the U.S.
Constitution.
84
Further, Defendant UNITED STATES also noted for an institution to respond to
some unpublished criteria
85
that are not subject to the kind of scrutiny
86
as, published policies.
As Deputy General Counsel Jeff Taylor for Defendant UNITED STATES noted, Regulations do
require published standards so that individual institutions can understand what criteria is being
used to judge them.
87
[34 C.F.R. 602.18(b), and 602.23(a)]
181. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege it was the Defendant
UNITED STATES position in and around December 2006 that 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.
88

182. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege 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 Department with an interim compliance report demonstrating compliance
with the Criteria for Recognition concerning the issues identified in the Summary of Findings.
89

183. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege shortly after the
confrontation of the ABA, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar in December

81
Ibid. p. 8
82
Ibid. p. 9
83
Ibid. p. 20
84
Ibid. p. 24
85
Ibid. p. 21
86
Ibid. p. 22
87
Ibid. p. 23
88
Ibid. p. 24
89
Ibid. p. 218

- 36 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2006 and their unwritten policies which were being used to trump the law, BARTH was
removed as Director of Accreditation and State Liaison, to a position in the Federal Student Aid
Ombudsmans office.
90
REGAN became Director of Accreditation and State Liaison who
SPELLINGS used against the Plaintiffs. REGAN was later removed, but like in the case of
BARTH, the reasons for her dismissal remain hazy. GILCHER replaced REGAN, but upon
reviewing materials and insider information, things have progressively gotten worse at the ASL
under GILCHERs leadership.
6. Emily Brooker: Unlawful Accreditor Policies in Action
184. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege there are real-world
consequences when accreditors have written policies allowing schools to apply policies that
violate the law
91
and destroy a student in the process. In Brookers case, one of Emilys
professors gave the class an assignment to draft and sign a letter to the Missouri state legislature
advocating homosexual foster parenting and adoption. No public official not even the
President of the United States can require an American to publicly advocate for policies they
find objectionable. The right not to speak is one of our most basic and morally vital civil rights.
92

Emily refused to take part in what the school and teacher demanded of her, and as a result, she
was punished by the faculty and required to submit to close monitoring as a condition of
graduation
93
while having her transcripts and records recorded with her problem. In her case,
the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit seeking to remove the taint from her record and to
compensate her for the violation of her fundamental rights.
94
Like Randy, Emily signed the
contract so she could complete her education. Unlike Emily, Randy returned his Master of
Divinity diploma when it became clear to him that WESTERN was trafficking academic fraud and
using a contract as a vehicle for educational fraud. Randys education ended, because his ethical
compass did not allow him to take part in Westerns academic fraud. Randy has repeatedly

90
Doug Lederman. U.S. Accreditation Official Out of a Job. Access. May 19, 2012. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/01/29/barth
91
See the matter of Brooker v. Franks et al (Missouri State) Missouri Western District Court, 2006cv03432. See also
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=3904 In Emilys case, much like in our case, the school made demands of Emily
concerning her education, which violated protections found in the first amendment and state authorities. In our case, Western claims they can do
whatever they want because ATS has authorized them the power to make exceptions to any provisions or protections found in the U.S. Constitution,
State Constitution, Federal law, State law, decisional cases and public policy.
92
David French. A Star Chamber in Missouri October 30, 2006. Retreived May 14, 2012. http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-
cons/45497/star-chamber-missouri See also Assoicated Press, 11/2/2006 Retreived May 14, 2012 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-
02-gay-adoption_x.htm
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid.

- 37 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
refused to go along with the educational fraud that is supported by all Defendants, NWCCU and
WESTERN.
7. ATS Exceptions and Unwritten Policies that Trump Written Policies
185. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege WESTERN claims their
authority to enter into and require the demands found in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release (Exhibit 1) is based on ATS exceptions that are unwritten and unpublished policies that
trump written and published policies that require schools to follow the law (e.g., Standard 2.2
With regard to state, provincial, and federal authorities, schools shall conduct their operations in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations).
186. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege Rob Wiggins, Registrar and
WESTERNs education expert provided the following testimony under oath on Nov 14, 2008.
According to Wiggins, WESTERN has the authority to make the demands found in the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release due to their accreditation agencies NWCCU and ATS:
6 Q BY MR. HANNON: That's true. As individual student
7 exceptions, is there any sort of written policy for
8 modification of the Master's of Theology program?
9 A No.
10 Q Okay. Are you aware that ATS -- strike that.
11 Is it your contention that ATS allows for
12 individual modification of their accreditation
13 requirements for individual students?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Do you know if that's subject to any sort of written
16 policy?
17 A No.
18 Q On what basis -- and we'll ask the same question as
19 to NWCCU. Do they have a written policy regarding
20 modification for individual students?
21 A Not that I'm aware of.
22 Q How do you know that such a policy exists? Let me
23 rephrase that.
24 How do you know that a policy exists by ATS that
25 allows for modification for individual students from their
1 written accreditation provisions?
2 A I think it's from working with the accreditation
3 organizations and working in the field for 25 years.
4 Q Same question as to NWCC (sic). How do you know that
5 there are unwritten policies that allow for individual
6 variances? Is that the same answer, 25 years experience?
7 A Yes.
Rob Wiggins further stated:

- 38 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 Q Now, in paragraph 1E of the settlement agreement, it
4 states in the paragraph, essentially, that the parties
5 agree that, "Further acknowledging the pursuit of the
6 degree by plaintiff would comply with ATS standards under
7 the following circumstances." The ATS standards that are
8 referred to in that paragraph, are those the -- to your
9 knowledge, the written ATS standards?
10 A As understood, the written, and as we understand
11 them, yes.
12 Q When you say "we understand them," it would be the
13 oral, unwritten standards of -- relating to individual
14 variances?
15 A Yes.
President Randy Roberts stated regarding exceptions on Nov 13, 2008:
22 Q Now, let's get down to the basics. Where in your
23 accreditation from ATS is that allowed?
24 A ATS will allow schools to make exceptions, under
25 extraordinary circumstances, to normal policy.
1 Q Where is that written down?
2 A It's well understood by everyone within the ATS
3 network.

Because of unwritten and unpublished policies of NWCCU and ATS according to
WESTERNs Education Expert (Rob Wiggins) and President (Randy Roberts), WESTERN
is legally able and has the authority to offer education under the demands found in the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release that violate the U.S. Constitution, state
Constitutions, laws of Canada, federal and state laws, decisional court cases, and public policies.
187. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege Defendant UNITED
STATES condones the following with impunity:
a. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make an exception to prevent a
student or a family member from filing complaints to the government as a requirement for an
educational program, course work, and masters degrees.
b. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make exceptions requiring
educational programs or course work for masters degrees that threaten financial vengeance
causing a student or family member to pay liquidated damages for filing complaints to the
government or for making any statement about unlawfulness by the school or school employees.
c. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make exceptions to gag a student or a
family member from notifying the government regarding the schools intentional
misrepresentations to the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights regarding the

- 39 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
school's non-compliance with Section 504 during a federal investigation (18 U.S.C. 1001) as a
requirement for degrees, educational programs, and course work, even if the school deceptively
uses backdated documents during a federal investigation to falsely claim it had programs that did
not exist (Ca Penal Code 134) in order for the school to retain federal funding that requires
compliance with federal laws.
d. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make an exception that causes a
student or a family member to pay liquidated damages if the student or a family member is a
whistleblower telling the government about the schools intentional misrepresentations during a
federal investigation as a requirement for degrees, or an educational program, or course work.
e. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make an exception as a requirement
for degrees, or for an educational program, or for course work that prohibits the student or a
family member from informing the Internal Revenue Service or the California Franchise Tax
Board that the non-profit school and its administrators contrived an unwritten agreement for one
of those school administrators to receive a secret excess benefit of $25,000 that was unreported
and under the table from the non-profit schools general fund of charitable donations and Title IV
funds in direct violation of the schools Articles of Incorporation without a school committee vote
with records for approval as IRS requires.
f. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make an exception that gags the
student or family member concerning the sexual misconduct by a school employee that occurred
with a minor as a requirement for degrees, or an educational program, or course work.
g. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make an exception that silences free
speech of a student or a family member as a requirement for degrees, or for an educational
program, or for course work.
h. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make an exception that causes a
student or family member to not complain to the government about FERPA violations by the
school as a requirement for degrees, or for an educational program, or for course work.
i. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make an exception that alters or
obstructs the religious practices of that student or family member as a requirement for degrees, or
for an educational program, or for course work.
j. An NWCCU/ATS school has the power to make an exception to cause a student
or a family member to dismiss prior complaints to the government as a requirement for an
educational program, course work, and masters degrees, and more.

- 40 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. Current with the Obama, Holder, Duncan administrations
188. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege that President Obama, U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan have all
been previously briefed about the claimed exceptions and unwritten policies in which
WESTERN and 421 other NWCCU and Defendant ATS schools can use against several hundred
thousand students and their family members in 39 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
the sovereign country of Canada. At this time, Defendant UNITED STATES supports unwritten
policies trumping over and against written policies as ALL Defendants condoned and in turn
support WESTERNs demands upon RANDY and CAROL found in the Settlement Agreement
and Mutual Release that are tied to RANDYs education.
189. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege according to Defendant
UNITED STATES former ASL Director BARTH, the regulations provide that any time staff
believes an agency is acting in a manner egregiously in violation of the requirements for the
criteria or ineffective in its behavior as an accrediting agency, staff can initiate limitation,
suspension or termination actions, which would come in a hearing before a five-member
subcommittee of this Committee.
95
BARTH made that statement, because there is a compelling
governmental interest to cause and keep accreditors and the schools they accredit in check,
following the law and the Constitution since federal money is involved. While Defendant
UNITED STATES has known of the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS claimed
exceptions
96
and unwritten policies since 2008 that directly violate 34 C.F.R. 602.18(a),
18(b) and 602.23(a)(3), Defendant UNITED STATES has been negligent in its enforcement.
RANDY has suffered incalculable damage as a result of negligence by Defendant UNITED
STATES. Had Defendant UNITED STATES rejected the exception claims and dubious
unwritten policies in 2008 and held ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS accountable as it did
the ABA in 2006, then the REGAN letters would not have existed, and all subsequent events
would have had drastically different results.
D. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS AND THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
There is no one quite as mean, as someone being mean for Jesus.

95
Transcript of the proceedings, December 2006. American Bar Association, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar. p. 244
96
exception claims are a scam started by the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS with WESTERN

- 41 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
190. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS were brought on board to deal with RANDY (and CAROL), as WESTERN
depicted RANDY as a malcontent student refusing the substantially changed program standards,
objectives, and outcomes WESTERN demanded of RANDY. ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS immediately perpetrated support for WESTERN. On behalf of Defendant
UNITED STATES, James A. Scharf similarly perpetrated attacks against Plaintiffs by his
mendacious suggestions to CAROL that RANDY should just move on. In the case of
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, RANDY was forced to accept educational fraud by
unwritten exceptions that do not comply with 34 C.F.R. 602.15, 602.18, 602.20, 602.22,
and 602.23. They made this up to use against RANDY.
1. Composition
191. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege according to
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, accreditation is governed by standards adopted by the
member schools of Defendant COMMISSION. These standards cover a broad range of
institutional issues and require the approval of degree programs offered by member schools that
make up Defendant ATS with supported documentation. The decisions by ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS regarding accredited status of schools are made by the Board of Commissioners
(hereinafter BOARD) that is elected by the Defendant COMMISSION membership (of schools).
192. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege according to
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS the work of the BOARD and accreditation in general is
conducted according to procedures formally adopted by the Defendant COMMISSIONs
member schools.
193. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege Defendants COMMISSION
and ATS were incorporated on July 22, 2004, in the State of Pennsylvania.
97
Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS claim they were incorporated for the purposes set forth in Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Defendants COMMISSION and ATS claim,
the corporation shall not carry on any activity not permitted to be carried on by a corporation
organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes and which is a public charity described in
Section 509(a)(1), (2) or (3) of the Code.

97
Articles of Incorporation, July 22, 2004

- 42 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and ATS are actually shell corporations (e.g., faade) made to look legitimate before the
government and the PEOPLE. In reality, they are a guild designed to protect the guild.
98
They
enable activities by member schools as devised by the member schools that have already been
determined by decisional court cases and federal and state laws as completely immoral, unethical,
heinous, unconscionable, and utterly intolerable concerning the standards of a civilized and decent
society.
and ATS claim, they will not use the corporations to influence legislation. In reality, Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS do so and more for the personal benefit (self-dealing and abuse) of the
schools and their administration over and against students and their families.
2. An Incestuous Relationship
196. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS used their position as a public charity before the public and Defendant UNITED
STATES, as well as its corporate assets to protect the personal benefit interests of their member
schools, including WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK and RUARK, and has now set a national and
state precedent case by influencing the outcome of two civil actions and a federal investigation
with its unwritten exception policies. Money in the form of membership was exchanged
between WESTERN and Defendants COMMISSION and ATS. In turn, ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS directly saved financial expenditures for their member school , WESTERN, and
its insurance companies (Brotherhood Mutual, GuideOne and Tudor Insurance Co.), due to the
acts of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS as noted in this Complaint, to protect the personal
benefit interests of WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK and RUARK. The full extent of these
incestuous acts remains unknown.
197. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS with WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, ROBERTS, WIGGINGS, DOWNS
devised and entered into an agreement under which these Defendants, acted in concert, agreed to
willfully and operationally damage Plaintiffs with a common design to deal with the civil lawsuits
filed by Plaintiffs against WESTERN, RUARK, KORCH, and TUCK, and the complaints filed by
RANDY to Defendant UNITED STATES. The ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS acted

98
Vickie Schray, Assuring Quality in Higher Education: Recommendations for Improving Accreditation, 14th Issue Paper for The Secretary of
Educations Commission on the Future of Higher Education, unknown publication date.

- 43 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
incestuously with WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, ROBERTS, WIGGINGS, and
DOWNS in violation of 34 C.F.R. 602.15(a)(6). [conflicts of interest]
STATES was clearly aware of the incestuous relationship as noted by their records. In spite of
being clearly aware of the incestuous, conspired and compromised relationship, Defendant
UNITED STATES looked the other way regarding the predatory actions of the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS with WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, ROBERTS,
WIGGINGS, and DOWNS against the Plaintiffs and most of all RANDY.
199. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege in particular, Defendants
ALESHIRE and MCCARTHY acted individually and in their official capacities at Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS to conduct this illegal pact and conflict of interest for the benefit of the
member school WESTERN and its administration including the child molester KORCH (1975-),
the Section 504 fraud and academic fraud of TUCK for himself and his son, Matt Tuck, that dates
back to 2001, and the academic fraud and misrepresentations by RUARK, DOWNS, WIGGINS,
ROBERTS to Defendant UNITED STATES, amidst other unlawfulness.
200. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege in particular,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS made no effort to end their involvement or conduct in the
illegal pact for the benefit of the member school WESTERN and its administration. Instead, after
WESTERN had secured the services of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS to undermine the
two civil lawsuits and to disrupt the Complaints filed to Defendant UNITED STATES,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, and in particular Defendants ALESHIRE and
MCCARTHY, proceeded to continue plotting and making plans that included not only the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and WESTERN, but also included their attorneys. Over the
course of several ongoing and lengthy communications between ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS and WESTERN, mostly ROBERTS and DOWNS proceeded to plot and devise
how to deal with and what to say regarding RANDYs complaint to Defendant UNITED STATES
and in the two civil cases. This even went so far, as for ROBERTS to communicate and then
request approval and specific statements from the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS to address
the growing legal cases and complaints that were underway. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
actually authored communications to RANDY, CAROL and to Defendant UNITED STATES with
Defendants ALESHIRE and MCCARTHY.

- 44 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ALESHIRE and MCCARTHY acted individually, engaging in conspiracy and in their official
capacities at Defendants COMMISSION and ATS to support member school WESTERN and its
administration to Defendant UNITED STATES with accreditation positions and with claimed
unwritten and unpublished policies that were known at the time to not exist, and never had existed,
that Defendant UNITED STATES noted they knew nothing about.
From: Chuck Mula
To: Kevin Ford
Date: June 17, 2008
RE: Western Seminary Violations of ATS and NWCCU standards
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 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.
99

Then the very next day:

From: Randy Chapel
To: Margaret Spellings, Chuck Mula, Kent Talbert, Dale Wilson, Carol Griffiths, Shane
Dunne, Carol Nye-Wilson
Date: June 18, 2008
RE: ad hoc accreditation and false documents

Today was a deposition for Steve Korch.

The letter from ATS which was timed to arrive before the depo was brought up by Western
as a means to an end for Western to claim that they did not have to follow published ATS
Standards.

Of course nothing like this was provided prior to the contract, prior by ATS, prior by ATS
people, and of course nothing like this is written down as a policy or procedure.

ATS created answers to which Western used in an attempt to claim unwritten approval. If
left to stand, it marks a way for accreditors and schools to undermine the value and process
of accreditation, by making it an ad hoc service.

99
This is one of many communications that were withheld.

- 45 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
We would be interested to know DOE's position on this.

After about two weeks time, Mr. Mula noted:

From: Chuck Mula
Date: July 2, 2008
RE: ad hoc accreditation and false documents

Thank you for your correspondence to Secretary Spellings regarding your allegations that
Western Seminary of Portland Oregon and the Association of Theological Schools in the
United States and Canada (ATS) may have circumvented ATS policies and procedures by
creating a document that relieves Western Seminary from complying with published ATS
standards. You have also asked the Department to state its position on this process that you
are alleging accrued.

At this time the Department has no evidence to determine whether your allegations are
correct or not. However, as you may know, the Secretary's Criteria for Recognition
requires a recognized accrediting agency to follow its published policies and procedures
for monitoring their accredited programs and institutions for compliance with the agency's
standards.

I hope this information is helpful in answering your question.
Subsequently, on July 21, Mr. Mula wrote:
It would be very difficult for a recognized accrediting agency to justify to the Department
the existence of two approval process for degree programs. One published and One
unpublished. The Department would be very interested in seeing that policy and have the
agency explain how the agency applies it. If an accredited institution does not follow a
recognized accrediting agency's published policies for requesting the review and approval
of a degree program or the substantive change of a degree program to include its delivery
system, than the institution would be out of compliance with the agency's published
policies and procedures. Therefore the Department would expect that the program would
not be approved.
STATES did not produce a large number of these critical communications during FOIA requests
and litigation in 2011-2012.
203. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege in and around Dec 2006,
Carol Griffiths, Chief, Accrediting Agency Evaluation Unit, Office of Postsecondary Education
and attorney Sally Wanner of the Office of General Counsel took issue with the American Bar
Association, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar for using unpublished
policies. At that time, several published articles were written concerning the exploits of the
American Bar Association, Counsel of the Legal Education and Admission to the Bar that also
outlined the involvement of Margaret Spellings. [Carol Griffiths and Margaret Spellings had

- 46 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
direct knowledge of the ABA scam. Sally Wanner knew about it through her involvement as
accreditation attorney for OGC. Eighteen months later, on June 18, 2008, Carol Griffiths
and Margaret Spellings were both confronted by RANDY regarding the same deceptive ad
hoc accreditation scam, only now being perpetrated by the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS.]
ALESHIRE and MCCARTHY acted individually and in their official capacities for Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS to support member school WESTERN and its administration before
Defendant UNITED STATES claimed policies existed that were known at the time to not exist,
were illegal, immoral, unethical and were falsely claimed to exist for the direct benefit of
influencing litigation and ultimately influencing legislation over and against authority of the states.
ALESHIRE and MCCARTHY acted individually and in their official capacities at Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS to support member school WESTERN and its administration before
Defendant UNITED STATES and against Plaintiffs by making written statements at the expressed
request and involvement of WESTERN and its administration since 2006 that included DOWNS,
ROBERTS and Jonathan Radmacher.
206. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege at the time, DOWNS and
ROBERTS had the communications with Defendants ALESHIRE and MCCARTHY, in which
MCCARTHY also sent to WESTERNs attorney Jonathan Radmacher, the plan was made to
deal with RANDY, CAROL, and the Defendant UNITED STATES. While this communication
occurred on September 15, 2006, communications had already been transpiring between
WESTERN, DOWNS, ROBERTS, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and WESTERNs
attorney Jonathan Radmacher. For obvious reasons, WESTERN, DOWNS, ROBERTS,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and WESTERNs attorney Jonathan Radmacher have gone
to great lengths to cover up these communications, to deny the communications exist, to claim
different meanings for these communications, to claim attorney work product, to claim attorney-
client privilege, to claim accreditor-school privilege, or to claim there is nothing wrong with such
communications:
Dan and Jerry, I believe you will receive this week a follow-up communication from a
disaffected student. We deeply regret that this issue continues to spread to outside parties.
We have been living with this situation since 2002, so we know how distracting and
frustrating it can be. We thought a settlement agreement reached last March would
provide relief for ourselves and others, but as you can see, it hasnt been successful in

- 47 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
achieving that goal. Multiple attorneys have received this case and each has affirmed both
our innocence and the importance of the core principle at stake (viz., does a school have
the right to enforce a reasonable student lifestyle code?); unfortunately, however, they also
say it is very difficult to achieve a decisive resolution in matters like this. Gratefully,
based upon the tone and content of the communications received, most outsiders are able
to size up pretty quickly what is actually taking place; we trust that will also be true of the
Department of Education should a formal complaint actually be lodged with that entity by
this student.
These same communications were sent to NWCCU and Sandra Elman. In both cases, WESTERN
sought and obtained both accreditors to work against RANDY and CAROL and to deal with
Defendant UNITED STATES as shown in the evidence and actions by both.
207. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege in particular,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS accepted the devised plan with WESTERN, DOWNS and
ROBERTS that WESTERN would provide:
"assistance in helping formulate whatever response you [ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS] feel to be prudent."
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS made no effort to note any conflict of interest policies or that
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS were barred through their recognition from engaging in
anything that may appear as a conflict of interest. Instead, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
engaged in an incestuous relationship
100
and continued plotting and making plans with
WESTERN how to deal with RANDY, CAROL, their complaints, and their civil cases.
208. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege in particular, DOES 1 to 100
acted individually and in their official capacities at Defendants COMMISSION and ATS to
support member school WESTERN and its administration before Defendant UNITED STATES
and against Plaintiffs by making up written statements and developing conclusions that have
their genesis at the request and involvement of WESTERN and its administration since 2006 that
included DOWNS and ROBERTS.
ALESHIRE, MCCARTHY and DOES 1 to 100 acted individually and in their official capacities
at Defendants COMMISSION and ATS to support member school WESTERN and its
administration to claim the policies existed that in truth and in fact did not exist, and as there
was no written evidence of those claimed policies that WESTERN, WIGGINS and ROBERTS

100
MULAs phrase.

- 48 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
testified none of it was written in fact these policies never existed at all. However, said claimed
policies by Defendants ALESHIRE, MCCARTHY and DOES 1 to 100 on behalf of Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS, and WESTERN, WIGGINS and ROBERTS were claimed to give the
authority to WESTERN and the ATS network of member schools the power to make
exceptions that violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law, laws of 35 sovereign states and their
state Constitutions, laws of the sovereign country of Canada, decisional court cases, and public
policy.
210. In short, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS devised policies for the personal
benefit and self-dealing of WESTERN, WIGGINS, ROBERTS, DOWNS, RUARK, KORCH,
TUCK, and their insurance carrier companies against Plaintiffs and Defendant UNITED STATES.
Those personal benefits are noted in other following sections.
3. Conspiracy
211. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS, entered into an agreement under which said Defendants, acting in concert,
agreed to willfully and operationally damage Plaintiffs with a common design first to deal with the
civil lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs against WESTERN, RUARK, KORCH, and TUCK, and also to
deal with the complaints filed by RANDY to Defendant UNITED STATES. This also included
the involvement of the Defendants attorneys who communicated the ongoing litigation operations
by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and WESTERN, DOWNS, ROBERTS, WIGGINS,
RUARK, KORCH, and TUCK to each other.
212. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege together, each participant
took part in the conspiracy, irrespective of whether or not he/she/it was a direct actor and
regardless of the degree of his/her/its activity and each had a vested interest in the wrongful acts
succeeding against Plaintiffs and against Defendant UNITED STATES.
213. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the acts of these Defendants,
and each of them, were in furtherance of a conspiracy to violate a legal duty.
214. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege these Defendants had an
independent duty to Plaintiffs and all other students and families similarly situated to not engage
in conspired conduct (34 C.F.R. 602.15(a)(6)) and their conduct involves a conspiracy to violate
a legal duty in furtherance of Defendants financial gain and the financial gain of WESTERN,
KORCH, TUCK and RUARK, including their insurance companies.

- 49 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
215. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege these Defendants at all times
did the acts and things herein alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and
agreement alleged in this case.
216. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege these Defendants acted
directly to cheat and defraud Plaintiffs of property, to obtain money or property by false pretenses
and have done so and/or made false promises with fraudulent intent in order to cause injury to
Plaintiffs and to cause them to enter into the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, that
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS took part in as directly testified by President Bert Downs.
217. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege these Defendants acted to
support and protect each other and WESTERN with acts that are contrary to the Articles of
Incorporation of Western and Accreditation Defendants that are injurious to public morals in
order to pervert or obstruct justice and the due administration of the laws in their favor and against
what the PEOPLE have already determined is unacceptable, unlawful, unconscionable and
heinous, beyond the standards of civilized decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
These Defendants have done such and continue to enact such with no regard to the public welfare
and with no remorse for the damage and injury caused by their actions upon Plaintiffs and the
PEOPLE.
218. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege as a result of these acts of
unfair competition by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution
and disgorgement; they are entitled to obtain the remedies and relief sought herein, and for
attorneys fees pursuant to CA Penal Code Section 182 and CA Business and Professions Code
480 as relief sought results in an enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest
against corrupt business practices that willfully obstruct justice, defraud students and families, and
harm the public welfare.
E. INSTEAD OF CUSTODIANS OF EDUCATIONAL QUALITY,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS ENABLE FRAUD AND ABUSE
1. Western Seminary
219. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN publicly
claims it is committed to the highest possible standards of ethical, moral and legal business
conduct.
101
This is known and proven a gross misrepresentation.

101
Western Seminary Whistle-Blower Policy, Revision February 12, 2008

- 50 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
220. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN has a
history of making public claims known to be lies, to mislead the public, students, and donors about
its true business conduct, and ethical, moral and legal standards.
221. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege there are many
examples of WESTERNs dishonest dealings against students, employees and family members.
This complaint only covers a couple of them.
2. Revolving Door of Sex and Graduation at Western Seminary
222. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERNs business
practice routinely is to graduate students who have sex yes, sex outside of marriage. However,
to save its public face, WESTERN claims it has a strict moral code that it enforces upon
students, including that having sex even one time as Sandra Wilson testified, was a violation that
needed to be dealt with by counseling and treatment. As a former instructor at WESTERN,
Sandra advocates a public outing of those who sin, just as she did to her husband Earl Wilson
who had engaged in extracurricular sexual activity and the involvement of a care team to deal
with their mess. Ironically, of the many students having sex at the school, not once was anything
done about it prior to 2001. Years after this, a care team approach with counseling was
implemented on a student that had nothing to do with sex, but rather, he asked too many
questions about how the school was incorrectly operating overlapped M.Div. courses for double
credit during single time. WESTERN destroyed that students academic life and his family.
WESTERNs damage to that student caused him to seek cult-deprogramming counseling to deal
with the damage that people like Sandra Wilson espoused and WESTERN perpetrated. In 2008,
distraught and seriously damaged by all Defendants and WESTERN, he nearly returned to the
school to kill people and himself. His wife filed for divorce. They lost their house. He lost his job,
friends, and church friendships. They filed for bankruptcy, and he and his family have had no
restitution for WESTERNs willful damages that originated with any just cause. He can return
to WESTERN to finish his Master of Divinity only if he returns to the abusive church leader that
WESTERN colluded with to obstruct his education and his First Amendment Right to worship
where he and his family chose and his mentor course instructor approved.
223. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege on October 18, 2005
Rev. Dr. David Eckman, PhD. testified (pp. 107-111):
1 MR. DRESSER: Let me go about it a different
2 way.
3 BY MR. DRESSER:

- 51 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 Q. During the time period when you were the
5 executive vice-president or dean and a student
6 disciplinary matter or a matter that was potentially
7 subject to student discipline came to your attention,
8 did you follow the concepts set forth in Matthew 18?
9 MR. ADLER: I'm going to object to the
10 question as calling for expertise from this witness
11 who is not a noticed expert of any party. I won't
12 instruct.
13 THE DEPONENT: That was not a consideration
14 in mind, meaning it was not the governing reality in
15 such procedures. That's why I'd like to see the
16 catalog that I actually served with. That might
17 actually be helpful.
18 BY MR. DRESSER:
19 Q. Okay. So let me rephrase it another way just
20 so it's clear.
21 A. Sure.
22 Q. You don't have to look at any particular
23 document whatsoever.
24 A. Sure.
25 Q. It's a separate stand-alone question.
1 Is it true that during the time period when
2 you were the executive vice-president or dean and a
3 matter of potential student discipline came to your
4 attention, you did not follow the concepts set forth
5 in Matthew 18?
6 MS. HUNG: Can you repeat the question,
7 please.
8 THE DEPONENT: In principle --
9 MS. HUNG: Before you answer.
10 MR. ADLER: Hold on a second. I think
11 Ms. Hung wanted that read back.
12 MR. DRESSER: He wants to have you not answer
13 the question.
14 MR. ADLER: Counsel, that's really not
15 necessary. It's totally inappropriate.
16 Read back the question.
17 THE COURT REPORTER: "Question: It's a
18 separate stand-alone question. Is it true
19 that during the time period when you were the
20 executive vice-president or dean and a matter
21 of potential student discipline came to your
22 attention, you did not follow the concepts
23 set forth in Matthew 18?"
24 MR. ADLER: Go ahead.
25 THE DEPONENT: The problem with that question
1 is that it's referring to a very specific section of

- 52 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 Scripture, and in dealing with students, to answer
3 "no" is to say that I would be disregarding the
4 Scripture. To answer "yes" would be to say that that
5 was a conscious thought in my mind when I went to go
6 and talk with the student. And it may or may not have
7 been a conscious thought in my mind. The important
8 thing was to talk to the student.
9 Does that make sense?
10 MR. DRESSER: Sure.
11 BY MR. DRESSER:
12 Q. During the time period when you were the
13 executive vice-president or dean, was a student
14 development committee meeting ever gathered in San
15 Jose for the purposes of determining whether
16 discipline should be asserted against a student?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you during the time period when you were
19 the executive vice-president or dean demand that a
20 student waive his or her penitent clergy privilege?
21 A. No.
22 Q. During the time period when you were an
23 executive vice-president or dean, did you demand that
24 any student waive his or her privilege in
25 psychological -- in psychologist-patient
1 communications?
2 A. No.
3 Q. During the time period when you were
4 executive vice-president or dean, did you act to
5 suspend any student from education at Western
6 Seminary?
7 A. Ask that question again to make sure I get
8 it.
9 MR. DRESSER: Can you read it back.
10 THE COURT REPORTER: "Question: During the
11 time period when you were executive
12 vice-president or dean, did you act to
13 suspend any student from education at Western
14 Seminary?"
15 THE DEPONENT: No.
16 BY MR. DRESSER:
18 executive vice-president or dean, did you act to
19 terminate the education of any student from Western
20 Seminary?
21 A. No.
23 executive vice-president or dean of Western Seminary,
24 did you become aware that any student had had sexual

- 53 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25 relations outside of marriage?
1 MR. ADLER: You can answer that question yes
2 or no.
3 THE DEPONENT: Yes.
4 BY MR. DRESSER:
5 Q. How many times?
6 MR. ADLER: You mean how many times the
7 student had sex or how many students are we talking
8 about?
9 THE DEPONENT: That's why I'm laughing.
10 BY MR. DRESSER:
11 Q. How many students did you become aware?
12 A. Probably several. As to the specifics, I
13 cannot recollect clearly.
224. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Pastor Rob Bryceson,
M. Div. 93, is one of the many who had sex while a student at WESTERN. Pastor Bryceson
testified on April 15, 2005: 1) he attended WESTERN; 2) he was involved in ministry at the time;
3) he met his future wife (Tanya) in December of 1991 and they had sex in and around April/May
of 1992; 4) WESTERNs administration knew about Brycesons pregnant girlfriend (in and
around October/November) when Dean David Eckman was involved; 5) there was a meeting that
was not a hugely meaningful meeting to me as WESTERN wasn't the kind of campus life
where private and personal life interacted. It was a commuter school.
225. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Pastor Rob Bryceson
clearly answered NO in his deposition testimony under oath to the following questions: Did the
school at any time require that you go through any counseling? Did the school ever tell you that
they were going to suspend your education? Was your education with Western Seminary ever
suspended by the school? Did anyone at the school ever tell you that you would not be qualified
to graduate unless you went through some school program? Did the school request that you give
to them any information about any counseling you went to, either church counseling or
psychological counseling? and finally, Did you ever go through a student development
committee or other disciplinary hearing?
226. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Pastor Rob Brycesons
shocking testimony caused a hushed silence in the deposition room as he was asked: Were you
allowed to continue with your education and graduate? Pastor Rob Bryceson clearly testified:
Yes. My daughter was born in December of '92. I graduated the following -- you know, six
months later. I graduated on a Saturday, went to ceremonies. The very next day I married
Tanya. Pastor Bryceson became a successful pastor, husband, father and songwriter.

- 54 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The Sex Pervert Steve Korch
A person cannot look at kiddy porn that depicts sexual misconduct, but the government has
agreed that you can earn an education if you cover up a "finger-banging, penis exposing
evangelical pedophile" who was a married, 25-year-old, Biola student, and youth director
in a Christian church.
227. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege tens of thousands of
the PEOPLE are already well aware of the sexual misconduct and cover up of the child
molestations by KORCH and his threats against those who know and speak about his history of
employment and habitual conduct to conceal his sexual misconduct from the Church.
228. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in April and May of
1975, KORCH who was a 25-year-old, married, student at Biola University, and was working as a
youth director in a church has admitted he perpetrated deplorable acts
102
that the underage Jane
Doe stated occurred in his locked church office while he was providing one-on-one counseling to
his victim. KORCH also admitted to Jane Doe he doesnt trust himself to be alone with females
because he knows he is capable of reprehensible acts. KORCHs deplorable and reprehensible
acts were quieted up in 1975 while JANE DOE remained traumatized. Instead of self-reporting
his crime to BIOLA as school policies required, KORCH graduated and then he enrolled at
WESTERN while he continued working within Christian churches in close contact with children
and teenagers that were unaware of KORCHs sexual misconduct against a minor.
229. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege CAROL surveyed all
of those churches where KORCH worked, and they replied they would not hire a youth pastor who
told them he molested a child in his youth group. The first three churches had employment
applications asking for employment history, and the first church was not told about the church
where KORCHs sexual misconduct occurred. Thus, WESTERN and KORCH demanded
CAROL destroy all survey records concerning KORCH in order for RANDY to retain his 81
accumulated credits, complete his two masters degrees, and receive the two related and purported
valid masters degrees that demand CAROL and RANDY say nothing about the sex pervert
KORCH.
230. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in April 2002 JANE
DOE confronted KORCH concerning his deplorable acts. She stated,
I imagine it will be a shock to hear from me after so many years, but thanks to the Internet
it was easy to locate you. It looks like youve done well since your days as Youth Minister

102
KORCHs own phrase in which he does not deny statements he used his fingers, mouth and penis on JANE DOE, an underage girl.

- 55 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Orange, CA. Im sure youd like to forget those days,
especially May 1975. Unfortunately, its been hard for me to forget, especially because I
never had closure. You never said you were sorry for sexually molesting me. I was only
16 and I trusted you. You and Ruthie led me to the Lord!! Its interesting to read the part
of your book where you talk about the first time you kissed Ruthie and how a kiss became
a symbol of love for one another. My first kiss came from you. The irony is that because
of what YOU took from me, I would not kiss the men I had relationships with until it had
meaning to me. What I went through has affected all my relationships. I am 43 now, still
single, and all the stories on the news recently about the Catholic priests who molested
children and got away with it, bring all my memories back to the surface. You are very
lucky that the D.A. did not press charges against you. He wanted to, but my parents knew
I could not have handled it emotionally. And at that point I only wanted to protect you and
would never have agreed to testify against you. So they chose not to press charges

231. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege KORCH made no
effort to deny his acts when he replied to her. JANE DOE became quiet about it again until 2005,
when JANE DOE again searched the internet to see what KORCH was doing. That was when
JANE DOE met and became friends with RANDY and CAROL, after she learned about the
lawsuit filed by RANDY that included KORCH as a defendant with WESTERN and others.
232. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in 2005, JANE DOE
confronted KORCH on camera in his June 24
th
deposition. That was specifically done for the
purpose to demonstrate KORCH was a habitual liar, and a flaming religious hypocrite, which
destroyed KORCHs credibility according to California Evidence Code 1100
103
in the
underlying lawsuit, because WESTERNs defense against RANDY relied upon KORCHs
credibility. During his June 24, 2005, deposition, KORCHs victim confronted KORCH with the
April 23 24, 2002 emails written between KORCH and his victim, and she also provided a
detailed accounting of KORCHs criminal acts that he perpetrated against her. KORCH refused to
make any statement about his email response to JANE DOE upon the direction of his attorney, but
he admitted he received her April 2002 email.
233. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege JANEs detailed
accounting of what happened became exhibits #145 147 to KORCHs deposition that CAROL
posted on www.religioushypocrites.com, all of which KORCH demanded CAROL had to destroy
and RANDY could never speak about it or produce it ever again (not even to law enforcement or

103
Except as otherwise provided by statute, any otherwise admissible evidence (including evidence in the form of an opinion, evidence of
reputation, and evidence of specific instances of such person's conduct) is admissible to prove a person's character or a trait of his character.

- 56 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the government), if RANDY wanted his 81 accumulated credits he previously earned and paid for,
and any further education to complete his two masters degrees.
234. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in 2005 WESTERNs
President DOWNS covered for KORCH at DOWNS August 23, 2005 deposition. President
DOWNS made numerous claims under oath that could not be relied upon as truthful and he
contradicted his own testimony when he offered it. DOWNS testimony contradicted time and
events, in WESTERNs all out effort to cover for KORCH that extended to WESTERNs Self
Study to secure accreditation, KORCHs employment interviews at WESTERN, and a Visiting
Team Review by peers on behalf of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
235. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege on August 1, 2005
WESTERNs President DOWNS publicly acknowledged KORCHs sexual misconduct against
JANE DOE. This act by DOWNS created a liability on the part of DOWNS and WESTERN that
KORCH used and manipulated to KORCHs advantage against WESTERN. KORCH used
WESTERN, WESTERNs attorneys and insurance companies as a means to attack RANDY and
CAROL for exposing KORCH molested a minor behind his religious faade, for CAROL publicly
protesting KORCH and surveying churches, and for RANDY and CAROL noting since 2005 that
KORCH cannot be trusted due to over 30 years of living a double life while KORCH taught,
preached, and continues living a double standard.
104

236. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege by October 2005, The
Portland Alliance wrote a newspaper story concerning the underlying litigation and WESTERNs
concealment was part of KORCHs corruption and habitual lying that damaged RANDY.
237. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege KORCH refuses to answer
any questions when he is confronted about his sexual misconduct.
105
KORCH refuses to take care
of his victim or pay for her mounting medical costs to deal with the damage he caused to her.
238. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege because KORCH and
WESTERN demand all of this be covered up, it is unknown how many other victims there may be
especially since KORCH admitted his awareness of his problem.

104
This is in analog to religious leaders like Pastor Ted Haggard, Bishop Eddie Long, and so on.
105
Abby Sewell. Baptist seminary faces corruption charges. The Portland Alliance Newspaper. Oct: 2005. Accessed February 4, 2012.

- 57 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Cover up for Sex Pervert Steve Korch
239. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege it is hard to totally know the
full extent of the cover up for pervert KORCH by Defendants and WESTERN. The following
facts have been discovered over the last seven years thus far:
a. Faith Baptist Church of Lincoln City, OR
240. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege on January 19, 2006,
Faith Baptist Church of Lincoln City, Oregon wrote to KORCH, JANE DOE, CAROL, DOWNS,
and others about KORCHs sexual misconduct in 1975. Pastor Bard Marshall stated:
The Deacon board of Faith Baptist Church recognizes the tragic nature of the sin
that took place in April and May of 1975, and its terrible consequences for all who
were involved.. We would agree with Steve's description that his actions were
"deplorable." 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. All parties involved should be advised that
the current congregation of Faith Baptist Church has been made aware of this moral
failure that took place in 1975. They should also be aware that 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.

241. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege from June 2005 to
March 14, 2006, KORCH refused to step down from teaching and ministry as Pastor Bard
Marshall and his ordaining church recommended due to the public nature of his sin against a
youth. Instead, KORCH increased his threats against RANDY and CAROL.
242. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege anyone with
knowledge of KORCHs molestations was met with threats from KORCHs personal attorney,
Linda McPharlin (CASB No. 71917), Andrew Alder (CASB No. 56415) and Ellen Hung (CASB
No. 216821), who painted KORCH as a victim. Threats to cover up KORCHs molestations
perpetrated against a minor continued by attorneys Jonathan Radmacher (Oregon Bar No.
924314), Thomas Hadley (CASB No. 102716), Anthony Lauria (CASB No. 125367), Mark Shem
(CASB No. 152860) and Sam Phillips (CASB No. 127793). The ongoing cover up of KORCHs
molestations was financed by Brotherhood Mutual, GuideOne, and Tudor Insurance Co since
2005. WESTERNs attorneys were financed by Guide One Insurance and Brotherhood Mutual
Insurance, to attack RANDY, CAROL, and DALE in their all-out, conspired effort to paint
WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, and KORCH as the true victims being attacked by Plaintiffs,

- 58 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
while they used the litigation after March 14, 2006 as a means to obstruct Randys education and
to harass and maliciously injure Plaintiffs, and most of all RANDY.
106
Defendant UNITED
STATES did the same sort of thing regarding the three FOIA lawsuits filed in 2011 and 2012.
b. Secret Agreement
243. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege KORCH, the flaming
religious hypocrite, demanded total secrecy and concealment from the PEOPLE, from
WESTERNs students, and from churches regarding his sexual perversion and molestations he
perpetrated against a minor. WESTERN, KORCH and their attorneys, made extortionist demands
during mediation as an individual party to the mediation that resulted in the March 14, 2006,
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. It is now known that KORCHs secret demands that
were concealed from RANDY and CAROL were later testified by KORCH, RUARK, TUCK, and
DOWNS as a determining factor about whether or not settlement was going to occur. RANDY
and CAROL were unaware of the fact that KORCH, WESTERN, DOWNS, ROBERTS, TUCK,
RUARK, WIGGINS, the two insurance companies Guide One and Tudor Insurance, the attorneys
associated with WESTERN and the insurance companies and the mediator Judge Leonard
Sprinkles (ret) willfully used KORCHs demands to defraud RANDY and CAROL.
244. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Plaintiffs would later
learn that Judge Leonard Sprinkles, who had been previously accepted as a neutral mediator
actually worked to favor WESTERN et al, as KORCHs attorney was a law partner with
Sprinkles wife.
245. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege RANDY and CAROL
learned after discovery about the time mediator Judge Leonard Sprinkles (ret) spent during
mediation negotiating secret favors and demands of KORCH and WESTERN to silence Plaintiffs
by numerous provisions in the March 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release that
were written to favor WESTERN and KORCH. Judge Leonard Sprinkles actually billed RANDY
for this without RANDYs knowledge. Mediator Judge Leonard Sprinkles (ret) spent hours
negotiating that fraudulence that Sprinkles knew favored KORCH and his attorney, McPharlin
who was business partners with Sprinkles wife. That negotiating continued for several days in

106
CA Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-200 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 As well as Rule 3-210 A member shall not advise the
violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.

- 59 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
spite of the fact that Sprinkles received a statement from RANDY and his attorney that RANDY
would not sign any settlement giving any financial benefit to KORCH.
c. $25,000 Tax Evasion Scam
246. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege they learned years
later, SPRINKLES failed to disclose to RANDY, CAROL and RANDYs attorney William
Dresser, the secret, under the table $25,000 payoff to KORCH that Sprinkles hid from RANDY,
CAROL and RANDYs attorney William Dresser at the time of the mediation [See California
Evidence Code Section 1119] that contributed to the fraud against RANDY and CAROL, in which
WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, KORCH, DOWNS, WIGGINS, ROBERTS, WESTERNs board,
GuideOne, Tudor Insurance Co., Andrew Adler, Ellen Hung, Anthony Lauria, Jonathan
Radmacher, and Linda McPharlin originally took part in. Then after March 14, 2006 Thomas
Hadley, Sam Phillips, Mark Shem, Anthony Zand and Brotherhood Mutual took part in this cover
up.
247. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege KORCH testified on
June 18, 2008 (pp. 21-30):
22 Q. Okay. Prior to entering into the settlement
23 agreement, had you made a demand for payment from some
24 person regarding your claims?
25 A. The question, again, is?
1 Q. Well, let's back it up. Prior to March 14th,
2 2006, had you asserted any claim for personal injury
3 against anyone in regard to the litigation involving
4 Mr. Randy Chapel?
5 A. I don't recall whether I did or not in that.
6 Q. Okay. Well, do you recall receiving $25,000 as
7 part of the settlement agreement?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Ah, you remember that. And when did you
10 receive that $25,000?
11 A. Sometime after the settlement.
12 Q. Who sent you the money?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Well, did you -- you don't know who paid the
15 $25,000?
16 A. I don't recall how that whole thing worked, no.
17 Q. Well, who paid you $25,000?
18 A. I think I answered that already.
19 Q. Well, I'm waiting for an answer. Who paid it?
20 Was it Western Seminary?
21 A. I don't recall. That's my answer.
22 Q. Okay. Did you sign a settlement agreement in
23 order to receive the $25,000?
24 A. I think I signed this settlement agreement
25 (indicating).
1 Q. Did you sign any other settlement agreement?
2 A. I don't think I did, but I don't know.

- 60 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 Q. Okay. Can you point in this Settlement
4 Agreement and Mutual Release, which has been identified
5 as Deposition Number 1, can you identify where in this
6 settlement agreement you received $25,000?
7 A. (Reviewing exhibit.) I don't see --
8 Q. Take your time.
9 A. Well, I don't see anything in here that states
10 that.
11 Q. Okay. Did somebody physically hand you $25,000
12 in cash?
13 A. I think I've already answered that question.
14 Q. No, you haven't.
15 A. Well, my answer to that and like questions is,
16 I don't recall how that all went.
17 Q. You don't remember if you received a check or
18 cash.
19 A. I don't recall how that went.
20 Q. You don't remember if you didn't receive --
21 strike that.
22 How many times in the past 20 years has
23 somebody handed you $25,000 in cash?
24 MR. PHILLIPS: Objection; he already answered
25 that. He doesn't recall how it was received.
1 MR. HANNON: No, I'm asking in the last 25
2 years, how many times he has received cash --
3 THE WITNESS: I don't think that is a relevant
4 question to answer.
5 BY MR. HANNON:
6 Q. The standard -- the standard at depositions is
7 not whether or not it is a relevant question. The
8 question is will it lead to relevant evidence.
9 You are saying that you received $25,000 but
10 you have no idea who gave it to you, when you got it,
11 where you got it, what it was for, or anything, why you
12 got $25,000, other than God smiled on you from Heaven
13 and showered you with golden coins.
14 A. Did I say that?
15 Q. No, but that's what it sounds like.
16 A. Would you like him to strike that?
17 MR. PHILLIPS: Yeah, Your question is
18 incorrect, because he did say what it was for. And he
19 doesn't recall, according to the testimony, exactly if
20 it was a check or cash or --
21 BY MR. HANNON:
22 Q. What was the money for?
23 A. Now, let me put it into a context that you are
24 dismissing here. And that was that this was in the
25 midst of something else I had never experienced before
1 too, which was this whole procedure. So the whole thing
2 was put into a context that would make remembering the
3 details of how it all happened difficult. Do you
4 understand that?
5 Q. Well, I understand the stress of litigation can
6 be very severe and, believe me, as a lawyer doing this a
7 few years, I've had more than one client who has acted,
8 you know, unusually because of the stress.
9 However, counsel stated -- let me back this up.
10 What was the $25,000 compensation for?

- 61 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11 A. I believe that that was to help reimburse some
12 of the additional costs that I had had with this.
13 Q. What additional costs were you being
14 reimbursed?
15 A. It was the additional cost, and I'm sure that
16 within that was the idea of my lawyer fees.
17 Q. Okay. Other than lawyer fees, was it to
18 reimburse anything else?
19 A. I don't know if there were other pieces to
20 that.
21 Q. Isn't it a fact that part of your claim --
22 strike that.
23 Prior to receiving the $25,000, is it not a
24 fact that you were seeking damages against Carol
25 Nye-Wilson for her basically outing you regarding your
1 child molestation charges?
2 A. I'm not sure how all that --
3 Q. Okay. Were you aware -- strike that.
4 Prior to March 14, 2006, were you aware of a
5 website created by Ms. Carol Nye-Wilson?
6 A. I was aware of a website.
7 Q. And do you remember the name of the website?
8 A. I don't.
9 Q. Did you ever go on the website?
10 A. I believe I was there once.
11 Q. Okay. Did you ever see any -- while you were
12 on the website, did you see any allegations against you
13 regarding sexual misconduct involving xxxx xxxxxxxxx?
14 A. I didn't look that long on it. I just checked
15 to see if the site existed.
16 Q. Okay. Were you aware that Ms. Wilson was
17 making allegations -- strike that.
18 Were you aware that Ms. Wilson was presenting
19 to the world the fact of your prior molestation of xxxx
20 xxxxxxxxx?
21 A. I was aware that she was making claims against
22 me.
23 Q. Were you aware that those claims included your
24 molestation of xxxx xxxxxxxxx?
25 A. I was aware that she was making claims against
1 me.
2 Q. Were you -- I'll keep asking it.
3 A. And I'll just keep answering.
4 Q. All right. Were you aware those claims
5 involved xxxx xxxxxxxxx?
6 A. That again goes to the xxxx xxxxxxxxx thing,
7 which --
8 Q. No, it goes to why you received $25,000. And
9 you're going to dance as much as you want, but I'll get
10 there eventually.
11 A. What I'm saying is that as long as you want to
12 go to issues concerning xxxx xxxxxxxxx, that is not an
13 area that I'm going to be responding to.
14 MR. PHILLIPS: Well, let me put it this way:
15 Why are we asking these questions about why he received
16 $25,000? Who cares?
17 MR. HANNON: Because -- no --
18 MR. PHILLIPS: Why is that going to lead to

- 62 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19 admissible evidence in this case?
20 MR. HANNON: Oh, absolutely.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Why?
22 MR. HANNON: It goes to the intent of why this
23 settlement agreement was entered into, the intent of why
24 it was going into, what other pressures went into the
25 fraud that was placed on my client. It goes to a lot of
1 very relevant issues.
2 MR. PHILLIPS: Why is the intent important in
3 this --
4 MR. HANNON: Because intent is an element of
5 fraud, as -- and intent is also important for purposes
6 of whether or not there was a formation of a contract.
7 I mean, those are -- intent is an element.
8 MR. PHILLIPS: Intent is an element --
9 MR. HANNON: Sure.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: -- of a contract.
11 MR. HANNON: Have you ever heard of mutual
12 mistake?
13 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think there is any
14 mutual mistake.
15 MR. HANNON: Well -- going on.
16 Q. Isn't it a fact that you received $25,000
17 because you were threatening to hold up the settlement
18 of the case involving Chapel and Western Seminary?
19 MR. PHILLIPS: Objection. You can't inquire
20 into any negotiations that took place in mediation of
21 this matter. That's what you are asking for. That will
22 never be admissible.
23 MR. HANNON: No, and I agree with you. And as
24 a matter of fact, there is a case that came out, I
25 think, about three weeks ago on the subject matter.
1 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.
2 MR. HANNON: So I'm familiar with the law.
3 Q. What I'm trying to find out is: You said you
4 received $25,000 compensation for having to hire a
5 lawyer.
6 A. I didn't say that, no. That is what you are
7 saying.
8 Q. All right. You are saying that part of the
9 compensation was for hiring a lawyer.
10 A. The compensation was to reimburse expenses I
11 had.
12 Q. Okay. And the only expense you are able to
13 identify at this time is hiring a lawyer.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If you were to think about it for a couple of
16 seconds, can you think of any other expenses that
17 $25,000 compensated?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Isn't it a fact that the $25,000 was
20 paid to you because you were going to hold up the
21 settlement?
22 A. No.
23 Q. And again, you don't know who paid you the
24 $25,000.
25 A. I was not watching for how that whole thing
1 came down.

- 63 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2 Q. And you didn't sign any separate settlement
3 agreement in order to receive $25,000?
4 A. I don't recall doing that.
5 Q. Okay. And you don't know if the money came
6 from an insurance carrier, do you?
7 A. I don't.
8 Q. And you don't know if it came directly from
9 Western Seminary, do you?
10 A. I don't.
11 Q. And at the time that you received the $25,000,
12 you were still Executive Dean of the San Jose campus;
13 isn't that correct?
14 A. Correct.

Then on pages: 84-87

12 Q. Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I
13 mean, was it presented to you on March 14th as, here's
14 the deal, sign it or don't sign it, or had there been
15 prior discussions where you may have seen other
16 revisions?
17 A. So that is a specific question.
18 Q. Right.
19 A. I believe there were revisions and I saw those.
20 Q. And in those revisions, were there not claims
21 that you wanted $25,000?
22 A. I don't know what was in those revisions. I
23 don't think that was in there, but if it was, I don't
24 recall it.
25 Q. All right. Who came up with the idea that you
1 wanted 25 grand?
2 A. Who came up with the idea that I wanted 25
3 grand?
4 Q. Uh-huh. Yes.
5 A. I don't know that -- I don't know how that came
6 about. I'm not sure where that generated --
7 MR. PHILLIPS: I want to object and put on the
8 record that if you are asking about his claims, and they
9 are included in the confidentiality agreement, you are
10 actually purposefully violating the confidentiality
11 agreement, because it says they will not discuss the
12 claims in the future of any party. And you are saying
13 he made a claim. That would actually violate the
14 confidential --
15 MR. HANNON: Well, not in the nature of the
16 deposition.
17 MR. PHILLIPS: It doesn't say that.
18 MR. HANNON: Well --
19 MR. PHILLIPS: Are you intending --
20 THE REPORTER: One at a time, please.
21 MR. PHILLIPS: Are you intentionally having
22 your client violate that? Because it could expose her
23 to civil liability. I just want to point this out.
24 MR. HANNON: Well, if you are trying -- well --
25 MR. PHILLIPS: And also, it may be improper to
1 do it at all, so I'm wondering whether you are doing
2 this on purpose.
3 MR. HANNON: No. I'm trying to find out why he

- 64 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4 got $25,000. Apparently, somebody handed him money. He
5 doesn't really know why, other than maybe to pay back
6 some attorney's fees that I don't know if he even ever
7 paid. And I find that one of those statements he makes
8 that I know is not true, because that's just too
9 incredible for a human being to believe. Now, maybe you
10 believe it, but nobody else does.
11 In terms of the confidentiality issues, the
12 fact of the matter is this is a deposition, there is an
13 exception to the confidentiality agreement that would
14 probably apply, but if you are going to say I can't ask
15 him questions about why he entered into a settlement
16 agreement because it might violate a confidentiality
17 agreement, then we need to go to court right now and
18 find out direction from the court, or agree to a special
19 master being appointed.
20 MR. PHILLIPS: I don't think I'm going to let
21 him answer any more questions about any claims he made,
22 because that specifically was made part of the
23 confidentiality agreement, was that the claims people
24 were making are not to be discussed in the future. And
25 that is exactly what it contemplated. So I don't want
1 him to be held --
2 MR. HANNON: I think what they contemplated is
3 they didn't want the public in general to know. And I
4 think that was the idea of the settlement agreement. I
5 don't think you seriously disagree with me about that
6 one. I think the idea was we weren't supposed to have
7 everybody going out and airing the dirty laundry in
8 public. I think that was the idea.
9 This is not public, this is a deposition.
10 MR. PHILLIPS: Are you assuming this deposition
11 is not going to go to anyone?
12 MR. HANNON: Well, the original will go to
13 Court under seal; my client will see the deposition, and
14 to the extent it's attached to other litigation -- I
15 mean, Mr. Chapel is going to see it.

Then finally on pages: 117-119

2 Q. Was there anything in the settlement
3 agreement -- strike that.
4 Were there any agreements that were made that
5 were not made part of the settlement agreement?
6 A. Any agreements with --
7 Q. Anyone.
8 A. -- Randy Chapel?
9 Q. Anyone. Any of the parties to the contract.
10 Were there any agreements that were made that are not
11 part of the settlement agreement?
12 A. I don't think there are any legal agreements
13 made that way, no.
14 Q. And that would -- your testimony would be that
15 would include the $25,000 that you received?
16 A. I don't -- I don't think there were any
17 agreements made tied to the settlement like that, that
18 are not actually stated here.
19 Q. Was it your understanding that by receiving

- 65 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20 $25,000, you were no longer going to be able to sue
21 Randy Chapel?
22 A. I believe we are returning to something we've
23 already asked.
24 MR. PHILLIPS: Back to the area of claims, and
25 we're not going to discuss claims.
1 MR. HANNON: It's not a claim. I'm just
2 asking -- he said, previous testimony, that he signed a
3 waiver and release, waiver and release said everybody
4 would go home. Fine.
5 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
6 MR. HANNON: He also says that the agreement is
7 integrated, using the technical term.
8 MR. PHILLIPS: No, I don't think he said
9 anything about an integrated agreement.
10 MR. HANNON: Well --
11 THE WITNESS: I agreed that I didn't understand
12 the term.
13 BY MR. HANNON:
14 Q. Okay. Well, you understood that the agreement
15 contained all of the material obligations and rights of
16 the parties that were being agreed to at that time.
17 Correct?
18 A. That makes sense.
19 Q. And it doesn't mention anything about the
20 $25,000. And the question I have is: Was it your
21 understanding that the $25,000, A, is not mentioned in
22 the settlement agreement; is that true?
23 A. I think we are returning again to that area --
24 Q. Oh, it's just mentioned. Come on. It is
25 either in there or not.
1 A. We are not going there.

248. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN and
companys story would change as shown in testimony at the Arbitration on March 31, 2010:
DOWNS (page 572):
Q. Did Mr. Korch ever receive a payment of $25,000 from Western Seminary's attorneys or from Western
Seminary to compensate him for his attorneys' fees?
A. No.
Q. As we sit here today, you have no knowledge of the $25,000 payment --
A. Of course I do. Of course I do, but it wasn't from Western Seminary.

Q. Who did the $25,000 payment come from?
A. Well, if you'll recall in further -- in earlier deposition, the mode of the way that was handled was all of the
funds that came to the settlement were handled by one attorney and paid out. So, there's no way to know
whose funds went to settled it in a macro way.

Then (Page 575... 576):

Q. It's correct that you don't know whether the $25,000-payment came from Western Seminary or whether it
came from the insurance companies or both?
A. I don't know.

Q. And it is Western Seminary's attorney who handled the disbursement of the funds?
A. It was the insurance attorney representing Western Seminary that handled that, that's correct.

- 66 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Finally:
Q. Was there any side agreement where either Mr. Korch or Ms. McPharlin demanded that Ms. McPharlin's
attorneys' fees be paid?
A. I'm not aware of any side agreement.

KORCH (page 591-)
Q. It's correct that you were paid $25,000 from the Settlement to satisfy your attorneys' fees
A. I was not paid that.
Q. Right. I should clarify that. Is it correct -- or, do you have knowledge whether your attorney received
$25,000
A. Yes.
Q. -- in the settlement
A. Yes, she did.
Q. Do you know why that was not included in the Settlement Agreement?
A. Um, I believe it was not part of the Settlement Agreement.
Q. Do you know why?
A. It was a separate agreement.
Q. Was it a separate oral treatment or a written agreement?
A. I believe it was a separate oral agreement.
107

Q. And who was the agreement between?
A. Um, I believe it was between the Seminary and myself.

249. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege KORCH was paid
$25,000 from the proceedings of the settlement as noted by SPRINKLES own handwriting. This
was completed under the table and without any paperwork in an attempt to cover up this payment
and SPRINKLES billing fraud charged to RANDY, CAROL and William Dresser who had
previously stated that RANDY would not enter into any agreement in which KORCH would
obtain money. Thus, as Plaintiffs allege, WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, their attorneys,
their insurance companies and the mediator himself SPRINKLES kept the payment covered up.
There is no invoice, no attorney cost sheet nothing to substantiate the payment of $25,000 or
why it was $25,000 and not some other number. WESTERN et al, used the mediation privilege,
and agreement among all of their parties to keep the payment covered up from the public and
from the U.S. Treasury and the State.
250. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege when RANDY
discovered Mediator Judge Leonard Sprinkles deceptive, conspired, and non-neutral conduct that
Sprinkles admitted in an email to RANDY, then RANDY requested a reimbursement of his
payment to Sprinkles for neutral mediation. Sprinkles refused to refund Randys costs associated
with the time he spent to comply with KORCHs demands for his secret, unwritten $25,000
payoff, and the numerous cover-ups for KORCH that were in the Settlement Agreement and

107
These defendants violated CA Evidence Code 1118, 1123 because there is no record of the oral settlement agreement. The KORCH and
WESTERN agreement was meant to be covered up in every such way, even if it violated Evidence Code.

- 67 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mutual Release as a vehicle for WESTERN and KORCH to silence RANDY and CAROL about
KORCHs public deception regarding his molestations.
251. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege these provisions for
perverted criteria, standards, and objectives for RANDYs education were observed and disliked
by MULA and the Defendant UNITED STATES. However, Defendant UNITED STATES
employees REGAN, OLDHAM and SPELLINGS accepted and condoned WESTERNs unethical
education practices in the Settlement Agreement that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
supported as having no problems and judged the settlement agreement did not violate ATSs
standards.
252. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN, KORCH,
TUCK, RUARK, DOWNS, WIGGINS, and ROBERTS knew consequential problems would be
caused by outing KORCH for his misconduct and habitual lies. Therefore, KORCH was paid the
$25,000 under the table as excess benefit, and entered into an unwritten agreement that was
premeditated fraud against the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, by providing additional
benefits to KORCH from the funds negotiated to settle Chapel v. WESTERN et al as a means to
settle with KORCH and to control and silence RANDY and CAROL while covering up how the
$25,000 got to KORCH.
253. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege at the time of
settlement WESTERN, WESTERNs insurance companies, DOWNS, KORCH, RUARK, TUCK,
SPRINKLES, and WESTERNs/KORCHs legal counsels expressly designed to put money into
an attorney trust fund for settlement of Chapel v. Western Seminary et al. However, they
deceitfully agreed $25,000 from the attorney trust fund for Chapel v. Western would pay off
KORCH without RANDY or CAROL knowing about it. Thus, KORCHs payment was
untraceable with only WESTERN, WIGGINS, ROBERTS, DOWNS, RUARK, TUCK, KORCH,
the representatives from GuideOne and Tudor Insurance, RADMACHER, ADLER, HUNG and
SPRINKLES all knowing about KORCHs payoff. According to KORCH there was no
paperwork, and no check, nothing to indicate the $25,000 transaction it just appeared. This
off the book payment was concealed from the U.S. Treasury, California Franchise Tax Board,
RANDY, CAROL, and DRESSER. RANDY settled for his education. WESTERN and its
insurance companies only paid RANDY $275,000 as a result of the predetermined fraud
benefitting KORCH. The underlying case actually cost Randy and Carol over $365,628.00
(Dec 2002 June 2006).

- 68 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
254. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN
manipulated the settlement figures and made other unfounded claims portraying RANDYs
concern in the case was money and not education. Most clearly, this misrepresentation is betrayed
by WESTERNs attorney Sam Phillips, who made those and other claims to try to gain sympathy
for WESTERNs dishonest conduct. In one case, Phillips stated, Not satisfied with the
substantial sum of money that he received, RANDY CHAPEL filed his second case,.
255. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERNs public
position that CAROLs civil case against WESTERN had nothing to do with her, but was a third
case for RANDY. WESTERN completely dismissed CAROL as having anything to do with the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, even though, WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK and
RUARK all demanded CAROL had to be part of the gag orders and liquidated damages in the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release if RANDY wanted to finish his education.
The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERNs cover-up effort
continued during two subsequent lawsuits handled by Brotherhood Mutual and Guide One with
costs totaling nearly $1 million in legal fees in their all out bid to defeat RANDY and CAROL,
and with ALL DEFENDANTS assisting WESTERN, including NWCCU, to primarily cover up
KORCHs molestations and the changed and unethical education criteria.
d. First Baptist Church of Junction City, OR
256. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN, KORCH
and others including their attorneys persuaded other third parties at Junction City, OR, to not
provide facts to RANDY and CAROL about KORCH and WESTERN, and to instead provide
misleading information and misdirection to the Church, to the PEOPLE, to RANDY, and to
CAROL. WESTERN et al were so persuasive that Pastor Ted Slaeker defended KORCH and
WESTERN to third parties and he concealed the fact of his church Boards concerns about hiring
KORCH to speak at their retreat after discovering KORCHs sexual misconduct against a minor
during his ministry and marriage about which Gary Correl and Grant Smith testified KORCH is
unqualified for church leadership.
257. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege that concealment and
obstruction of justice were part of the deposition subjects of Gary Correll, Grant Smith, Pastors
Michael Hoch and Ted Slaeker taken in Oregon on Feb 10, 2010. WESTERN and its attorneys
influenced Michael Hoch and Ted Slaeker to not produce subpoenaed materials, and at the time of

- 69 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
his deposition, Ted Slaeker failed to produce records requested by RANDY and CAROL while
Slaeker covered up facts for and about KORCH.
258. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege of the facts learned at
those depositions, one of the most prominent items was that AFTER the Settlement Agreement
and Mutual Release was signed to gag RANDY and CAROL on March 14, 2006, it was used as a
vehicle to conceal criminal acts by KORCH, WESTERN, TUCK and RUARK. Plaintiffs also
learned that Pastor Bard Marshall of Faith Baptist Church of Lincoln City subsequently gave
references for KORCH to continue teaching and preaching after Pastor Bard Marshall and the
leadership of Faith Baptist Church of Lincoln City wrote their letter on January 19, 2006, calling
for KORCH to step down before the March 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
was signed. However, after RANDY and CAROL were silenced, it became business as usual
for the religious hypocrite leaders at WESTERN and the Conservative Baptist Association of
America.
259. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege KORCH continues
preaching and teaching at local and regional churches and camps, including at WESTERN as
Director of Pastoral Training.
260. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in 2010, KORCH
testified he would NEVER help his victim who continues to suffer damages from KORCHs
sexual misconduct against her. WESTERN and KORCH intended no one to learn any more about
KORCHs damage to his victim, if there were other victims, or about WESTERNs unlawfulness.
261. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the cover up of
unlawful and unethical conduct by WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, DOWNS, WIGGINS,
and ROBERTS is out of control and continues to be aided by all Defendants self-interests.
262. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege while WESTERN
promotes itself as societys vanguard of morality and ethics or more recently trustworthy and
accessible training for gospel-centered transformation, in fact and in truth, Defendants support
conduct against the PEOPLE that is heinous, unconscionable, beyond the standards of civilized
decency, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
263. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN, KORCH,
TUCK, RUARK, their attorneys, and their insurance carriers argued before the Superior Court in
February 2010, that there should be no problem with a sexual relationship between KORCH and
JANE DOE, as other countries allow sex between adults and youths and there should be no

- 70 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
problem with it here in California. For their perverted and obscene argument before the Superior
Court, WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK and their attorneys were fined $1925.
108
At that
time, PLAINTIFFS learned about the case of Mary R.
109
a decisional case at the appellate court
level supporting the fact that WESTERN, KORCH, RUARK or TUCK had no authority to gag
RANDY and CAROL about KORCHs molestations in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release due to public policy affecting the PEOPLE, most of all the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.
It is equally obscene that WESTERN et al then tied their gags of RANDY and CAROL to Randys
degrees as educational criteria, standards, objectives and outcomes for RANDY to recover his 81
accumulated credits he previously earned and paid for and any other additional education RANDY
would complete. While the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA and the appellate court has spoken on
gagging information from the public regarding sexual misconduct, ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS and Defendants UNITED STATES and DOES 101 through 200 condoned gags
as master degree criteria, standards, objectives, and outcome requirements for RANDY to recover
his 81 accumulated credits he previously earned and paid for, and any other additional education
RANDY would complete can be tied to RANDYs education requiring cover up of KORCHs
molestations and WESTERNs unethical business conduct since at least 2001.
264. Plaintiffs are informed that the UNITED STATES indicated it intends to fight
Plaintiffs over these (and other) issues. While the PEOPLE, most of all the PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA, already determined perverted and obscene acts like those by KORCH against
JANE DOE are illegal, unconscionable, heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency,
the Obama, Holder and Duncan administrations of Defendant UNITED STATES are going to use
the PEOPLEs money to fight to assure that ALL PLAINTIFFS remain gagged about KORCH

108
Carol Nye-Wilson; Dale Wilson, v. Western Seminary; Lynn Ruark; Steve Korch; Gary Tuck; and DOES 1 50 Inclusive, Superior Court of
Santa Clara, Case No. 7-cv-089064, Honorable William Monahan presiding. February 9, 2010.
109
Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp., 149 Cal. App. 3d 308 (1983), the Court of Appeal considered whether a stipulated confidentiality order that was
entered into in settlement of litigation was against public policy. The confidentiality order (like the settlement agreement Margret Spellings and her
staff reviewed and claimed they have no problem with as a means to earn an education and receive theology and divinity degrees) prevented the
parties and their agents from discussing that a marriage and family counselor between 1975 and 1976 had repeatedly sexually molested a minor. Id.
at 313. The Court of Appeal found that the order barred disclosure of a serious breach of professional conduct and serious criminal acts. Id. at
315. As such, it determined that [t]he stipulated order of confidentiality is contrary to public policy, contrary to the ideal that full and impartial
justice shall be secured in every matter and designed to secrete the evidence in the case from the ... public ... Id. at 316. Because the contract
[was] made in violation of established public policy, the Court of Appeal struck the order of confidentiality. Id. at 317. The facts of the underlying
case are almost identical to those in Mary R. in that the parties here likewise entered into a settlement contract designed to cover up KORCHs
molestation of a child and the knowledge of WESTERN administration when this came to light. As demonstrated by Mary R., the Agreement,
which is the only basis for Plaintiff RANDYs education is repugnant to the public interest. Indeed, the public interest militates even more strongly
in this case than it did in Mary R. in favor of rescinding the award and agreement, since the award and agreement not only covers up a sexual abuse
of a child, but improperly interferes with Plaintiffs RANDY and CAROLs First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of
grievances, a right also protected by article I, section 3 of the California Constitution. See Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal. 4th
1141, 1160 (2007) (finding an injunction was overbroad as it prevented the plaintiff from presenting her grievances to government officials, and
noting that [t]he right to petition the government for redress of grievances is among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of
Rights.).

- 71 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(and WESTERN, TUCK, and RUARK), instead of fostering educational excellence in the first
instance by upholding federal and state Constitutions and laws, decisional court cases, and public
policies.
e. Korch is the victim he is a righteous, moral man and leader of
the Church.

265. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege since March 14, 2006,
KORCH and others have gone about insisting that KORCH is the victim in all of this, and he is a
righteous and moral man and leader of the Church. As expressed by Bible, Greek, Hebrew,
Theology instructor, TUCK on February 12, 2010 (Page 83):
Q. Does the Timothy passage provide that leaders must be blameless?
A. Above reproach is there, yes.
Q. Is Mr. Korch above reproach?
A. I would say that at the time of the event, he came to probably would not have been deemed above
reproach, but since then has been restored to being above reproach. Thats what the long track record of
purity and faithfulness essentially provides.
266. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege that long track record of
purity and faithfulness essentially provides:
a. Threatening anyone with knowledge of his sexual perversion;
b. Silencing anyone with knowledge of his sexual perversion;
c. Refusing to take care of his victim;
d. Demanding money because he was outed for being a sex pervert;
e. Refusing his ordination church and his Spiritual superiours to take actions to
step down;
f. Using attorneys to threaten and silence anyone with knowledge of his sexual
perversion;
g. Narcissisticly advertising statements about himself, regarding how spiritual he
is and how he is such a leader of the church;
h. Being an habitual liar to future employers and groups as needed about
background (when groups found out about Korch, they made changes to not have someone like
him again); and
i. Continuing teaching young leaders of the Church by example, that doing and
saying the above is completely fine thus fostering another generation of abusers.

- 72 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Section 504 Investigation and Cover-up
STATES Office for Civil Rights (OCR) purports: The mission of the Office for Civil Rights is to
ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation
through vigorous enforcement of civil rights. [Emphasis bold] OCR also provides technical
assistance to help institutions achieve voluntary compliance with the civil rights laws that OCR
enforces.
268. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege RANDY was a
whistleblower regarding Section 504 fraud in 2001 regarding WESTERN, Gary Tuck and Matt
Tuck.
269. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the 2005 OCR case
No. 09-05-2147 was handled out of the OCRs San Francisco Office. At that time, RANDY
alleged WESTERN would backdate materials, had retaliated against RANDY, did not have
Section 504 forms or a program, did not prove the legitimacy of any disability or accommodation
for Matt Tuck, and many other things. Over five years later, in December 2010, responses to
RANDYs Freedom of Information Act requests showed WESTERN backdated materials they
submitted for the federal investigation in the summer of 2005. WESTERN actually misled federal
investigators by submitting false, fictitious and fraudulent records (18 U.S.C. 1001) to
Defendant UNITED STATES in order for WESTERN to appear compliant with Section 504 and
retain Title IV federal funds. Plaintiffs learned in December 2010, false and non-factual materials
were produced by WESTERN with the knowledge of WIGGINS, RUARK, ROBERTS and
DOWNS. RUARK was the primary person in 2005 who submitted the documents to Defendant
UNITED STATES that were willfully backdated, misleading, false, fictitious and fraudulent
communications. Several top officials and employees within Defendant UNITED STATES are
aware of the backdated, misleading, false, fictitious and fraudulent communications from RUARK
and WESTERN concerning Section 504 requirements. Negligently, Defendant UNITED
STATES did not have qualified forensic investigators to catch what took only a couple of minutes
for RANDY to identify based on the records he received from Defendant UNITED STATES
EDFOIA office.
STATES failed to act responsibly regarding unlawful and false documents filed by WESTERN to
conceal its Section 504 fraud. Defendant UNITED STATES appears to prefer WESTERNs

- 73 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unjust intent to obstruct justice and to silence and punish RANDY and CAROL with liquidated
damages for filing complaints to the government instead of enforcing the Secretarys Criteria for
Recognition and other appropriate regulations. Indeed, all Defendants condoned the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release that WESTERN tied to RANDYs education criteria, objectives,
outcomes and standards in order to cover up WESTERNs Section 504 fraud that was facilitated
by Defendant UNITED STATES negligence. RANDY and CAROL suffer injustice as a result of
the negligent conduct by Defendant UNITED STATES and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
271. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in the fall of 2001,
RANDY was the graduate assistant to Rev. M. James Sawyer, PhD for both the Church History
and Theology courses at WESTERN. RANDYs job included, grading and tracking masters level
student assignments and tests. RANDY interfaced with students concerning time deadlines and
their submitted work that RANDY reported to SAWYER. Procedures for special needs students
required by Section 504 were never discussed with RANDY as an employee of WESTERN.
There was no Section 504 training by RUARK or any other WESTERN administrator or
instructor, including TUCK (Academic Coordinator), KORCH (Executive Dean over all
employees in Northern California), ROBERTS (Academic Dean and Accreditation Liaison
Officer), and WIGGINS (Registrar, Dean of Student Services, who was also WESTERNs
educational expert witness). RANDY knew about Section 504 due to his parents who taught in
Junior and Senior High School, and College. Until the summer of 2005, SAWYER had never
heard of Section 504 after teaching 18 years at WESTERN.
272. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege no Section 504
meeting occurred at the beginning of or during the 2001 fall semester to talk about
accommodations for any purportedly disabled student in any class RANDY graded. There were
no Section 504 student placements, accommodations or forms, or evaluations by professional(s).
As an employee of WESTERN, RANDY assessed the academic work of students and 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 RANDY
graded. WESTERN produced no evidence of Section 504 programming via subpoena over the 8
years of litigation, and clearly, nothing was produced to OCR in 2005 as Defendant UNITED
STATES is aware of and showed through FOIA responses.
273. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege during the fall of
2001, one of the students RANDY graded fell way behind in his schoolwork. His name is

- 74 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Matthew Tuck, the adult son of TUCK, the Academic Coordinator at WESTERN who was
required to provide equitable education opportunities to all WESTERN students. Although Matt
had time to grade and teach Greek courses in which RANDY was enrolled that his father was
hired and assigned by WESTERN to teach. Matt had no masters degree that is a legal requirement
to teach at WESTERN, and he continued to fall further and further behind in his required
schoolwork in CHS 501 for WESTERNs Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree program. In
essence, Matt Tuck was robbing Peter to pay Paul. TUCK and his wife Lynn asked SAWYER to
alter Matts test and homework for their adult son based on their sons purported disability.
There was no official school involvement of any kind, no documentation, and no evaluation by
medical professionals of Matts purported disability provided to SAWYER or WESTERNs
administration, including RUARK who wrote to Defendant UNITED STATES he was the 504
coordinator (a willfully repeated lie). Matt registered for classes normally as any other student,
and he filed no disability accommodation forms. In short, while there was no Section 504
coordinator or program at WESTERN, if there had been, those who knew about it and had
administrative authority and duty to enforce the Section 504 requirements did not follow any
Section 504 policies or procedures regardless if WESTERN did or didnt have them.
274. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege it was learned during
RUARKs August 2005 deposition testimony under oath that WESTERN actually never had a
Section 504 program, files, or forms. In 2002, KORCH, TUCK, and RUARK (and others)
retaliated against RANDY after RANDY questioned the special grading favors given to Matt in
2001 that discriminated against all other students at WESTERN including RANDY, while Matts
habitual tardiness was excused due to Tuck pressuring Sawyer without official documentation, all
of which Sawyer testified under oath during litigation discovery. These facts were all within
RANDYs OCR Review dated December 31, 2010, concerning WESTERNs misrepresentations
dating back to 2001 through 2005 that RANDY provided to Defendants UNITED STATES, who
ignored it. RANDY at all times was a whistleblower who received retaliation instead of lawful
protection.
275. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege KORCH testified he
did not believe in any disability of Matts purported Aspergers syndrome
110
as Matt was very
capable in social interactions with students, even to the point he could teach at WESTERN
without a Masters degree. Both KORCH and TUCK testified of their dislike for RANDY, and

110
Characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.

- 75 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SAWYER testified that TUCKs dislike of RANDY extended to the point of making public jabs
at RANDY in front of students and others in courses RANDY attended.
276. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege RANDY, was doing
his job as SAWYERs grader with no training about Section 504 and no support against
harassment by his employer WESTERN, in a tense and hostile employment and education
environment for RANDY that Defendant UNITED STATES negligently condones to this day.
277. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege RANDY informed
SAWYER that he was being harassed about Matts defective and truant work that Matt produced
in the fall of 2001. SAWYER testified under oath regarding all of these facts.
278. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege TUCK is known to go
out of his way to destroy people who cross or question him. TUCK also targeted student Kevin
Ford on behalf of WESTERN, with RUARK, WIGGINS, DOWNS and others. They left Kevin in
such a damaged state that his wife filed for divorce, they had to file bankruptcy, and he attended
counseling for cult de-programming treatment after WESTERN demanded counseling that drove
him over the edge due to spiritual abuse by WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, DOWNS, WIGGINS,
and others.
279. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege KORCH worked with
TUCK to destroy RANDY in 2002 through today. RANDY filed suit and then filed his complaint
to OCR in 2005 when he had evidence of support against WESTERN. Due to negligent forensic
training, OCR failed to identify WESTERNs and RUARKs backdated forms that RANDY noted
in his complaint to OCR who accepted them for use against RANDY in the concurrent lawsuit.
OCR rubber-stamped WESTERNs and RUARKs claims just like the AAEU negligently rubber-
stamped WESTERNs and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS misrepresentations. AS A
RESULT, and given the further demands for rubber stamping by WESTERN to conceal their trail
of misrepresentations, gagging, and threatening financial vengeance against RANDY to make
him pay liquidated damages if he complained to the government or others. THEREFORE,
Defendant UNITED STATES has now created a chilled effect on employees or third party
persons from coming forward to the OCR as whistleblowers with information concerning Section
504, with no reasonable assurance of protection for whistle blowing, and to not receive
WESTERNs retaliated, trumped up claims against them or against their accumulated and future
credits or employment -- all of which Defendants UNITED STATES condoned.

- 76 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
280. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege prior to late 2005
WESTERN did not have a Section 504 coordinator, as material evidence shows in WESTERNs
catalogs, student handbooks, and employee handbooks. Due to WESTERNs non-compliance
with Section 504 and inequitable grade privileges for TUCKs son, Matt, who graduated over and
above grading policies as educational and business practices discriminating against all other
WESTERN students, including against RANDY
281. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN had no
Section 504 training or documentation. The materials and forms sent to OCR were actually
copied, pasted and back dated in 2005, and came from other sources that RUARK copied and
showed to ROBERTS, WIGGINS and DOWNS before submitting them to Defendant UNITED
STATES. RUARK did not even call himself the Section 504 coordinator in communications
between other WESTERN employees, but he tagged that title onto documents sent to OCR in
2005 to appease and deceive OCR. RANDY sent evidences to the Defendant UNITED STATES
outlining all of this on December 31, 2010, to show how bad OCR got it in 2005 due to the
inadequate quality of forensic training at the OCR in San Francisco that did not perform a quality
basic forensic investigation.
282. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN, TUCK,
RUARK, WIGGINS, DOWNS, and ROBERTS willfully deceived Defendant UNITED STATES
with known false, fictitious and fraudulent claims in order to retain Title IV funding that required
WESTERNs compliance with federal regulations, including Section 504. Those falsehoods made
by Defendants WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, and WIGGINS, DOWNS, and ROBERTS were
accepted by OCR and acted upon as "normal material" coming from a recognized school and its
so-called Section 504 coordinator (with the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of
influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed" at the time).
RUARKs false statements were oral and written and did not require being under oath and did not
require that WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, WIGGINS, DOWNS, ROBERTS knew that lying to
the government is a crime or even that the matter being lied about is "within the jurisdiction" of a
government agency. Defendant UNITED STATES acted upon statements by WESTERN, TUCK,
RUARK, WIGGINS, DOWNS, and ROBERTS that influence(d) the outcome of decisions before
the tribunal (complaint/investigation by the OCR), such as determining credibility issues.
RUARK, WIGGINS, DOWNS and ROBERTS played Defendant UNITED STATES and got

- 77 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
away with it, and the 2005 negligence of OCR of the Defendant UNITED STATES aided
WESTERNs cause of concealment against the whistleblowerstudent and school employee
RANDY, was ignored and not protected. Then WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, KORCH, with
WIGGINS, ROBERTS and DOWNS used the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release to
conceal WESTERNs fictitious misrepresentations from Defendant UNITED STATES during a
federal investigation by OCR about WESTERNs Section 504 violations and fraud.
RUARK, KORCH, with WIGGINS, ROBERTS and DOWNS crafted within the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release numerous demands upon RANDY and CAROL that would
conceal WESTERNs Section 504 violations and fraud in the event RANDY and CAROL learned
of their shrewdly organized and willful deception against Defendant UNITED STATES by
WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, KORCH, with WIGGINS, ROBERTS and DOWNS, wherein
RANDY had been the whistleblower. Neither RANDY nor CAROL could do anything about
WESTERNs retaliation after the settlement if RANDY and CAROL wanted RANDY to finish his
two masters degrees and to retain his 81 accumulated credits RANDY previously earned and paid
for. Instead, and against previously held court cases, Defendant UNITED STATES condoned the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, and agreed that whistleblowers can be silenced and
retaliated against for coming forward to report unlawfulness, and whistleblower students/
employees can be forced to pay liquidated damages to the school if they complain about it to the
government or others. This chilling effect has been and continues to be negligently condoned
and enforced by Defendant UNITED STATES.
285. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN wanted its
Section 504 violations and fraud concealed and they gagged RANDY and CAROL about Matt
Tucks involvement in WESTERNs, TUCKs, and RUARKs fraud against the government and
against the PEOPLE, by WESTERN naming Matt as a protected non-party within the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release. The Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of March 14,
2006, was actually used by WESTERN as a vehicle of fraud, extortion, and to cover up
WESTERNs unlawfulness and crimes from Defendant UNITED STATES, from third party
schools that Matt Tuck may attend, from the PEOPLE and the public, from churches, from other
WESTERN students who didnt receive equitable education at WESTERN, from CA BPPVE who
licensed WESTERN to operate in California, from WESTERNs staff, and from Matt Tucks
future schools and employers.

- 78 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
286. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege RANDY and CAROL
were required by WESTERN to conceal crimes they did not take part in or know existed, in order
for RANDY to complete his two masters degrees and to retain his 81 accumulated credits
RANDY previously earned and paid forand those criteria, standards, objectives and outcomes
for two masters degrees do not comply with the Articles of Incorporation or Missions of
WESTERN, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, or NWCCU, or with the Mission of the
Defendant UNITED STATES.
287. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in late December
2010, RANDY sent hundreds of supportive records for his claims to Defendant UNITED
STATES Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, Charles Rose, General Counsel of U.S.
Department of Education, and others to explain the educational fraud WESTERN concealedas
criteria, standards, objectives and outcomes for RANDY to complete his education.
288. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release of March 14, 2006, continues to be used as a vehicle of fraud to
the benefit of WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, and KORCH, with WIGGINS, ROBERTS, DOWNS,
and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS. Defendant UNITED STATES also directly benefits
from the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, since it demands RANDY and
CAROL to be gagged from telling the public that Defendant UNITED STATES, OCR was
successfully played and outwitted by WESTERN who sought and disingenuously received
sympathetic treatment from Defendant UNITED STATES.
289. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege since that time,
RANDY has become aware that Defendant UNITED STATES has actively silenced knowledge
about the issues of criminal conduct and material facts of evidence documented within this
complaint, because the Defendant UNITED STATES doesnt want the PEOPLE to know that if
you are a whistleblower-student and employee, the Defendant UNITED STATES will not protect
students or employees from crimes committed against the public welfare by WESTERN, their
accreditors, and others.
6. FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99)
290. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege The 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

- 79 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.
111
[Emphasis bold]
The law applies to WESTERN.
291. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the Family Policy
Compliance Office (hereinafter FPCO) mission is to meet the needs of the Department's primary
customers--learners of all ages--by effectively implementing two laws that seek to ensure student
and parental rights in education: (1) the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) [20
U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR PART 99], and (2) the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA).
These laws protect the privacy of student records, students personal identifying information and
colleges that violate them can lose their eligibility for federal student aid. [Emphasis bold]
292. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN is required by
law to maintain the personal privacy of their students. Making unauthorized releases of student
information is prohibited and unlawful.
a. Brief History
293. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege The Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 ("FERPA"), 513 of P.L. 93-380 (The Education Amendments of
1974), was signed into law by President Ford on August 21, 1974, with an effective date of
November 19, 1974, 90 days after enactment. FERPA was enacted as a new 438 of the General
Education Provisions Act (GEPA) called "Protection of the Rights and Privacy of Parents and
Students," and codified at 20 U.S.C. 1232g. It was also commonly referred to as the "Buckley
Amendment" after its principal sponsor, Senator James Buckley of New York. FERPA was
offered as an amendment on the Senate floor and was not the subject of Committee consideration.
Accordingly, traditional legislative history for FERPA as first enacted is unavailable.
112

294. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege FERPA is a Spending
Clause statute enacted under the authority of Congress in Art. I, 8 of the U.S. Constitution to
spend funds to provide for the general welfare. ("No funds shall be made available under any
applicable program... unless statutory requirements are met.)
113
"Education records" was
defined in the 1974 amendments as "those records, files, documents, and other materials which
contain information directly related to a student; and are maintained by an educational agency or

111
Defendant UNITED STATES. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Retrieved May 24, 2012.
www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html
112
Defendant UNITED STATES. Legislative History of Major FERPA Provisions. Retrieved May 24, 2012.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/leg-history.html
113
Ibid.

- 80 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution."
114
Four categories of records
were excluded: 1) records in the sole possession of instructional, supervisory, and administrative
personnel; 2) records of a law enforcement unit which are kept apart from "education records," are
maintained solely for law enforcement purposes, and are not made available to persons other than
law enforcement officials of the same jurisdiction, provided that personnel of a law enforcement
unit do not have access to "education records"; 3) records of employees who are not also in
attendance; and 4) physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist treatment records for eligible
students.
115

295. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege there has been much ink
spilled over FERPA, and most certainly in legal cases.
b. FERPA and Defendant UNITED STATES
STATES has trained WESTERN about FERPA through the FPCO and most of all through the
previous employee LeRoy Rooker. Under this training, and as published by the FPCO,
116

information has been made public as to when, where, and how student information can be
released. Defendant UNITED STATES has already determined what conditions must be met
when student information is released and what actions must be taken. Most notably, a school
may non-consensually disclose personally identifiable information from education records
under the following criteria: 1) to authorized representatives of the Comptroller General of the
United States, the Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. Secretary of Education, and
State and local educational authorities for audit or evaluation of Federal or State supported
education programs, or for the enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements that
relate to those programs; 2) in connection with financial aid for which the student has applied or
received; 3) to state and local authorities pursuant to a State statute concerning the juvenile justice
system and the system's ability to effectively serve the student whose records are being disclosed;
4) to organizations conducting studies for or on behalf of the school making the disclosure for the
purposes of administering predictive tests, administering student aid programs, or improving

114
Ibid.
115
Ibid.
116
As noted from the Defendants own website and materials published by accreditors.

- 81 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
instruction; 5) to comply with a judicial order or a lawfully issued subpoena; and 6) in connection
with a health or safety emergency.
117
[Emphasis bold] Defendant UNITED STATES then states:
As stated above, the conditions specified in the FERPA regulations have to be met
before a school may non-consensually disclose personally identifiable information
from education records in connection with any of the exceptions mentioned above.
[Emphasis bold]
297. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege FERPA intends that
students rights be broadly defined and exceptions narrowly construed. There are few legal
cases and the issue is typically access, not improper disclosure as in this case. Defendant
UNITED STATES clearly addresses disclosure based on the law.
118

298. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege there is a right to file a
complaint with Defendant UNITED STATES.
STATES has already determined:
FERPA prohibits a recipient of U.S. Department of Education funds from having a policy
or practice of nonconsensually disclosing personally identifiable information derived from
education records, except in certain statutorily specified circumstances. 20 U.S.C.
1232g(b); 34 CFR 99.31. While there are specific statutory exceptions to the prohibition
that personally identifiable information from education records may not be released
without consent, the FERPA statute does not include a general exception for the public
disclosure of student disciplinary records. Accordingly, these records may not be
disclosed without the prior written consent of the student or students about whom the
records relate. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and (d). See also 34 CFR 99.30.
119
[Emphasis
bold and underline]
STATES has already determined under the disclosures regarding disciplinary proceedings,
nonconsensual release of records is allowed when the final results of any disciplinary proceeding
conducted by such institution against a student who is an alleged perpetrator of any crime of
violence (as that term is defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code), or a nonforcible sex
offense, if the institution determines as a result of that disciplinary proceeding that the student
committed a violation of the institution's rules or policies with respect to such crime of offense.
120

Defendant UNITED STATES further notes, on June 27, 2002, the United States Court of

117
Ibid.
118
Defendant UNITED STATES. Model Notification of Rights under FERPA for Postsecondary Institutions. Retrieved May 24, 2012.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/ps-officials.html
119
LeRoy Rooker, letter to Ms. Diane Walker dated September 27, 2002. Retrieved on February 4, 2012.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/library/kennesawuniversity.html
120
Ibid.

- 82 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed a lower court's ruling that university
disciplinary records are "education records" under FERPA and that disclosing such records
without students' consent constitutes a violation of FERPA. United States of America v. Miami
University; Ohio State University, et al., 294 F.3d 797 (6th Cir. 2002). [Emphasis bold]
STATES maintains the following:
a. FERPA authority comes from Congressional action based on the U.S. Constitution.
b. U.S. Department of Education, FPCO is authorized to enforce FERPA.
c. Student records (educational records) are clearly indicated via the Statute and
major decisional cases hold how that Statute is to be interpreted and what are
educational records.
d. There are no exceptions
c. WESTERN and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
302. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege on May 10, 2010,
arbitrator Matthew Geyer concluded the following:
a. WESTERN had the authority to nonconsensually disclose personally identifiable
information regarding RANDY as a student, in disregard of FERPA prohibitive language.
b. WESTERN (, TUCK, RUARK, KORCH) had the authority to cause RANDY to
not file complaints to the government, in disregard that FERPA protects that students rights to file
complaints to the FPCO.
c. WESTERN had the authority to cause RANDY to not make any statements against
WESTERN, TUCK, Matt Tuck, RUARK, KORCH or any other WESTERN employee including
about their unlawful acts, in disregard of RANDYs right to inform Defendant UNITED STATES
concerning WESTERNs FERPA violations, and RANDYs right to not be coerced to dismiss
complaints.
d. Unless RANDY signed the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release,
WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, KORCH and WESTERNs staff could nonconsensually release
information regarding RANDY, in total disregard for FERPA.
303. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERN, TUCK,
RUARK and KORCH then filed for confirmation in Santa Clara Superior Court of their above-
listed misrepresentations to Geyer that influenced Geyers arbitration award against RANDY, and
was confirmed and approved by the Superior Court on Aug 4, 2010, contrary to Federal law.

- 83 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
304. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege RANDY and CAROL
asked for help of the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, for Defendant UNITED STATES who
negligently did nothing in 2010, and once again was similarly negligent in 2011. This negligence
by Defendant UNITED STATES also includes Charles Rose, General Counsel. Regina Miles of
the FPCO actually did act and contacted CAROL, who spoke over the phone and learned first-
hand of the FERPA violation by WESTERN to arbitrator Matthew Geyer. RANDY then provided
Defendant UNITED STATES employees, Arne Duncan, Charles Rose and Regina Miles a
detailed accounting of the FERPA violation, with evidence. Negligently, Defendant UNITED
STATES did nothing, and on August 4, 2010, the Court confirmed Arbitrator Matthew Geyers
award that WESTERN facilitated by willfully violating FERPA to Geyer.
305. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege California Code of Civil
Procedure 1285 provides as follows: Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been
made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. [Emphasis bold]
WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, KORCH made no effort to correct the award, even though they
have received training on the FERPA from Defendant UNITED STATES. Instead, they
confirmed the arbitration award in order to further harm RANDY. This was accepted by
Procedure 1287.4 provides as follows: If an award is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in
conformity therewith the judgment so entered has the same force and effect as, and is subject
to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action of the same jurisdictional
classification; and it may be enforced like any other judgment of the court in which it is
entered, in an action of the same jurisdictional classification.
307. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege arbitrator Matthew Geyers
arbitration award contends disclosure of student records can only be stopped if the student signs
a settlement agreement that overpowers WESTERNs policy to release non-consensual disclosure
of personally identifiable information regarding a student WESTERN never investigated,
WESTERN created no educational records concerning, and WESTERN made no determinative
findings on.
308. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege prior to the award,
WESTERN routinely held and testified that it could not disclose personally identifiable
information regarding RANDY because of FERPA, other laws, and WESTERNs policies.

- 84 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege since the award, the actions of Sam
Phillips, Mark Shem and Anthony Zand of Borton Petrini, on behalf of WESTERN continued
further and additional releases of RANDYs personally identifiable information, by WESTERNs
insurance carriers
121
and RANDYs student records.
122

309. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in all these cases, all
materials for the ongoing releases continue to come from WESTERN and to support WESTERN
obscene need to defame, threaten and harass RANDY. While Defendant UNITED STATES
claims FERPA thus targets an educational institutions systemwide approach to disclosing
records and information and, to that end, requires that operational rules be in line with
federal requirements
123
Defendant UNITED STATES has stood by as RANDY suffers.
310. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege because Defendant
UNITED STATES fails to protect or intervene, things for RANDY got worse after May 10, 2010,
especially since everyone knows Defendant UNITED STATES has been negligent of its duty of
enforcement.
Procedure 1286.2(a) provides grounds for vacating a private arbitration award based on the
following: 1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; 2) There was
corruption in any of the arbitrators; 3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by
misconduct by a neutral arbitrator; and 4) The arbitrator exceeded his powers and the award
cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.
WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, KORCH and their attorneys contend there are no grounds that the
award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means, that no rights of the party
[RANDY] were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator, that no corruption
in the arbitrator exist and the arbitrator did not exceeded his powers. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
allege that WESTERNs position is that it has the authority and ongoing policy to non-
consensually disclose personally identifiable information regarding a student, in which no
provision exists in law for WESTERN to do so.

121
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company v. Guide One Mutual Insurance Co, California Northern District Court Case No. 11cv02148
122
papers filed at Santa Cruz County
123
Brian Jones, General Counsel Department of Education, BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING
PETITIONERS Accessed February 4, 2012. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001/3mer/1ami/2001-0679.mer.ami.pdf.

- 85 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. Known negligence that could have been avoided
312. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege negligence by Defendant
UNITED STATES allowed an arbitrator and a Santa Clara Superior Court to deal with a
complicated issue like FERPA, and as found in this case it was known to have catastrophic
results long before Defendant UNITED STATES involvement in this case. Defendant UNITED
STATES in Gonzaga University v. Doe, 01-679, 122 S.Ct. 2268 noted:
"Congress, moreover, made clear that the administration and interpretation of FERPA
should remain centralized and under the control of the Secretary of Education. 20
U.S.C. 1232g(g). Superimposing on that administrative scheme a Section 1983 action that
could be invoked by any of the 58 million public school students subject to FERPA in any
state or federal court across the country would displace Congresss intended unitary
enforcement procedures with precisely the myriad, decentralized sources of enforcement
and interpretive authority that Congress wished to avoid."
124
[Emphasis bold]
Defendant UNITED STATES clearly understood in 2002 that the administration of FERPA
complaints and enforcement interpretations should remain within the responsibility of Defendant
UNITED STATES, Department of Education, Family Policy Compliance Office. However in
2008, and as predicted by the audit made by Defendant UNITED STATES, Department of
Education, Office of Inspector General [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.
125
] SPELLINGS and REGAN signed off that the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release did not violate any law, in spite that it violated FERPAs statutory language and
provisions. After several FOIAs, not one single record was produced by Defendant UNITED
STATES to show that the AAEU consulted the FPCO regarding the Settlement Agreement and
Mutual Release. Negligently, AAEU made decisions based on its own flawed work process
known to exist since 2003 and the flawed work products of two accreditors (Defendant
COMMISSION and NWCCU).
STATES concluded its position in 2002 by stating:

124
Brian W. Jones, General Counsel, Defendant UNITED STATES, Department of Education. BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS
CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS. Gonzaga University v. Doe, No. 01-679, 122 S.Ct. 2268 p. 6. This AMICUS CURIAE was also written
with attorneys from the Department of Justice.
125

- 86 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in short, Congress has textually identified who it wants to enforce FERPA and deal
with complaints alleg[ing] violations of the Actand that is the Secretary of Education,
not private plaintiffs. 20 U.S.C. 1232g(f) and (g). [Emphasis bold]
314. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege as predicted by Defendant
UNITED STATES itself, the course of events after superimposing the arbitration event and the
REGAN and OLDHAM letters, has created a myriad of additional problems, damages and a free-
for-all concerning releasing statements in violation of FERPA concerning RANDY by
WESTERN. The core of these issues is the negligence by the Defendant UNITED STATES who
allowed the claim that the degrees were valid in support of the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS over and against Plaintiffs, and in order to support the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS decision that the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release can be used to force
students to not complain to the government. Although Defendant UNITED STATES previously
argued before this nations highest Court that only the Defendant UNITED STATES alone will
deal with matters of student privacy and FERPA, less there be myriad, decentralized sources of
enforcement and interpretive authority that Congress wished to avoid, that travesty of FERPA
violations now exists in a California decisional court case at the insistence of Defendant UNITED
STATES itself against the very student it should protect.
315. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the Court and the
Defendant UNITED STATES highlighted the Department can take preemptive actions in
enforcing FERPA, rather than only after violations occur.
126
RANDY and CAROL went to
Defendant UNITED STATES Secretary Arne Duncan, for help prior to the arbitration award
being confirmed for responsible government action to stop WESTERNs out of control conduct
that violated FERPA that was condoned by Spellings in 2008. RANDY was left to die instead of
the government responsibly intervening to enforce FERPA. As noted by Defendant UNITED
STATES employee, LeRoy Rooker, once personally identifiable information has been made
public, the harm cannot be undone. United States v. Miami University, No. 00-3518., June 27,
2002. RANDY has lost everything now. His house, his land, his things, his wife has divorced him
and has taken his child away from RANDY and she intends to keep him from RANDY until JOEL
is an adult. This case and the irreparable damage that has been caused to RANDY, CAROL and
DALE is now a national case study as to the effects when personally identifiable information is

126
LeRoy Rooker, Statement from LeRoy Rooker Regarding Miami Decision. Accessed February 4, 2012.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/courtcases/miami.html

- 87 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
released, among many other things that goes wrong due to gross negligence and complete malice
against the student.
UNITED STATES is well aware of the fact that systematic violations of the FERPA provision
result in appreciable consequences to the public and no doubt are a matter of public interest,
Defendant UNITED STATES continues to insist that RANDY and CAROL be gagged and
Defendant UNITED STATES has actively gone about silencing any public knowledge concerning
the issues contained within this complaint as the Defendant doesnt want the PEOPLE to know
what really happened and how the government has conducted itself with tax dollars.
F. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS SUPPORT WESTERNS VEHICLE
FOR FRAUD AND ABUSE
317. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege on February 16, 2010,
WIGGINS, (WESTERNs educational expert), testified under oath for the school when asked
Do you consider the catalog to be part of the agreement? stated:

I consider the settlement agreement to be the exceptions by which Randy Chapel could
finish his degree. They were given to me as what those exceptions would be and they were
a part of the whole plan for him to finish

318. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WIGGINS denies
involvement in setting up RANDYs program (34 C.F.R. 602.3), however both DOWNS and
ROBERTS repeatedly testified that WIGGINS took part in the development of the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release including, as DOWNS testified, the involvement included
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
319. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege DOWNS testified on
February 3, 2010, WESTERN had no waiver for the California Education Code, Postsecondary
and Vocational Education Reform Act of 1989, California Education Code Sections 94810, 94831,
94832, 94834 and 94835 all of which were controlling requirements for educational services to
be rendered in California and to which were required for WESTERN to conduct business in the
state.
320. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege DOWNS also testified on
February 3, 2010 that WESTERNs Articles of Incorporation required compliance with State laws
and Defendant ATS Standard 2.2 also requires compliance with state and federal laws (With

- 88 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
regard to state, provincial, and federal authorities, schools shall conduct their operations in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations).
321. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERNs new
President and former Accreditation and State Liaison Officer ROBERTS testified under oath on
November 13, 2008, regarding issues related to the Th.M. degree (entry into the program which
required the M.Div.):
10 Q So getting back to Mr. Chapel and his degree program,
11 you'd agree that the settlement agreement is not in
12 substantial compliance with the requirements of ATS's
13 accreditation, the written accreditation rules?
14 A If Mr. Chapel would have followed the program
15 described in the settlement agreement, he would have had a
16 degree that would have been acceptable to ATS.
17 Q We'll try it one more time.
18 MR. LAURIA: It's been asked and answered.
19 MR. PHILLIPS: It's been asked and
20 answered.
21 MR. HANNON: No, it's been asked. It
22 hasn't been answered; that's the problem.
23 Q BY MR. HANNON: The written requirements of ATS,
24 those things in writing, does the degree program offered
25 to Randy Chapel comply with those written requirements,
1 yes or no?
2 A I don't believe I can answer that yes or -- I can.
3 Q Then do so.
4 A No. But it fulfills the spirit of the ATS
5 requirements and would have been acceptable, which is why
6 the standards exist in the first place.
7 Q Okay.
8 A To determine acceptability for the accrediting
9 association.
10 Q Now, in March 14th, 2006, you were aware, at the time
11 the settlement agreement was entered into, that the
12 program offered to Mr. Chapel did not meet accreditation
13 standards, written accreditation standards; isn't that not
14 correct?
15 A The program would have been acceptable to ATS, we
16 were confident.
17 Q Okay. What information was that based -- was that
18 opinion based upon?
19 A Our understanding of ATS precedent and confidence
20 that they would understand the extraordinary circumstances
21 under which we were operating.

- 89 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
322. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege WESTERNs requirement
for the degree that would have been acceptable to ATS that WESTERN stated fulfills the spirit
of the ATS requirements are listed below. [ In the following Section, Plaintiffs outline
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS claims before Defendant UNITED STATES. ]
1. Paragraph 1(d)
a. 1(d) Subject to paragraph 11 below PLAINTIFF [RANDY] will be
permitted to continue in the SCHOOLs M.Div. program and to receive that degree upon
substantial compliance with this Agreement and successful completion of the twelve (12) units
of independent study and/or External Education courses given by the SCHOOL and required for
completion of degree studies, all of which course work shall be proctored by Dr. M. James
Sawyer. (Emphasis bold) In order for RANDY to recover his 81 accumulated credits he
previously paid for and earned, and earn any future education at WESTERN, RANDY was
required to substantially comply with all the requirements of the Agreement noted below. In
order for RANDY to earn a Master of Divinity degree (M.Div.) and to then enter into a Master of
Theology degree program and to receive a Th.M. degree,
127
RANDY was required to substantially
comply with all the requirements of the Agreement noted below. According to the position taken
by WESTERN, Defendant ATS has no problem with any of the requirements listed below and
ACCREDITRATION DEFENDANTS falsely claims those requirements are found in
WESTERNs catalog. NWCCU made up claims in order to cover for WESTERN as is shown in
the next section. In both cases, Defendant UNITED STATES employee Nancy C. Regan took the
statements of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU and claimed the government had
no problem with any the requirements cited below. The degree requirements below for
substantial compliance with this Agreement are not within any of the Westerns catalogs or
handbooks dated 1998 2012. The program (34 C.F.R. 602.3) requirements include the
following criteria, standards, objectives and outcomes for two master degrees:
2. Paragraph 8
i. 8 Non-Disparagement/Non-Disclosure/Non-Interference
required substantial compliance with this Agreement by RANDY and CAROL in order for
RANDY to earn two masters degrees, to retain his 81 accumulated masters-level credits he

127
For now, we are skipping the issues raised in the Th.M. education as being void and against previous requirements for Th.M. and State
authorization. According to President Randy Roberts testimony in 2008, the Th.M requirements do not meet the ATS degree standards. We will
get into this later.

- 90 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
previously paid for, and to receive his education and the benefits of his education. RANDY and
CAROL could not disparage, disclose, or interfere with anything concerning WESTERN,
KORCH, TUCK and RUARK or any other employee of the school, including Section 504 fraud,
tax evasion, lying to the government, etc. President DOWNS testified even though CAROL was
not part of the lawsuit, she was a very necessary part of settlement. CAROL is also barred in the
same fashion as RANDY, and unless CAROL entered the Agreement and destroyed her records
and other property, RANDY could not retain his 81 accumulated credits he previously paid for or
take any further education. This was acceptable by two accreditors representing 422 schools in 39
states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the sovereign country of Canada. Because it was
acceptable to NWCCU and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, the Republican Margaret
Spellings administration condoned it.
128
The Obama, Holder, Duncan administrations currently
support the position taken by the Republican Margaret Spellings administration in 2008.
3. Paragraph 9
ii. 9 Confidentiality was required by substantial compliance with
this Agreement in order for RANDY to earn two masters degrees, to retain 81 accumulated
masters-level credits he previously paid for, and to receive his education and the benefits of his
education. RANDY and CAROL could not disclose anything about WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK
and RUARK. Paragraph 9(g) required CAROL to destroy all of her intellectual property
research, surveys, interviews, declarations by KORCHs victim, government responses, deposition
testimonies, complaint letters, and evidence of Westerns unlawfulness and KORCHs
concealment from and misrepresentations about his sexual misconduct to each church employer
since his misconduct occurred up to and beyond his employment with WESTERNwithin 3
computers and approximately 40 boxes of records. President DOWNS testified even though
CAROL was not part of the lawsuit, she was a very necessary part of settlement. Unless CAROL
entered the Agreement, RANDY could not retain his 81 accumulated masters-level credits he
previously paid for or take more education. This was acceptable by two accreditors representing
422 schools in 39 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the sovereign country of Canada.
Because it was acceptable to NWCCU and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, the Republican
Margaret Spellings administration went along with it. The Obama, Holder, Duncan

128
Defendant was involved in the authoring and editing of the NWCCU statement to be used by the Defendant against Plaintiffs.

- 91 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
administrations currently support the position taken by the Republican Margaret Spellings
administration in 2008.
4. Paragraph 10
iii. 10 Additional Disclosures was required by substantial
compliance with this Agreement in order for RANDY to earn two masters degrees, to retain 81
accumulated masters-level credits he previously paid for, and to receive his education and the
benefits of his education. RANDY and CAROL could not disclose anything concerning the
unlawful acts by WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK and RUARK. RANDY and CAROL could only
make specific statements (controlled speech) found in this paragraph as demanded by WESTERN,
KORCH, TUCK and RUARK. President DOWNS testified even though CAROL was not part of
the lawsuit, she was a very necessary part of settlement. CAROL is also barred in the same
fashion as RANDY and unless CAROL entered the Agreement, RANDY could not retain his 81
accumulated credits he previously paid for or take any further education. This was acceptable by
two accreditors representing 422 schools in 39 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
sovereign country of Canada. Because it was acceptable to NWCCU and ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS, the Republican Margaret Spellings administration went along with it. The
Obama, Holder, Duncan administrations currently support the position taken by the Republican
Margaret Spellings administration in 2008.
5. Paragraph 11
iv. 11 Disputes was a requirement for the substantial compliance
with this Agreement in order for RANDY to earn two masters degrees, to retain 81 accumulated
masters-level credits he previously paid for, or receive his education and the benefits of his
education. RANDY had to agree to arbitration (11(a), liquidated damages (11(a)(ii)), and threats
of financial vengeance between $10,000 - $100,000 against RANDY and CAROL that ROBERTS
concealed from ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS on December 8, 2006, in his letter of willful
misrepresentations that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS included as suitable to the Defendant
UNITED STATES employee Carol Griffiths, on February 26, 2008, Tab 5 for the USDE federal
investigation. WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK and KORCH attempted to require CAROL to
arbitrate, and failed. Due to WESTERNs loss, CAROL was able to work her case to seek the
information WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK and KORCH intended the Agreement to conceal, and
they shrewdly fought against every discovery. President DOWNS testified even though CAROL
was not part of the lawsuit, she was a very necessary part of settlement. WESTERN threatened

- 92 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
financial vengeance against CAROL and RANDY by liquidated damages, and unless CAROL was
entered into the Agreement, RANDY could not retain his 81 accumulated credits he previously
paid for or take any further education. The liquidated damages threatened only RANDY and
CAROL, with no liquid damages for WESTERN et al, as McPharlin created the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release one-sidedly. This was acceptable by two accreditors representing
6. Paragraph 12
v. 12 Tax Consequences was required by substantial compliance
with this Agreement in order for RANDY to earn two masters degrees, to retain 81 accumulated
masters-level credits he previously paid for, and to receive his education and its benefits. Due to
gags on RANDY and CAROL, WESTERN prevented them from filing complaints to IRS or
California Franchise Tax Board about the $25,000 tax free excess benefit for KORCH in
violation of tax code that was paid under the table without any written agreement according to
KORCHs sworn deposition testimony under penalty of perjury. The tax consequences only
applied to RANDY, because WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, DOWNS, ROBERTS,
WIGGINS, the insurance companies, the attorneys and the mediator all were in on the cover up for
KORCH to evade taxes. This was acceptable by two accreditors representing 422 schools in 39
states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the sovereign country of Canada. Because it was
acceptable to NWCCU and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, the Republican Margaret
Spellings administration went along with it. The Obama, Holder, Duncan administrations
currently support the position taken by the Republican Margaret Spellings administration in 2008.
7. Paragraph 13
vi. 13 Costs was by required substantial compliance with this
Agreement in order for RANDY to earn two masters degrees, to retain 81 accumulated masters-
level credits, and to receive his education and its benefits. RANDY was required to pay his own
costs and fees, while KORCH never paid for any costs, because his attorney, MCPHARLIN,
wrote most of the settlement agreement and made extortionist threats against RANDY and
CAROL. MCPHARLIN was law partners with the wife of the mediator SPRINKLES who

- 93 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
negotiated the settlement agreement, and the mediator and all of WESTERNs people, attorneys,
and insurance agents all knew before they signed the agreement about the under the table excess
benefit of $25,000 secretly paid for KORCH and his attorney before they signed the agreement
and before they had RANDY and CAROL sign it without informed consent about the
premeditated contract fraud that WESTERNs, PHILLIPS (SB#127793), fought to conceal.
RANDY later learned that he had actually paid KORCHs mediation costs and for KORCHs
attorney who repeatedly and unethically threatened RANDY on behalf of WESTERN and
KORCH. WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK and RUARK defrauded RANDY and CAROL for the
costs required by the fraudulent agreement requiring substantial compliance in order for
RANDY to finish two masters degree programs. Neither RANDY nor CAROL would have signed
the agreement had they known of WESTERNs pre-meditated fraud and KORCHs under-the-
table excess benefit at RANDYs and CAROLs expense. DRESSER noted no agreement would
be made prior to March 14, 2006 that included any money to KORCH. Because of this,
WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, their various attorneys, their insurance carriers and the
mediator all concealed KORCHs payoff. This was acceptable by two accreditors representing
administrations currently supports the position taken by the Republican Margaret Spellings
8. Paragraph 14
vii. 14 Administrative Claims was required by substantial
compliance with this Agreement in order for RANDY to earn two masters degrees, to retain 81
accumulated credits in order to receive his education and its outcome benefits. RANDY and
CAROL could not file complaints to the government or accreditors about anything concerning
WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, and others or the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release. TUCKs son, Matt Tuck was included in this paragraph due to RANDYs complaint in
2005 to OCR concerning Section 504 non-compliance by WESTERN, Gary Tuck, and Matt Tuck
he reported to SAWYER in 2001. TUCK claimed in 2010 to not know why concealing Matts
involvement was included into the agreement he signed in 2006, after OCRs federal investigation
involving TUCK and his son was a genesis of issues dating back to September 2001. President
DOWNS testified even though CAROL was not part of the lawsuit, she was a very necessary part

- 94 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of settlement. Unless CAROL was included in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release,
RANDY could not retain his 81 accumulated credits or finish his degrees unless RANDY and
CAROL agreed to not file complaints. This was acceptable by two accreditors representing 422
schools in 39 states, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the sovereign country of Canada.
9. Paragraph 15
viii. 15 No Cooperation was required by substantial compliance
with this Agreement in order for Randy to earn two masters degrees, to retain 81 accumulated
masters-level credits, or receive his education and its benefits. RANDY and CAROL were
required to not counsel or assist any other person or entities in the presentation or prosecution of
any dispute, difference, grievance, claims, charges, or complaints against a party to this
Agreement. This included RANDY and CAROL could not help each other, other students or
Defendant UNITED STATES. President DOWNS testified even though CAROL was not part of
the lawsuit, she was a very necessary part of settlement. Unless CAROL entered the Agreement,
RANDY could not retain his previously earned 81 accumulated credits or finish his education.
This was acceptable by two accreditors representing 422 schools in 39 states, District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the sovereign country of Canada. Because it was acceptable to
NWCCU and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, the Republican Margaret Spellings
administration went along with it. The Obama, Holder, Duncan administrations currently support
the position taken by the Republican Margaret Spellings administration in 2008.
10. Paragraph 17
ix. 17 Authority was required by substantial compliance with this
Agreement in order for RANDY to earn two masters degrees, to retain 81 accumulated masters-
level credits, and to receive his education and its benefits. In 2006, WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK,
RUARK claimed to have authority to enforce and enter into the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release which through their exception powers from their two accreditors gave WESTERN
and its accreditors the authority to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, the State Constitution, federal
laws, state laws, decisional cases, and public polices. This was accepted by Defendant UNITED
STATES. The Defendant UNITED STATES condoned ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS

- 95 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
judgment of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release requirements that set a precedent for
exceptions that any of the 422 schools found in 39 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the sovereign country of Canada can now invoke upon any student and any family member.
President DOWNS testified even though CAROL was not part of the lawsuit, she was a very
necessary part of settlement. Unless CAROL entered the Agreement, RANDY could not retain
his previously earned 81 accumulated credits or finish his education. Because it was acceptable to
NWCCU and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, the Republican Margaret Spellings
administration went along with it. The Obama, Holder, Duncan administrations currently support
the position taken by the Republican Margaret Spellings administration in 2008.
G. INVESTIGATIONS
323. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Congress specified in
1979
129
that No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of
the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any
direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or
personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or
association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional
materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.
[emphasis italics] As a matter of law, Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education is
expressly not authorized to direct, supervise, or control curriculum; set requirements for
enrollment and graduation; or determine state education standards. Bound by law, the Defendant
UNITED STATES used ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and DOES 101-200, and neglected
the warnings and evidences of collusion by WESTERN with ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
and most of all NWCCU.
324. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Defendant
UNITED STATES employee MULA stated to RANDY on July 29, 2008 that Defendant UNITED
STATES had concerns that the settlement agreement is requiring you [RANDY] to preform
non accademic task, that the Department considers questionable, in order to recive the benefiits
of your educational program. We are presently trying to get a decision on the settlement
agreement from legal staff, and to determine if we have legal authority to address the settlement
agreement in our investagation. If we are given the authority to address it we will. However, right

129
Congress. Department of Education Organization Act. Public Law 96-88. (Section 103[b]) Accessed January 30, 2012
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED180121.pdf

- 96 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
now we are restricted to addressing the substantive change issues only. [Emphasis bold]
According to Defendant UNITED STATES during the 2011-2012 FOIA litigation, the Office of
General Counsel denied any consideration of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release as
previously claimed by MULA in 2008. This continues to this day, in spite of the fact that some
issues concern federal laws and issues with the U.S. Constitution.
325. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the Republican
SPELLINGS administration in 2008 caused Defendants COMMISSION and ATS and NWCCU to
investigate the education found in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, rather than
taking up issues clearly federal in nature.
1. Statements by Daniel Aleshire
326. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant ALESHIRE is not a reliable authority, personally or
for ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS. Defendant ALESHIREs positions are heinous and
unconscionable against civilized decency and utterly intolerable as he obsessively sought to
protect WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK at all costs contrary to state and federal laws, U.S.
Constitution, state constitution, and the policies and standards of the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS.
327. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Defendant ALESHIRE
entered into an agreementa prohibited pactwith WESTERN to not only scuttle two civil cases
pending against WESTERN but also to scuttle the pending complaints to Defendant UNITED
STATES. Defendant ALESHIRE went all out to protect the finger-banging, penis exposing Pastor
and minor sex feen KORCH, to cover up the Section 504 fraud for WESTERN, to cover up the
$25,000 pay off to KORCH, to cover up academic fraud, misrepresentations and etc., at the
request of WESTERN.
328. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS did not recuse themselves from reviewing the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release that called for legal opinions by the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS to judge the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release and the legal demands within it.
329. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege no employee from the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS recused himself/herself from RANDYs complaints in
2007-2009 that called for legal opinions by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
330. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS did not inform Defendant UNITED STATES that the Commission does not have

- 97 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the factual knowledge or legal expertise regarding investigations of any nature that included the
subject investigation of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, to judge legal claims
within the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release and within RANDYs complaints.
331. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Defendant ALESHIRE on
July 21, 2008 stated, The degree requirements outlined in the agreement constitute,..the
expectations in the agreement with Mr. Chapel are essentially similar to the expectations in the
catalog description for the approved Th.M degree. These degree requirement expectations in
the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release are noted above in Section F and they are not found
in any WESTERN catalog.
332. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege in the same July 21, 2008
letter by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS that was later used by Defendant UNITED
STATES, Defendant ALESHIRE stated the degree as set forth in the agreement is considered an
exception to the approved ThM degree The Board of Commissioners [Defendants DOES 1-100]
has held Western Seminary accountable to the Commission Accreditation Standards. With regard
to the current complaint of Mr. Chapel, and the pre-trial settlement agreement, the Board of
Commissioners did not judge that Western Seminary was in violation of Commission standards or
procedures. According to the legal position of DOES 1- 100s, the Settlement Agreement and
Mutual Release conforms to Standard 2.2 With regard to state, provincial, and federal
authorities, schools shall conduct their operations in compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS assured Defendant UNITED STATES and
Plaintiffs that the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release was in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations based on their assessment in 2008. Defendant UNITED STATES
relied upon that assessment as correct and truthful, over and above the internal Department
concerns of some of Defendant UNITED STATES own staff. Negligently, one group of staff
members overpowered another group of staff with their internal concerns. RANDY will suffer
life-long damage because a group of staff members, who were led by SPELLINGS and REGAN,
accepted ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-100 faulty assessment over and
against the internal warnings of others. To this day Defendant UNITED STATES continues to
deny any wrong doing, expresses no remorse for what it has done and refuses to turn over any
document connected to the group warning SPELLINGS and REGAN. THE QUESTION
REMAINS: WHO WAS IN THAT GROUP THAT WARNED SPELLINGS AND REGAN?

- 98 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
333. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS recently claimed on December 16, 2011, The Commission requires member
schools to operate in compliance with all applicable laws. The Commission does not have the
factual knowledge or legal expertise to determine if a school is abiding by all applicable law,
nor does it have authority to enforce or grant exceptions to compliance with applicable law.
[Emphasis bold] While ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS maintained one position before
Defendant UNITED STATES on July 21, 2008, upon which Defendant UNITED STATES relied
to the determent of Plaintiffs and most certainly RANDY, the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS have now admitted to the errors and omissions that serve as the foundation that
caused or contributed to the distress suffered by many people: Plaintiffs and most certainly
RANDY, JOEL, SUSAN, the Allister family and all extended family members.
334. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS negligence to maintain knowledge or purchase required legal expertise as
obligated as a recognized agency to enforce its published policies has caused or contributed to an
intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress upon
Plaintiffs and their family members. This is expressly true since without maintaining expertise and
purchasing required legal expertise, it was a reasonably foreseeable outcome that something bad
and damaging would happen at some point to a student or family. It was only a matter of time.
335. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege that Defendant UNITED
STATES continued to reassure the public, including Plaintiffs that Defendant COMMISSION was
a reliable authority regarding the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions
or programs it accredits. As of the date of this complaint, Defendant UNITED STATES has not
taken any action to correct Defendant COMMISSION, to cite Defendant COMMISSION, or to
cause Defendant COMMISSION to be brought into compliance with 34 C.F.R. PART 602 after its
admission on December 16, 2011. Rather, Defendant UNITED STATES has allowed Defendant
COMMISSION to continue being recognized without modification of its business operating
practices business operating practices which damaged Plaintiffs and can continue to damage
other students and their family members. Because of this, Plaintiffs are bringing this complaint to
the attention of NACIQI who just reviewed Defendant COMMISSION.
336. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS conduct towards Plaintiffs now may breach the extreme and outrageous level of
unconscionable conduct towards Plaintiffs that is heinous and beyond the standards of civilized

- 99 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. This is clearly evidenced by the purported
findings of the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS about the Settlement Agreement and
Mutual Release that Defendant UNITED STATES negligently condones to this day.
337. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the statements by ALESHIRE
were known to be false, and misleading at the time they were made. According to REGANs
August 29, 2008 letter to ALESHIRE:
I am also aware that the Commission has completed its review of Mr. Chapels complaint
and that the Commission has determined that the courses of study provided in Mr.
Chapels independent study were exceptions made by Western Seminary as part of an
already Commission-approved degree program, and that
1) the Commissions substantive change policies and procedures do not require an
institution to seek pre-approval for individual exceptions granted to general degree
requirements
2) the degree requirements outlined in the settlement agreement with Mr. Chapel reflect
expectations that are essentially similar to the expectations set forth in the Western
Seminarys catalog regarding the Master of Theology program
3) the Commission does not judge that Western Seminary was in violation of Commission
standards or procedures with regard to either Mr. Chapels complaint or the settlement
agreement.

338. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege there were no exception
policies in 2006. They were made up and unwritten for the convenience of WESTERN.
339. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege 1(e) of the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release makes no statement that courses were independent study and the
words independent study or independent is not used in 1(e). The courses noted in 1(e)(i) are
defined as Plaintiff [RANDY] takes twelve hours of course work proctored by Dr. M. James
Sawyer, consisting of 500-level courses for which 600-level work is required and completed; the
word, proctored is not defined in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. To read into
the contract any meaning outside the contract violates a CA Supreme Court case on point.
340. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the whole degree Program
(602.3) was 100% different than any other Program previously approved by the accreditation
agency for WESTERN in the history of the WESTERN. The one hundred percent difference is
outlined in supra in detail herein, and in a number of records plaintiffs sent to Defendant UNITED
STATES.
341. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Defendant COMMISSION
did not have substantive change policies in 2006 or in 2008 and not until 2010 was anything in

- 100 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
writing. This is directly provable by their own documents and WILLARDS statements to
CAROL.
STATES was very aware of the fact that Defendant COMMISSION was not compliant with 34
C.F.R. 602.22 as noted by Defendant UNITED STATES employee MULA on January 2, 2008
and June 17, 2008.
343. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the general degree
requirements of the Master of Theology as of March 14, 2006, included the following:
a. GENERAL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS Western Seminary
2005-2006 Catalog, p. 31:
In order to graduate from the Seminary, all students must:
1. Give evidence of orthodox belief, genuine Christian character, and conduct
consistent with a God-given call to a position of leadership.
2. Demonstrate an ability to use the English language with precision in both
speech and writing.
3. Complete the prescribed course of study within the time limitation and
achieve the required grade point average as outlined in the catalog.
4. Remove any admission provisions.
5. Complete at least the final 30 credit hours in resident study. Program
handbooks contain residency requirements for the D.Min., and D.Miss. programs.
6. Settle all financial obligations, including payment of the graduation fee.
Students who have not made satisfactory financial arrangements will not have
access to any student services, including transcript, diploma, or enrollment for a
second degree.
7. Receive the recommendation of the Faculty and approval by the Board of
Trustees for graduation.
8. File all graduation information with the Registrars Office no later than the
first day of the last semester of enrollment.
9. Attend the annual commencement exercises. Permission (in writing) to
graduate in absentia must be requested by writing to the Administrative Committee
at least six weeks prior to commencement. Such permission is normally granted
only when it would cause serious hardship for the student to attend.

Additional graduation requirements for specific degrees are announced in the
degree sections of this catalog and the program handbooks.

b. Master of Divinity DEGREE REQUIREMENTS Western Seminary
2005-2006 Catalog, p. 35 (a requirement for entry into the Master of Theology program) included
the following:
The Master of Divinity degree is conferred upon the attainment of certain personal
and academic requirements. In addition to the general seminary requirements

- 101 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
outlined on page 31, degree candidates must (1) give evidence of a genuine
Christian character, orthodox belief, and conduct consistent with a God-given call
to a position of leadership; (2) complete all courses in the prescribed M.Div.
curriculum with a minimum grade point average of 2.0. Students may complete
their studies in as few as six semesters, including mentored field ministry. At least
one year of studies (30 credits) must be completed in residency.

The M.Div. degree requires a minimum of 90 credit hours. The program is
designed around a common core of 76 hours and an elective track of 14 hours. The
76-hour core contains six hours of mentored ministry. The elective track involves
either the completion of a ministry specialization (14 hours of prescribed and
elective credits) or an open track (14 hours of elective credits approved by a faculty
mentor). Students in either track may choose a concentration (open track students
may select as many as two concentrations). Each concentration consists of six
elective hours in a particular discipline, with the course selection requiring faculty
mentor approval. (A further explanation of the concentrations may be found under
the heading Program Concentrations below.)

c. Master of Theology DEGREE REQUIREMENTS Western Seminary
2005-2006 Catalog, p. 58-59 included the following:
A prospective Master of Theology student must hold either a three-year Master of
Divinity (M.Div.) degree or, in some instances, an academic Master of Arts (M.A.)
degree.
The Master of Theology degree is conferred upon the attainment of certain
personal and academic requirements. In addition to the general seminary
requirements outlined on page 31 and the specific Th.M. competencies listed
above, degree candidates must (1) give evidence of a genuine Christian character,
orthodox belief, and conduct consistent with a God-given call to a position of
leadership, and (2) complete all courses in the prescribed Th.M. curriculum with a
minimum grade point average of 3.0.

The Th.M. degree can be completed in one year of full-time study. Students may
take up to an additional year to write a thesis and pass comprehensive exams. All
full-time students, however, are expected to finish the degree within three years of
initial registration. For part-time students, a good deal of flexibility is built into the
program that allows for a longer period of time for degree completion. All Th.M.
students are expected to maintain active progress toward their degree with at least
an annual registration. A 3.0 grade point average must be maintained throughout
the program.

The Master of Theology is a highly personalized degree program. Students may
design their program to fit particular academic and/or vocational goals. All
programs, however, must fit the following basic structure:

Th.M. Only Seminars 8 hours
Th.M. Integration Seminar 2 hours

- 102 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Th.M. Electives 10 hours
Thesis research and writing (RES 600) 1 hour
Thesis (RES 602) 4 hours

An acceptable thesis and comprehensive examination are integral parts of the
program. The examination includes both an oral defense of a students Th.M. thesis
and an oral investigation of a students competency in his/her concentration
courses.

d. Master of Theology TH.M. CORE OUTCOMES Western Seminary
2005-2006 Catalog, p. 59, included the following:
In addition to the Seminarys general educational goals, the Master of Theology
program attempts to achieve specific outcomes. For each student, these outcomes
are:
1. Be a scholar who appreciates and understands the various disciplines that
contribute to evangelical scholarship and can articulate a model of integration
of those disciplines and employ that model in his/her research and writing.
2. Be able to engage competently in high level research and articulate clearly and
precisely his/her discoveries in both written forms (including a thesis) and oral
presentations.
3. Be a person who has mastered the key concepts, themes, and skills of his/her
Th.M. courses and can adequately defend his/her thesis before others.
4. Be able to interpret Scripture (a proficiency in the grammatical- historical
method) with particular skills in textual criticism, lexicography, grammar,
syntax, and genre awareness.
5. Know what biblical theology is and know how to engage in it, understanding
how biblical theology affects both the exegesis of Scripture and systematic
theology.
6. Know what systematic theology is and what are its proper sources, and know a
methodology and how to employ that methodology in actually doing systematic
theology.
7. Know the usefulness and role of historical theology in evangelical scholarship,
being familiar with the most significant resources and knowing how to proceed
in historical research.
8. Be able to recognize and appreciate the role of reason, logic, tradition, and
world view in biblical and theological studies, and be able to interact with past
and present philosophical and cultural issues which impinge on those studies.

344. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the actual general degree
requirements, the actual specific outcomes of the Master of Theology as contracted in March
14, 2006 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release known as of this date are found in prior
Sections herein. There was no interest by WESTERN, RUARK, TUCK or KORCH for foster
RANDYs [fill in the blank with the items indicated in the previous paragraph found in the
catalog]. Further, the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release did not refer to the catalog as

- 103 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
being equally demanding on RANDY. In short, RANDY could worship the devil after March 14,
2006, and graduate with a Master of Divinity and Master of Theology from WESTERN.
345. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendant COMMISSION
and Defendant ALESHIRE knew the degree requirements outlined in the settlement agreement
with Mr. Chapel reflect expectations that are essentially similar to the expectations set forth in
the Western Seminarys catalog regarding the Master of Theology program [Emphasis bold]
was a false and misleading statement at the time it was made.
2. Statements by Jeremiah McCarthy
346. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendant MCCARTHY is
not a reliable authority, personally or for ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
347. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Defendant MCCARTHY
actually misled and made known false, fictitious and fraudulent claims (18 U.S.C. 1001) to
Defendant UNITED STATES and federal AAEU investigator MULA in the support of
WESTERN and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS. Such falsehoods that were made by
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS were accepted and acted upon as "material" coming from
the recognized accreditation agency and had the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of
influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed" at the time. These
acts include statements made orally and in writing and do not require being under oath and do not
require that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS knew that misrepresentations to the government
is a crime or even that the matter being lied about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government
agency. Defendant UNITED STATES, including MULA, Nancy C. Regan, Margaret Spellings,
and Cheryl Oldham acted upon statements made by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
(Defendant MCCARTHY in this example) which influence(d) the outcome of decisions before
the tribunal (complaint/investigation by the AAEU), such as determining credibility issues
regarding the degree and settlement agreement in question.
348. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendant MCCARTHY at
times contradicted himself to MULA and made claims of approval for which there were no
records, with no support in law or decisional court cases. On December 16, 2010, it was learned
that in fact Defendant MCCARTHY with the other ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS do not
maintain the knowledge nor have they purchased the legal expertise and assets required to do the
job of a national accreditation agency. Defendant MCCARTHY never recused himself in 2006-
2008. These errors and omissions can be traced back to some of the statements made to Defendant

- 104 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES, while other statements made to Defendant UNITED STATES by
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and to which Defendant MCCARTHY was a part of, were
completely willful and knowing fabrications.
3. Sandra Elman and Defendant UNITED STATES
349. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Sandra Elman is a known
habitual liar and has been repeatedly confronted by RANDY on her lies both to RANDY and to
the Defendant UNITED STATES.
a. Motive
350. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege on June 30, 2000, NWCCU
requested an Educational Assessment by WESTERN clearly defining the relationship between
WESTERNs Master of Divinity program and its mission, assessment plan for NWCCUs
Focused Interim Evaluation Report Recommendations showing Westerns programmatic student
outcomes. NWCCU further required WESTERNs report to provide evidence of WESTERNs
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 WESTERNs report before October 13, 2000 for its December meeting. By this date,
NWCCU had access and information regarding WESTERNs Master of Divinity program to later
review and compare with the two purported master degrees offered in the March 14, 2006,
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release about which NWCCU requested all related degree
requirements once again in 2008.
351. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege NWCCU imposed a
Probation status against WESTERN on January 8, 2003, and then NWCCU issued a Warning
status against WESTERN based on Standard 7.B., which continues for several years against
WESTERN.
352. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege NWCCU notified Defendant
UNITED STATES concerning WESTERNs Probation on February 20, 2003, in a letter to
BARTH, cc:ed to CHEA, the Regional Accreditation Directors, Kenneth Alt, Editor, Directory of
Accreditated Institutions, Mary Rodenhouse, Higher Education Publications and the Chronicle of
Higher Education.
353. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the NWCCU A-2 policy for
substantive change was approved twice between 2000 and 2008 by AAEU and NACIQI as

- 105 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
compliant with the Secretarys Criteria for Recognition, 34 CFR 602.22. This demonstrated, by
Defendant UNITED STATES itself.
354. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the NWCCU A-2 policy
placed member schools that were on probation or warnings within the last ten years on Level
I. This leveling approach, was approved as compliant with the Secretarys Criteria for
Recognition, 34 CFR 602.22 and NACIQI, requiring NWCCU Commission approval of major or
minor changes to education programs prior to applying proposed changes. It read in part:

Criteria for Recognition of Level II Oversight (general level of oversight):

Institutions qualifying for consideration for recognition of Level II oversight:
2. have not had a Warning or Probation imposed within the immediate past
ten years;

Level I - Probation imposed within the immediate past ten years.

355. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege according to the published
documents obtained by Plaintiffs through third party sources, NWCCUs A-2 policy dated from
February 15, 2006 April 5, 2006 remained the same and unchanged at the time of the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release. Including with the requirements found in the above sections.
356. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege at the time of, proceeding and
following the March 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release WESTERN had
obtained and remained on WARNING and Probation status.
b. Opportunity
357. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendant UNITED STATES
with DOES 101-200 equally took part in this scam as both had a stake in the outcomes.
358. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Randy filed complaints
against Defendants ATS/COMMISSION and NWCCU. At that time, NWCCU was judged to be
noncompliant with 34 C.F.R. 602.22 Substantive Change.
From: Chuck Mula
To: Randy Chapel
Date: January 1, 2008
RE: RE: question

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]

- 106 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

then by ..

June 17, 2008
From: Chuck Mula
To: Kevin Ford
Date: June 17, 2008
RE: Western Seminary Violations of ATS and NWCCU standards

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 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.
130
[Emphasis
bold]

with DOES 101-200 then proceeded to quietly change NWCCUs A-2 Policy, without any
paperwork or process per 34 C.F.R. PART 602, as claimed by Defendant UNITED STATES in
various FOIAs and communications.
was negligent in approving the A-2, 34 C.F.R. 602.22 policies, that came to light after the fact
and after WESTERN had violated the policy on or about March 14, 2006 and thereafter.
c. Means
final ACTION letter by REGAN denied that NWCCU was noncompliant with A-2.
362. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege REGANs letter on behalf of
Defendant UNITED STATES denied WESTERN was noncompliant with NWCCUs A-2 policy
and it was based on the known lies and misleading statements made by ELMAN.
363. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege ELMAN who had been
previously asked by WESTERN for help against any complaints filed by RANDY then proceeded
to help WESTERN by making deceptive, untrue, and misleading statements in violation of
conflict of interest with WESTERN. 34 C.F.R. 602.15(a)(6). Defendant UNITED STATES knew

130
This is one of many communications that were withheld.

- 107 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
about and possessed a copy of WESTERNs solicitations to NWCCU and ATS, and ignored these
events and conflict of interest.
364. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege during Plaintiffs FOIA
litigation against Defendant UNITED STATES, Defendant UNITED STATES denied any
meeting took place with NWCCU or involvement in any statements or affect between the
Department and ELMAN or NWCCU. Asst. U.S. Attorney James A. Scharf also denied before
the court that no meeting or documents between Defendant United States and NWCCU or
ELMAN existed even though records he denied had been previously produced in Nye-Wilson v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., and those records referred to other
unproduced records the Defendant UNITED STATES continues to withhold for obvious reasons.
d. Structured Outcome to Obstruct Justice and Destroy Two Civil
Cases, which left RANDY damaged for life.
365. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the 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 major or minor changes to education programs prior
to applying proposed changes.
366. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege NWCCU also required all
planned or enacted program changes to be documented in WESTERNs Annual Reports to
NWCCU in 2006 and 2007, including changed program criteria related to WESTERNs mission,
and changes to the delivery method of a program not previously included in its prior accreditation
approval.
367. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege WESTERN failed to
document the changes to both master degrees offered in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release in its NWCCU Annual Reports and other required documentation. WESTERNs
administrative and financial failures were known and memorialized by accreditation probation,
warnings, and notations to caution the public prior to the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release on March 14, 2006. Because WESTERNs educational programs they offered to RANDY
on March 14, 2006, could have cost their already tenuous accreditation status, State approval, and
Title IV eligibility, and because the NWCCU A-2 policy required WESTERNs prior approval by
NWCCU, it was NWCCU, DOES 101-200, and Defendant UNITED STATES who willfully
entered into a secret agreement in order to scuttle two civil cases that had life-changing results on
RANDY that also harmed CAROL and DALE. The acts of educational fraud by those
aforementioned parties involving tampering with evidence, using unwritten, ad hoc policies at

- 108 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
will, while they ignored published policies accepted, approved and used for many years. MULA
used ELMAN as his puppet for conspired writing tasks after Department attorneys carefully
studied all of the NWCCU written policies and spoke with NWCCU according to records of
and NWCCU belligerently and maliciously continue refusing to this day to correct the corrupt
fruit of their deceptive acts, after having damaged RANDY to the point of no return. At this time,
Defendant UNITED STATES continues to make itself out as the true victim while claiming
Plaintiffs are victimizing the government.
e. Miscellaneous
369. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the NWCCU or DOES
101-200 did not recuse themselves from reviewing the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
that called for legal opinions by the NWCCU to judge the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release and the legal claims and demands within it.
370. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege no employee from the
NWCCU recused himself/herself from RANDYs complaints in 2007-2009 that called for legal
opinions by NWCCU.
371. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege MULA claimed under oath
in NYE-WILSON V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Margaret Spellings And
Does 1 - 20, Hawaii District Court Case No. 08-00498 ACK, Document 9-3 (dated December 18,
2008), 6 denying that no such request was made of NWCCU to conduct a thorough
investigation. in writing, and the Department does not maintain records of these types of
verbal requests. Therefore, there were no records directly responsive to this portion of the
request. After CAROL was contacted by an EDFOIA manager to apologize on behalf of
President Obama for the Departments lack of transparency in 2008-2009, then the Whitehouse
intervened, and Defendant UNITED STATES offered to settle and produce FOIA responses to
CAROLs requests. MULA then produce records he was directly involved in with NWCCU that
he had withheld and claimed under penalty of perjury didnt exist, that included information about
a special favor from NWCCU to produce a letter to be used against RANDYs complaints. The
meeting via telephone conference between ELMAN and others from NWCCU, was with MULA,
and according to MULA, OGC attorney WANNER, although WANNER denies any records exist
of her involvement, or about any meeting with NWCCU, or any work with NWCCUs attorney.

- 109 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REGANs August 29, 2008 letter to ELMAN claims NWCCUs product letters of their secret
meeting and acting as MULAs puppet was compliant with the Secretarys Criteria for
Recognition as follows:
I am also aware that the Commission has completed its review of Mr. Chapels complaint
and that the Commission has determined that
1) the independent study courses specified in Mr. Chapels program did not comprise a
whole degree program
2) the courses alone would not have culminated in the award of the Master of Theology
degree
3) the Commissions policies and standards do not require institutions to seek approval
for independent study courses that do not constitute whole degree programs
4) the independent study courses offered to Mr. Chapel in San Jose were provided as an
individual accommodation pursuant to a settlement agreement rather than as part of
implementing a formal, ongoing program, and accordingly did not require Commission
approval
5) Western Seminary did not violate any Commission policy or standard for
accreditation
372. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the statements by ELMAN
were known to be false at the time they were made, misleading, and procured by MULA to be
used for Defendant UNITED STATES against RANDY. RANDY first addressed ELMAN with
her claims on January 2, 2009, concerning a NWCCU letter addressed to RANDYs attorney that
ELMAN failed to send to RANDY or his attorney, and she only sent to Defendant UNITED
STATES, as apparently was the premeditated plan with MULA. CAROL received that letter in
FOIA responses FIVE MONTHS after ELMAN wrote it and after ACTION termination. There
was no due process.
373. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege after the litigation in the
Nye-Wilson FOIA case, further facts and records were produced that MULA and Defendant
UNITED STATES had suppressed, which then placed additional facts into context.
374. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege 1(e) of the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release makes absolutely no statement that courses were independent
study and the words independent study or independent is not used in 1(e). The courses listed
in 1(e)(i) are part of a whole program offered only if RANDY complied the entire Agreement,
defined as Plaintiff [RANDY] takes twelve hours of course work proctored by Dr. M. James
Sawyer, consisting of 500-level courses for which 600-level work is required and completed;
proctored is not defined in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. To read into the
contract any meaning other than what is written violates a CA Supreme Court case on point and
previously cited herein.

- 110 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
375. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the whole degree Program
(602.3) was one hundred percent (100%) different than any other Program previously approved
by the accreditation agency for WESTERN in the history of the WESTERN, and it is previously
outlined in supra in great detail.
H. NOT RELIABLE AUTHORITIES
1. Defendants Dysfunctionally Enforce a Culture of Silence and Deceit
376. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendants are enforcing a
culture of silence and deceit upon the PEOPLE instead of enforcing 34 C.F.R. PART 602 as
Congress intended in order to protect the PEOPLE.
377. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the position of
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS is that accreditation is for the public trust, however, these
Defendants dysfunctionally insist upon and enable immoral conduct that does not equate to or
reconcile what the PEOPLE have already determined is immoral within society.
378. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege as noted by Father Tom
Doyle, Cannon Lawyer and Historian, One of the aspects of being successful in the Church is
that you create a good image.
131
KORCH, refused to step down when Pastor Bard Marshall and
the Deacon Board of Faith Baptist Church confronted him in January 2006. Instead of complying
with the church and Bard Marshalls recommendations, KORCH and others, including the
attorneys working for WESTERN, sought to silence RANDY and CAROL. That manifested as
various demands within the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release that refer to the destruction
of CAROLs materials, websites, no protesting, no surveys, no complaints to the government and
dismissing prior government complaints, and no religious or speech freedomsfor LIFE for
CAROL, and for ten years for RANDY. After the intimidations and threats by KORCH, RUARK,
TUCK, WIGGINS, DOWNS, ROBERTS and WESTERN against RANDY and CAROL to
withhold RANDYs 81 accumulated educational credits that he had already paid for and earned, a
settlement was only then signed. (RANDY and CAROL were both ill at that time.) It is the
position of all Defendants that 260 schools encompassing 35 states, the Sovereign country of
Canada, the District of Washington, and a U.S. territory has the authority to take 81

131
Deliver Us From Evil. DVD and Streaming. Director and Producer Amy Berg. 2006; Los Angeles, CA: Disarming Films, 2006. Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scW90Q6Z_OM Oliver OGrady was a Catholic priest who served in a number of parishes in Southern
California during the 1970s and 80s. OGrady was also a habitual child molester who abused dozens of youngsters who were entrusted to his care,
and while his superiors in the church were aware of OGradys crimes as early as 1973, they opted to simply move him from one congregation to
another rather than turn him in to authorities or strip him of his ordination. To review the streamed video, see:
http://www.educationalfraud.com/digital-library.html

- 111 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accumulated, previously earned and awarded academic credits and substantively modify them with
changed degree program criteria, standards, objectives, and outcomes that do not comply with
school or accreditation Articles of Incorporation and Missionsor anything they have ever
published for government approval to operate.
379. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege after settlement, WESTERN,
KORCH and others returned to business as usualincluding maintaining their facade.
WESTERN embarked on advertising that it was Trustworthy and accessible training for gospel-
centered transformation, and in 2010 WESTERN publicly declared it had never done anything
wrong, they won against RANDY, they were totally vindicated, and RANDY was at fault.
380. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege KORCH on the other hand,
advertised himself as the following: Influenced The Lives Of Many People, Impressive
Author, Versatile Personality, an Authority on Discipline of Prayer, Follower of Jesus and
Spiritual Leader, Mission Leader, and A Professor and Spiritual Leader. By 2010,
WESTERNs insurance companies have spent nearly $1,000,000.00 to obtain and then enforce the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release against RANDY and CAROL, since a loss would
mean even more costs not only to RANDY and CAROL, but also paid out to KORCH. All
Defendants have by their errors and omissions actually helped keep the insurance companies from
paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more for WESTERNs demands and unlawfulness.
381. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS who represent 260 schools in the United States and Canada that provide some
level of religious education to over 81,000 students cant help themselves from reinforcing the
culture of silencing those in the know with deceit to the public to whom they purportedly serve.
Father Doyle, an expert witness in numerous litigation cases noted, As one who has been an
expert witness and consultant in several hundred Catholic clergy sexual abuse cases in the United
States and in other countries as well, I can readily attest to the fact that the common pattern and
practice of the Institutional Roman Catholic Church authorities has been to handle reports of
clergy sexual abuse with extreme secrecy, to avoid reporting such allegations to civil authorities,
to use various tactics with victims and their families to coerce or even intimidate them from public
disclosure or civil action, to fail to be proactive in providing adequate pastoral and psychological
assistance and relief and to transfer alleged perpetrators from one assignment to another, often
without telling the incoming assignment of the priest's background. A significant factor in the
cover-up of sexual abuse by priests has been the power of clericalism and religious duress on

- 112 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
individuals and on secular institutions. Victims have been emotionally unable to disclose their
abuse at the hands of Clerics simply because of the church instilled fear of divine retribution
against them for saying anything negative about a priest. The same fear has prevented parents
from even believing the tales their children have told them or if they did believe, from going
public.
132

382. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege twenty percent of Defendant
ATS schools are Roman Catholic, and Defendant MCCARTHY is a priest who currently is with
the National Catholic Educational Association providing leadership direction and service for the
Roman Catholic Church in America. Defendants MCCARTHY and Defendant ALESHIRE a
Baptist pastor (Protestants represent 56% of ATS schools), made various claims to Defendant
UNITED STATES that nothing was wrong with the terms as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release that silenced RANDY and CAROL, and threatened them with
financial vengeance if they file complaints to the government and/or accreditors, or tell anyone
about WESTERNs unlawfulness contrary to WESTERNs published and approved programs, and
its mission and Articles of Incorporation which is a substantive change violating WESTERNs
permission to operate in Oregon and California.
is well aware of WESTERNs twisted view about child molesters and those who enable them by
demanding silence and concealment just as KORCH, WESTERN, ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS and many others have demanded silencing RANDY, CAROL and KORCHs
victim and others. According to the 2004 report to Defendant UNITED STATES by Charol
Shakeshaft, Offenders work hard to keep children from telling. Almost always they persuade
students to keep silent either by intimidation and threats (if you tell, Ill fail you), by exploiting the
power structure (if you tell, no one will believe you), or by manipulating the childs affections (if
you tell, Ill get in trouble; if you tell, I wont be able to be your friend anymore). Finally,
sexual abuse is allowed to continue, because even when children report abuse, they are not
believed. Because of the power differential, the reputation difference between the educator and the
child, or the mindset that children are untruthful, many reports by children are ignored or given
minimal attention.
133

132
THOMAS PATRICK DOYLE, O.P., J.C.D., C.A.D.C. AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS PATRICK DOYLE. Expert Witness. Retrieved on February
10, 2012. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ia-davenport/archives/doyle.htm
133
Charol Shakeshaft. Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of
the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Services. (New York: Hofstra University and Interactive, Inc., 2004) DOC # 2004-09. P32-33.

- 113 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
384. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege KORCH, DOWNS,
WIGGINS, ROBERTS, TUCK, RUARK with ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, WESTERN,
and their attorneys manipulated Defendant UNITED STATES to the point of casting themselves
as victims of RANDY and CAROL.
was successfully manipulated by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, WESTERN, WIGGINS,
DOWNS, ROBERTS and WESTERNs attorneys.
386. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege WESTERN, WIGGINS,
DOWNS, ROBERTS and WESTERNs attorneys used the power of differential and reputation
difference of their national accreditation agency (ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS) and their
public reputation as purported vanguards of morality and ethics to succeed at publicly silencing
RANDY and CAROL, while at the same time, their attorneys issued intimidation and threats to
exploit their power structure. These are not simply standard practices of child molesters and those
who cover for them, but a systemic problem for which Defendant UNITED STATES used public
money to support WESTERN and to damage Plaintiffs to this day for WESTERNs direct benefit.
387. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege various employees of
Defendant UNITED STATES, including MULA, did not like the terms as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, and most of all those terms that WESTERN tied to
RANDYs benefits of his education. Nevertheless, as long as the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS accepted that there was nothing wrong with those extortion terms within the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, the Defendant UNITED STATES, as a public agency
of the PEOPLE, went along with the illegal, unconscionable, and heinous conduct extending well-
beyond the standards that civilized decency demands.
388. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege, Defendant UNITED
STATES negligently continues to support WESTERN, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, and
molestation pervert KORCH, in spite of President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan having responsible knowledge of the unlawfulness involved.
389. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege the employees of Defendant
UNITED STATES who went along and negligently condoned the illegal, unconscionable, and
heinous conduct that is well- beyond the standards of civilized decency against RANDY and
CAROL, and WESTERNs non-compliant criteria, standards, objectives, and outcomes for
RANDYs education included Margaret Spellings as Former Secretary of the U.S. Department of

- 114 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Education, Kent Talbert as the Former General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Education
(directly or indirectly through his staff), Cheryl Oldham as Former Acting Assistant Secretary for
Postsecondary Education, Nancy C. Regan as Former Accreditation and State Liaison Director,
Carol Griffiths as Accreditation and State Liaison, Chief, over the Accrediting Agency Evaluation
Unit, and the current Acting Executive Director of the NACIQI.
2. Duty of Directors and Responsibilities to Public
390. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendants ALESHIRE and
MCCARTHY are/were Directors of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, nonprofit corporations.
Defendants DOES 1 100, unknown to Plaintiffs at this time are other directors of the Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS who are involved with the issues noted in this Complaint.
391. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the Attorney General of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania already recognizes the vital service that you [Nonprofit
Board Members and Senior Management] provide to your community through your work as a
board member or senior manager of a charitable nonprofit organization.
134

392. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the Attorney General of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had already noted to ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS to
...obtain additional information regarding your fiduciary duties as a manager or board member or
the rules and regulations for the creation, operation and dissolution of nonprofit charitable
organizations please consult the Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988, as amended, 15 Pa. C.S.A.
5101 - 6162. This guide is not a substitute for legal advice. If you have questions, seek
qualified legal counsel to ensure that you and your boards actions are in compliance with
Pennsylvania law.
135
These Defendants have already acknowledged the statements of the
Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania statements as shown in their by-laws and
corporate policies as they relate to governance of Defendants COMMISSION and ATS. These
Defendants, while acknowledging the statements of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania statements as shown in their by-laws and corporate policies as they relate to
governance of Defendants COMMISSION and ATS, have actually ignored those statements
and laws with respect to Plaintiffs and the other 81,000 plus students of their 260 member
schools.

134
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General. Handbook for charitable nonprofit organizations. Accessed January 30, 2012.
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Consumers/nonprofitbooklet.pdf
135
Ibid.

- 115 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
393. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that there are fiduciary
responsibilities of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS board members and senior management.
Board Members, senior management and members of committees must perform their duties in
a manner they reasonably believe to be in the best interests of the corporation using the same
degree of care, skill, caution and diligence that a person of ordinary prudence would use
under similar circumstances. Decision-makers are required to make reasonable inquiries
when analyzing contracts, investments, business dealings, and other matters.
136
[Emphasis
bold] Decision-makers may rely on information provided by their employees, committees,
attorneys, public accountants and qualified professionals as long as the decision-maker reasonably
believes that the information provided is reliable.
137
While these standards exist as fiduciary
responsibilities of Defendants ALESHIRE, MCCARTHY and DOES 1-100 for Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS, as ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS they have failed to acquire,
purchase, seek, determine and clearly admitted to RANDY and CAROL on December 16, 2011
that the Commission does not have the factual knowledge or legal expertise to determine if a
school is abiding by all applicable law.
138
[Emphasis bold]
394. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS failed to develop factual knowledge as an asset resource to conduct their national
operations as the national accreditation agency recognized by Defendant UNITED STATES, U.S.
Department of Education, and they hired a law firm
139
and attorney (Tom Johnson of K&L Gates)
who failed to provide them with the level of legal expertise required to conduct their national
operations as required of a national accreditation agency recognized by Defendant UNITED
STATES, U.S. Department of Education. Laws and decisions that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS failed to properly acquaint themselves with range from each state in which a
member school operates (35 in all), the country of Canada, the District of Washington, and a U.S.
territory. Laws and decisions range from federal laws to state laws, decisional cases and public
policies. The ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS failed its recognition responsibility in 2008
concerning RANDY, CAROL, and DALEs complaints. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
continues failing to enforce its recognition responsibilities and reject any notion that

136
Ibid.
137
Ibid.
138
Tom Johnson for Defendants, letter to Plaintiff RANDY and CAROL dated December 16, 2011
139
K & L Gates LLP comprises nearly 2,000 lawyers who practice in 40 offices located on four continents/

- 116 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS should invest its assets towards fulfilling its fiduciary
responsibilities to the PEOPLE and the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.
395. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege as a means to be recognized
by Defendant UNITED STATES, the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS actually set up
standards for evaluating recognition against, and adverse to the PEOPLE, including especially to
the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.
396. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Plaintiffs learned in
December 2011 ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS finally admitted it does not maintain the
factual knowledge (34 C.F.R. 602.15(a)(2)(3)(4)) and does not use its monetary resources to
purchase the legal expertise resources (34 C.F.R. 602.15(a)(1)) to make determinations that the
UNITED STATES relied upon in 2008, whether or not a member school [WESTERN] complied
with applicable laws as required by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS advertised and
published Standard 2.2 (With regard to state, provincial, and federal authorities, schools shall
conduct their operations in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations). Further,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS refuses to enforce its published standards (34 C.F.R.
602.20), regardless of what the UNITED STATES previously demanded.
140

requires accreditors to follow and act upon their published standards, but ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS refused and rejected demands by the Defendant UNITED STATES contrary to
the requirements of the Secretarys Criteria for Recognition according to 34 C.F.R. PART 602.
398. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that there are additional
fiduciary responsibilities of board members and senior management of the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS concerning conflict of interest as noted in this case, as well as other additional
fiduciary responsibilities of board members and senior management of the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS failed to comply with as noted by
Defendant UNITED STATES and NACIQI in 2011.
3. Defendant UNITED STATES underhandedly used NWCCU against
Plaintiffs and tried to cover it up
already determined the following: AAEU has no documented supervisory review process. In

140
As referenced in the May 8, 2008, Diane Auer Jones citation letter We note that recognition entails obligations to, among other things,
enforce agency standards. 34 C.F.R. 602.20

- 117 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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. Expressing
negligence, the Unit Chief stated, a documented review process was not needed since the
specialists were experienced and exercise good judgment. The Unit Chief further stated at the
time, the 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.
The Defendant UNITED STATES concluded in 2003, AAEUs reliance on individual specialists
may impact the quality and thoroughness of the evaluations. We are also concerned that
assigning one specialist the responsibility for designing and conducting the entire review, with
minimal supervision, could subject the specialist to undue influence by the accrediting agency
being reviewed. Forseeablely, the Defendant UNITED STATES failed to act responsibly, as
reported by the Audit that identified a realistic concern by the Defendant UNITED STATES
Office of Inspector General, and that irresponsibility negligently continued on with no changes to
the AAEU conduct that was noted in the 2003 Audit.
assigned MULA as AAEU analyst to review the complaints filed by RANDY and CAROL.
While Plaintiffs made repeated FOIA requests related to MULAs review, the Defendant UNITED
STATES failed to provide materials MULA reviewed.
401. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Employees of the Defendant
UNITED STATES Department of Education are subject to the executive branch-wide Standards
of Ethical Conduct at 5 C.F.R. PART 2635. MULA acknowledged to RANDY and CAROL that
an arrangement had been made by Defendant UNITED STATES with NWCCU, including that
NWCCU was working for Defendant UNITED STATES.
402. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege MULA and Defendant
UNITED STATES fought to keep information concerning the communications and
arrangements with NWCCU concealed and obstructed from Plaintiffs, in which Defendant
UNITED STATES, MULA and NWCCU, Sandra Elman, Ed McFarlane, and Al Johnson

- 118 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
participated from at least July 23 - 29, 2008 that resulted in a letter written by Ms. Elman under
directions by MULA to be used against Plaintiffs. At this time, the Defendant UNITED STATES
continues to cover for NWCCU and DOES 101-200 related to NWCCU by withholding records
requested by Plaintiffs under the FOIA. Defendant UNITED STATES obstructive and non-
transparent conduct was perpetrated during four of the five FOIA litigation cases filed by
Plaintiffs against Defendant UNITED STATES, contrary to President Obamas January 21, 2009
Memo for FOIA transparency. Defendant UNITED STATES and MULA, made misleading
statements under oath concerning the availability and existence of materials concerning that
arrangement and communications with NWCCU. U.S. Asst. Attorney James Scharf
continued those same misleading statements to the Court on behalf of Defendant UNITED
STATES.
403. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege NWCCU sent the doctored
letters guided by MULA to the Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education, and not to
Plaintiffs legal counsel to whom NWCCUs letter was purportedly addressed. Plaintiffs allege
that NWCCUs omission and concealment of its letter from Plaintiffs was done in order to prevent
Plaintiffs immediate and timely responsive complaints and statements to Defendant UNITED
STATES regarding that known sham letter by Ms. Elman and MULA who assisted in its
procurement, in order for that sham letter to be entered into the record before Plaintiffs could
respond and prove its non-compliance with NWCCUs published policies and 34 CFR PART 602,
and NWCCUs collusion to help WESTERN.
then used the sham statements in the NWCCU letter by Ms. Elman (acting as a puppet for
Defendant UNITED STATES) against Plaintiffs without Plaintiffs having a copy of that sham
NWCCU letter. The statements by NWCCU and Ms. Elman were known to be misleading, false,
fictitious and fraudulent at the time they were written (18 U.S.C. 1001), but they were
negligently used against RANDY and CAROL anyway by Defendant UNITED STATES.
WESTERN used that sham NWCCU letter in two civil cases in order to harm Plaintiffs. The false
statements by NWCCU and Ms. Elman were accepted and acted upon as "material" coming from
a recognized accreditation agency, and had the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of
influencing, the decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed" at the time. These
acts include statements made orally and in writing and did not require being under oath, and did
not require NWCCU to know that lying to the government is a crime or even that the matter being

- 119 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lied about is "within the jurisdiction" of a government agency. Defendant UNITED STATES
acted upon statements made by NWCCU and Ms. Elman that influence(d) the outcome of
decisions before the tribunal (complaint/investigation by the AAEU), such as determining
credibility issues regarding the degree and settlement agreement in question, and they were to the
complete and full detriment of Plaintiffs.
4. Third parties disagree with claimed standards, objectives, policies,
procedures, and decisions by DEFENDANTS (34 C.F.R. 602.13 and
602.17) used by Western Seminary or 260 other member schools
405. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege as shown in a small sample
PEER REVIEW [34 C.F.R. 602.13(a)(b)] of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS positional
claims in support of the member school WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK and RUARK: 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?
A. Dr. Belle S. Wheelan, Ph.D.
141
Answer: No it is not okay.
B. Debra White,
142
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.
C. Dr. Ralph Enlow
143
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.

141
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.
142
Director of Accreditation, Commission on Opticianry Accreditation.
143
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.

- 120 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
406. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Dr. Steven Crow, Ph.D.
144

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 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.
407. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege as a result of Defendant
UNITED STATES errors and omissions, as well as backing by errors and omissions of the other
DEFENDANTS with Defendant UNITED STATES public tax money, there now is an accepted
pattern in education from a decisional court case in which any other school (like WESTERN) in
the nation with their accreditation agency (like COMMISSION) is able to conduct their operations
by heinous and unconscionable standards, objectives, and outcomes against civilized decency, and
utterly intolerable conduct. The true educational lesson here is that it is more important to protect
those who commit fraud, and criminal acts should be rewarded over and against what the PEOPLE
have already determined is naturally wrong.
5. State (licensing authority) already rejects claims by DEFENDANTS (34
C.F.R. 602.13)
408. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the State of California
has already determined that claims like those made by DEFENDANTS are in error, are civil
wrongs and therefore they have been maintained negligently against Plaintiffs. People v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC374999 determined no
school has the authority to use a settlement agreement to cause a student to not file a
complaint to the government and to cause the student and/or third parties to pay liquidated
damages if they break the gag demands of the school regardless if the student is
represented by legal counsel or not. Further, schools do not have power to make exceptions
to The Private Postsecondary and Vocational Reform Act of 1989 and use settlement agreements
to cover up what they have done.
145

144
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).
145
Californias Office of the Attorney General. Accessed Feburary 20, 2012. http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=1444

- 121 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
409. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that WESTERN has already
admitted it did not have any waivers to State law, including The Private Postsecondary and
Vocational Reform Act of 1989. WESTERN also admitted under oath it has no waiver to the ATS
Standard 2.2 requiring law compliance, and its Articles of Incorporation require law compliance.
6. Court already rejected claims by DEFENDANTS
410. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege Corinthian paid $6.5 million
to settle a lawsuit by the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA against Corinthian for engaging in unlawful
business practices, that included Corinthian using settlement agreements demanding students and
third parties to pay liquidated damages for filing complaints to the government or informing the
government about the Corinthians unlawful conduct.
146
Defendant UNITED STATES supports a
position against the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, against the U.S. Constitution, against the
California Constitution and against decisional court cases. As such, according to Defendant
UNITED STATES schools can use settlement agreements that demand students and third parties
to pay liquidated damages for filing complaints to the government or informing the government
about a schools unlawful conduct.
411. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the People of the State of
California already determined claims like those claims by DEFENDANTS are in error, and are
civil wrongs against the PEOPLE. DEFENDANTS have negligently maintained positions against
Plaintiffs in spite of a final judgment made in People v. Corinthian Schools, Inc. Los Angeles
County Superior Court Case No. BC374999 that includes even one act to deny a students right to
complain to the government is wrong [CEC 94832(l); current:Art. 8,CEC 94897(m)], regardless if
the student and family member has an attorney.
412. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the State of Californias
Appellate Court has already determined those claims by the DEFENDANTS are in error, and are
civil wrongs. DEFENDANTS have negligently maintained their claims against Plaintiffs in spite
of a final judgment made in Mary R. v. B. & R. Corp., 149 Cal. App. 3d 308 (1983), that the
Court of Appeal considered whether a stipulated confidentiality order that was entered into in
settlement of litigation was against public policy. Plaintiffs allege the confidentiality order (like
the settlement agreement DEFENDANTS approved in 2008) prevented the parties and their agents
from discussing that a marriage and family counselor between 1975 and 1976 had repeatedly

146
People v. Corinthian Schools, Inc. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC374999 holding that no school has the authority to use a
settlement agreement to cause a student to not file a complaint to the government and to pay liquated damages if they break the gag being imposed
by the school regardless if the student is represented or not.

- 122 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sexually molested a minor. Id. at 313 [just as KORCH perpetrated against Jane Doe]. The Court of
Appeal found that the order barred disclosure of a serious breach of professional conduct and
serious criminal acts. Id. at 315. As such, it determined, [t]he stipulated order of
confidentiality is contrary to public policy, contrary to the ideal that full and impartial justice
shall be secured in every matter and designed to secrete the evidence in the case from the ...
public ... Id. at 316. Because the contract [was] made in violation of established public policy,
the Court of Appeal struck the order of confidentiality. Id. at 317. The order of confidentiality in
the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of March 14, 2006, is written within several
paragraphs. The Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release required RANDY and CAROL to
remain gagged in order for RANDY to complete his two degrees and retain his 81 accumulated
credits and as a program entry requirement. It required CAROL to be gagged forever.
413. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the Superior Court of
Santa Clara Country has already rejected claims of confidentiality and privacy regarding the child
molestations by KORCH in February 2010 and fined WESTERN, TUCK, KORCH, RUARK and
their attorneys $1,925 for attempting to seek a protective order to cover for KORCH, and Mary R
was the cited case by Plaintiffs.
414. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the Court has already
determined that Plaintiffs have a right to petition the government for redress of grievances, a right
also protected by Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution. Balboa Island Village Inn,
Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal. 4th 1141, 1160 (2007) (finding an injunction was overbroad as it prevented
the plaintiff from presenting her grievances to government officials, and noting that [t]he right
to petition the government for redress of grievances is among the most precious of the
liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.).
7. Defendant UNITED STATES already rejected claims regarding
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS standards, policies, procedures
(34 C.F.R. 602.13) in other cases
STATES already rejected ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS purported existence of
standards, policies, and procedures that are not written and have been used to trump all other
published standards as reflected in enforcement disciplinary actions by Defendant UNITED
STATES against other recognized accreditation agencies. Other items in the department report
certified by the committee [NACIQI] include a need for the ABA to adopt a transparent and
written procedure for handling complaints through its proposed grievance committee, to modify

- 123 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
its written policies to indicate that it will notify the public within 24 hours of any final decision on
a schools probation or withdrawal of its accreditation and, more generally, to ensure that it
publishes its accreditation standards, including any previously unpublished common law.
147

[this is addressed in detail in prior sections with quotes by the Defendant UNITED STATES
concerning their reasoning].
416. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendant UNITED
STATES employees doubted and questioned ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS claims of
approval of the degree program in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, but Defendant
UNITED STATES negligently supported and continues to support ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS. Plaintiffs are informed that on July 21, 2008, RANDY questioned MULA as
ATS has no published policies to support the various approval claims of the degree in question,
am I correct to understand that the degree is therefore unapproved (i.e., degrees are only
considered approved that follow published policies and have written documenttion at the time
backing approval up)? MULA responded, It would be very difficult for a recognized
accrediting agency to justify to the Department the existence of two approval process for degree
programs. One published and One unpublished. The Department would be very interested in
seeing that policy and have the agency explain how the agency applies it. If an accredited
institution does not follow a recognized accrediting agencys published policies for requesting the
review and approval of a degree program or the substantive change of a degree program to
include its delivery system, then the institution would be out of complance with the agencys
published policies and procedures. Therefore the Department would expect that the program
would not be approved.
417. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that WESTERN fully admits
the Master of Theology (Th.M.) degree program in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
has a program entry requirement of the Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree program that is
described in paragraph 1(e) and every paragraph of the entire Settlement Agreement. The M.Div.
program in the Agreement does not conform to the published M.Div. degree criteria, standards,
objectives, outcomes, Missions, or Articles of Incorporation of ATS or WESTERN.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have never provided any written record evidence [34 C.F.R.

147
Elizabeth Redden. "Rough Ride for Law School Accreditor." Inside Higher Ed, December 5, 2006. Accessed February 20, 2012.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/05/aba . The concern by Defendant UNITED STATES was that schools based in California would
be pressured to break the law in order to attain accreditation, based on the fuzy enforcement and policies of the ABA. Both NACIQI and Defendant
UNITED STATES concurred on this point.

- 124 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
602.15(1)(2)] to Defendant UNITED STATES (or to PLAINTIFFS) for any of their claims of
degree program approval by an ATS published policy [34 C.F.R. 602.18(b)]for the Th.M. or
M.Div. degree programs offered to RANDY by WESTERN in the Settlement Agreement and
Mutual Release of March 14, 2006. The changed degree criteria, standards, objectives, and
outcomes of both of those degree programs are significant departures from the prior approvals by
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU for the M.Div. and Th.M. degree programs [34
C.F.R. 602.22] that WESTERN, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, and NWCCU referred to as
exceptions and accommodations. Premeditated fraud and coercing a student to conceal
KORCHs molestations and WESTERNs unlawfulness if the student wants to finish his
education is NOT an accommodation.
STATES negligently maintained positions and claims contrary to federal law, contrary to state
law, contrary to 34 C.F.R. PART 602, contrary to decisional court cases, and contrary to other
third party educational sources. Instead of complying with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. PART
602, Defendant UNITED STATES approved and supported ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
as compliant with the Secretarys Criteria for Recognition to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and
the PEOPLE.
8. Defendant COMMISSION Noncompliant with Critical Sections of 34
C.F.R. PART 602
419. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege 34 C.F.R. 602.20
Enforcement of standards required standards and their application that each accreditation
agency must have in order to be recognized by the Secretary . 34 C.F.R. 602.22 Substantive
change and 34 C.F.R. 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have are both required
of each accreditation agency in order to be recognized by the Secretary.
DEFENDANTS are required to know and maintain knowledge regarding 34 C.F.R. PART 602 as
a recognized accreditation agency of the Secretary. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS are to
demonstrate the accreditation agency has policies that conform and comply with 34 C.F.R. PART
602 prior to seeking initial recognition and renewed recognition in order to demonstrate they are
authorities for quality education. When 34 C.F.R. PART 602 is modified, accreditation agencies
are to update their policies and standards according to the updated criteria for recognition.
Defendant UNITED STATES can verify at any time if accreditation agencies conform and comply
with 34 C.F.R. PART 602. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have a history of failure

- 125 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
concerning the development and maintenance of policies and standards that conform to 34 C.F.R.
PART 602. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS admits that it does not retain the knowledge
or purchase the legal expertise it needs as a national accreditation agency. That fact was evident in
the most recent renewal of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS for recognition by the Defendant
UNITED STATES AAEU in 2011.
421. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege Defendant
COMMISSION was noncompliant with numerous key provisions of 34 C.F.R. PART 602 as
found by Defendant UNITED STATES AAEU and NACIQI in 2011, and as reported by Eduardo
M. Ochoa, Assistant Secretary of Education on July 8, 2011, to Daniel Aleshire of
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS. The Committee found
148
the agency to be operating in
compliance with the Criteria for Recognition, except for the problematic issues related to the
following sections, including: 34 C.F.R. 602.15(a)(2)(3)&(4) 602.15(a)(6) 602.15(b)
602.16(a)(1)(i) 602.16(a)(2) 602.17(d)(e)(f)&(g) 602.18(b) 602.19(a)(b)(c)&(d) 602.20(b)
602.21(a)(b) 602.22 (a)(2)(i-vii) 602.22(a)(2)(ix-x) 601.22(a)(3) 602.22(b) 602.22(c)(1)
602.23(b)(c)(d)&(e) 602.24(c)(2)(3)&(5) 602.25(f) 602.26(a)&(b) 602.28(d)&(e). The
Committee was unaware of the history of this case or the unwritten policies scam that had been
going on. However, the Committee recommended by vote of 11-0 (2 recusals Kirwan and
Williams), as is alleged in this complaint, that The agency needs to demonstrate that it has, and it
trains, the required personnel on its evaluation, policy, and decision-making bodies; show that it has
and applies criteria for assessing the quality of an institutions program planning and assessment,
and for determining that the level of student achievement is acceptable; revise its policy on good
cause and clarify what would constitute good cause, including time limits to come into
compliance; and modify several of its substantive change policies and procedures. The agency also
needs to provide documentation to demonstrate its effective application of its standards, policies
and procedures for numerous criteria in the areas of administrative and fiscal responsibilities,
required standards and their application, and required operating policies and procedures.
DEFENDANTS through their counsel JOHNSON remains defiant regarding compliance as shown
in his December 16, 2011 letter.

148
NACIQI, Report of the Meeting. http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi-dir/spring-2011-report.pdf downloaded June 20, 2012

- 126 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMMISSION was noncompliant with several key provisions of 34 C.F.R. PART 602 that
caused damage to Plaintiffs in 2008.
DEFENDANTS were negligent for years in developing and maintaining its policies and standards
that conform to 34 C.F.R. PART 602. This negligence by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS is
wholly different than any alleged negligence Defendant UNITED STATES may have, as
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS must maintain knowledge and legal expertise regarding 34
C.F.R. PART 602. Futher, the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS must show they have policies
and standards that conform to 34 C.F.R. PART 602 prior to seeking initial recognition and
renewed recognition.
9. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS: No Intention to Comply and
Misled Defendant UNITED STATES
DEFENDANTS never intended to comply with the May 8, 2008 noncompliance citation letters by
Diane Auer Jones.
DEFENDANTS failed to fully act on Plaintiffs complaints that were the genesis of the
noncompliance letter by Diane Auer Jones. The ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS also failed
to fully act on complaints by student Kevin Ford. Nearly six months after receiving the May 8,
2008 noncompliance letter by Diane Auer Jones, after the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
assured MULA that the new 34 C.F.R. 602.23 policies were in place, then the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS rejected the new 34 C.F.R. 602.23 policies they had
assured MULA had been put into place and then they reverted to their practice of putting off
complaints against schools in this case, it was a complaint filed by DALE. It took a
communication to Defendant UNITED STATES employee MULA and that subsequently was
passed to the Defendant UNITED STATES Office of General Counsel to cause
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS to follow their policies that nearly nine months earlier the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS had assured to Defendant UNITED STATES the new
complaint policy had been invoked.
DEFENDANTS have created either directly or indirectly policies to shield their Defendant ATS
schools from enforcement. Regarding 34 C.F.R. 602.20, the ACCREDITATION

- 127 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS publicly acknowledge that Defendant ATS schools must comply with Standard
2.2, but now insist (December 16, 2011) that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS cannot enforce
Standard 2.2 upon Defendant ATS schools. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS did not recuse
themselves by any such claims in 2008 related to Standard 2.2 or RANDYs complaints, if
such claims of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS were actually true then.
DEFENDANTS remain hostle with teeth baring to the Plaintiffs, the PEOPLE and Defendant
UNITED STATES regarding any notion concerning enforcing their Defendant ATS schools to
conduct their operations in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including state,
provincial, and federal authorities.
10. NWCCU: Noncompliant with 34 C.F.R. 602.18, 602.20, 602.22 and
602.23
429. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege 34 C.F.R. 602.20
Enforcement of standards is a required standard and their application each accreditation agency
must have to maintain recognition by the Secretary. 34 C.F.R. 602.22 Substantive change and
34 C.F.R. 602.23 Operating procedures all agencies must have are required operating
policies and procedures each accreditation agency must have to maintain recognition by the
Secretary.
430. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege NWCCU actually did
have standards and policies for 602.22 unlike the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
However, NWCCUs standards were not compliant in 2008 as testified by WESTERN, whose
exceptions power comes from NWCCU and trumps all NWCCU published policies.
STATES informed NWCCU by the Diane Auers Jones citation letter dated, May 8, 2008, for lack
of compliance concerning the 34 C.F.R. 602.20 and 602.23 NWCCU noncompliance issues.
However, Defendant UNITED STATES hid the 34 C.F.R. 602.22 noncompliance facts from
Plaintiffs. NWCCU made modifications and Defendant UNITED STATES employees admitted
they helped NWCCU make those changes, but Defendant UNITED STATES failed to follow the
procedures requiring a paper trail of the corrective process and action that also corresponds with
the investigation and Audit by the OIG in 2003 against the errors and omissions of the AAEU that
also occurred in 2008 and harmed Plaintiffs.
432. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege NWCCU failed to
enforce its 34 C.F.R. 602.22 standards in 2008 that existed in 2006 when WESTERNs offenses

- 128 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
had their genesis to the detriment of Plaintiffs, and to the legal support of WESTERN. Defendant
UNITED STATES was aware of that conduct by NWCCU and itself in 2008 during the AAEU
investigation required by Defendant UNITED STATES.
11. Exceptions
433. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege under the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS exceptions policy approved by the Defendant UNITED
STATES Duncan administration in 2011, schools accredited by Defendants COMMISSION and
ATS can falsify records provided to the government, schools can violate state and federal laws
(including FERPA), schools can violate decisional court cases and public policy, schools can
violate the U.S. Constitution and state Constitutions, schools can cover up criminal activity by
school employees against third parties, students, and the government, and schools can use
provisions in settlement agreements that bar former students from (filing complaints to the
government) revealing anything about their disputes about unlawfulness by the school to
government authorities. Defendant ATS schools oversee over 81,000 students and can perform
this criminal enterprise as a standard accredited business policy practice. Defendant ATS schools
can also gag students and their family members and force students and family members to pay
liquated damages if they say anything about unlawful conduct by schools, including filing
complaints to the government. These unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practices have been
allowed by the Defendant UNITED STATES Duncan administration by written policy published
as of March 2011, and this practice was accepted by the NACIQI. As of July 2011, the Defendant
UNITED STATES Duncan administration declared Defendant COMMISSION to be a reliable
authority for accreditation, with Duncan recognizing Defendant COMMISSION for the purposes
of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), and for other Federal purposes,
regarding the quality of education or training offered by the institutions or programs it accredits.
UNITED STATES Duncan administration has agreed to education that is accredited by
Defendants COMMISSION based on unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business actions and practices
by schoolslike WESTERN.
COMMISSIONs exception policy of 2011 does not state that exceptions cannot be used for
unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business acts and practices by schools against students and families,
or to cover up criminal acts by schools. It does not state that exceptions must comply with

- 129 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Standard 2.2 and Standard 2.2 does not state that any exceptions made, must be lawful per the
requirements of Standard 2.2.
436. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege these issues stem from
false, fictitious and fraudulent claims to Defendant UNITED STATES (18 U.S.C. 1001) by the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS as the Defendant UNITED STATES acted upon them in
2008 as "material," because they were material in 2008, since they came from a recognized
accreditation agency and had the "natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of influencing, the
decision of the decision making body to which it is addressed" at the time. These issues resulted
from and include oral and written statements made and do not require sworn testimony under oath,
and do not require that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS knew that misrepresentations to the
government is a crime or even that the misrepresentations are "within the jurisdiction" of a
government agency. Defendant UNITED STATES acted upon statements made by
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS that influence(d) the outcome of decisions before the
tribunal (complaint/investigation by the AAEU), such as determining credibility issues and thus,
they impacted the development of and negligence regarding unwritten policies over which the
Defendant UNITED STATES Duncan administration is accountable.
I. THIRD PARTIES ROPED IN UNWILLINGLY WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE
OR CONSENT, REFLECTING BACK ON THEIR SCHOOL AND
PROGRAMS
437. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Rev. Dr. Gladstone
Stevens, Ph. D. S.S. is Vice Rector, Academic Dean, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology
and Philosophy, St Patricks Seminary & University (an ATS Member School),
149
and Father
Gladstone testified the following statements under oath regarding:
a. Concerns that WESTERNs Registrar, WIGGINS made false statements to
St Patricks Seminary & University concerning RANDYs enrollment in a Th.M. program,
because it would raise questions about his suitability for courses here, his preparation, things of
that sort, integrity of any classes he may have taken.
b. Concerned that if RANDY was enrolled in the degree program, then
obviously the integrity of the transcripts of the previous school will be of interest to St Patricks
Seminary & University.

149
Vice Rector, Academic Dean, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, St Patricks Seminary & University (an ATS
Member School)

- 130 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. Concerns about large gaps on transcripts from a single school with no
explanation, noting it would be reasonable to ask a student why there were those gaps and he
would be concerned the student wasnt able to answer questions regarding the existence of the
gaps.
150

438. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Rev. Dr. Gladstone Stevens
was equally aware of the standards of the Western Association of Schools and the Association of
Theological Schools. Father Stevens was unaware of any unwritten and unpublished
exceptions to ATS standards that WESTERN and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
claim exist and purport 259 other ATS schools (the ATS network) know about them.
439. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the University of
Edinburgh holds the distinction of being one of the worlds top 20 universities.
151
Theology has
been taught in Edinburgh since the foundation of the University in 1583.
152
New College, the
school of Divinity at Edinburgh, is one of the largest and most renowned centers for postgraduate
studies in Theology and Religious Studies in the UK, with approximately 150 students in M.A.,
M. Phil. and PhD. degree programs in any given year.
153
New College is a multi-disciplinary and
unit rated among the best schools of Theology, Philosophical Theology, & Religious Studies in
the UK, according to the most recent national Research Assessment Exercises.
154
Along with the
schools of Divinity at Cambridge and Oxford universities, New College is regularly among the top
3-5 Theology & Religious Studies Departments in national newspaper league tables. In 2008, it
also ranked highly in the National Student Survey, consistent with previous years.
155
With this in
mind, RANDY entered Edinburgh in 2007 using his Master of Divinity (M. Div.) from
WESTERN for the entrance requirement, and while litigation against WESTERN was ongoing.
RANDY could not tell the University of Edinburgh (or St Patricks Seminary & University or the
Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley where RANDYs Th.M. transfer credits were taken as the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release required) anything concerning demands placed on
RANDY in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release by WESTERN, RUARK, KORCH,

150
Plaintiff RANDY is forbidden from saying anything other than what Western Seminary et al had demanded Randy to say as found in paragraph
10 of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release. If Randy stated anything else, Randy could be hit with a $10,000 fine per defendant.
151
The Times Higher Education. University ranked in world top 20. Accessed January 30, 2012. http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/all-news/rankings-
081009 see also http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=431&pubCode=1&navcode=148
152
School of Divinity. About the School. Accessed January 30, 2012. http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/about/overview
153
Wikipedia contributors, New College, Edinburgh, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Accessed January 30, 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College,_Edinburgh
154
Ibid.
155
Ibid.

- 131 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TUCK and its staff. Demands by WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, and RUARK precluded RANDY
from making statements about WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK or WESTERNs
employees regarding what RANDY knew from the litigation. According to Edinburghs staff, if
RANDY entered the University of Edinburgh under a false pretense it would be educational fraud
committed by RANDY.
VII. OUTCOMES
A. Defendant UNITED STATES
440. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege SPELLINGS and OLDHAM
were appointed to their positions within the Defendant UNITED STATES, and took the oath
found in 5 U.S.C. 3331. Their positions required them to support and defend the Constitution of
the United States, which they did not fulfill in 2008 regarding Plaintiffs, and especially regarding
RANDY.
does not know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars it has spent of taxpayer dollars to deal
with the mess SPELLINGS and OLDHAM agreed to support involving REGANs letters of 2008,
and the AAEU investigations of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU.
442. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege upon leaving Defendant
UNITED STATES, SPELLINGS and OLDHAM worked at SPELLINGS consulting company.
Then they both became hired lobbyists
156
at the U.S. Chamber of Commerces Institute for a
Competitive Workforce that is sponsored by Corinthian Colleges. Corinthian Colleges business
bottom line practice,
157
as other abusive and predatory schools, was impacted by actions of
SPELLINGS and OLDHAM when they worked for Defendant UNITED STATES performing the
acts noted in this complaint. Now, thanks to SPELLINGS and OLDHAM selling out America, a
decisional court case now stands in Santa Clara County Superior Court that is contrary to the will
and welfare of the PEOPLE not only in California, but also in 34 other states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the sovereign country of Canada where schools can now use
settlement agreements to force students and other third parties to not report to the government
ongoing unlawful business act and practices by schools to the government, and they can threaten

156
Ms. Spellings began her new position on April 1, 2009.
157
People v. Corinthian Schools, Inc. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC374999 holding that no school has the authority to use a
settlement agreement to cause a student to not file a complaint to the government and to pay liquated damages if they break the gag being imposed
by the school regardless if the student is represented or not. Corinthian paid $6.5 million to settle a lawsuit with the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA
alleging Corinthian engaged in unlawful business practices.

- 132 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and enforce financial vengeance by liquidated damages if students and others do file complaints to
the government.
443. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege by 2010 and 2011, a
series of Senate meetings were undertaken focusing for the most part, on problems related to for-
profit schools and the dysfunctional accreditation system into which Defendant UNITED STATES
annually pours $60 Billion dollars. While Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat and the chairman
of the Senate education committee, and others explored the problems within the educational
sector, detractors who support the system as it is, including lobbyist SPELLINGS, spoke up in
favor of the for-profit schools and the accreditation system as good. Accreditation basically just
doesnt work to ensure quality. This is true of both for-profit intuitions and real colleges.
158

444. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege the errors and
omissions that created the issues in this Complaint are the results of the negligent leadership and
management at Defendant UNITED STATES that was already understood and maintained by
SPELLINGS and OLDHAM that both of them with other employees of Defendant UNITED
STATES tried to cover up including from the public, by removing statements from third party
sources about SPELLINGS involvement in issues noted in this complaint including from
Wikipedia.
159

STATES knows of the defects within the administration of training, policies, regulations and
procedures, employees and units, including the failure of the Defendant UNITED STATES to
implement the recommendations from its own Office of Inspector General in order to correctly
monitor accreditation agencies for the protection of the PEOPLE, and most certainly the Plaintiffs.
Instead of implementing the recommendations from its own Office of Inspector General, to
correctly train employees, to fix the failed units, Defendant UNITED STATES continues its
reckless and negligent substandard management of accreditation agencies, and causing damage to
students and families. Their damage to students is so great and their conduct is so reckless, that in
2008 a student nearly killed various staff members and others, due to the gaming by the

158
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.
159
See editing history for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Spellings under IP 160.109.63.190. 160.109.63.190 reflects a department
employee, during work hours, using agency resources, making modifications to remove any hint of any issue of this case and the association with
Spellings.

- 133 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants. This occurred during the 2008 lobbyist administration of SPELLINGS and
OLDHAM.
446. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege President Obama, U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan are aware of the issues
within this complaint. For nearly four years, the Obama administration led by Arne Duncan has
had to deal with SPELLINGS need to cover up the failures of her administrationto not enforce
34 C.F.R. PART 602, other federal laws, and failure to defend the Constitution of the United
States on ATS and NWCCU to the direct detriment of the Plaintiffs and to the PEOPLE. The
legacy of the Obama, Holder and Duncan administration will be partially written by their
decisions concerning this case. As this complaint becomes active, Defendants UNITED STATES
will wage war against Plaintiffs.
B. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
447. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendant ALESHIRE
continues as Executive Director, in spite of authoring documents known to be misrepresentations
of facts to Defendant UNITED STATES and in spite of his collusion with WESTERN to
undermine two civil cases and a federal investigation.
448. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Defendant MCCARTHY left
Defendants ATS and COMMISSION to briefly work for one year at St. Patricks Seminary to be
geographically near WESTERN and used as WESTERNs educational expert against Plaintiffs.
After RANDY exposed the conflict of interest of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
[602.15(a)(6)]. Then MCCARTHY moved to the National Catholic Educational Association
(NCEA) providing leadership, direction and service to the teaching mission of the Church.
449. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege at the most recent
Accreditation review Defendant COMMISSION was cited by Defendant UNITED STATES for
many non-compliance violations of 34 C.F.R. PART 602, and was given twelve months to correct
its errors. At that time, the Duncan administration for the Defendant UNITED STATES approved
exceptions for the first time for ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS with wording that allows
260 schools to make exceptions to the U.S. Constititution, to any state Constititution, to any
federal or state law, to any decisional court case, and to public policy due to the activity that
Defendants and NWCCU took part in with WESTERN which is the subject of this federal case.
Defendant COMMISSION remains recognized by the Secretary of Education as a national
accreditor known for quality of education that is absent in WESTERNs degree programs for

- 134 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RANDY in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release that NWCCU, ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS, and Defendant UNITED STATES condoned.
450. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege Sandra Elman continues as
President at NWCCU, in spite of being used as a puppet by MULA and Defendant UNITED
STATES with known false and misleading statements for a federal investigation.
C. WESTERN
451. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege WESTERN publicly notes
that it has done nothing wrong. This complaint identifies and memorializes supporting material
evidence of WESTERNs unlawfulness. WESTERNs new business tag line is gospel-
centered transformation.
452. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege KORCH leveraged the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release to his advantage to gag and damage Plaintiffs. He
proceeded to conveniently earn a doctorate in ministry at WESTERN, and he did not pay taxes
on the $25,000 excess benefit, under the table pay off. He has made no effort for restitution for
his victim, and he bitterly refuses to pay for any of the damage he perpetrated against his victim.
He continues teaching at WESTERN and speaking at churches, retreats and other functions. Upon
silencing Plaintiffs, KORCH began writing articles about himself [google Steve Korch articles]
claiming that he was a versatile personality, follower of Jesus and spiritual leader, impressive
author, professor of theology [he doesnt have a theology degree], outstanding speaker,
experienced pastor and teacher, and more while he omits the church from his resume where he
perpetrated molestations against a minor.
453. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege TUCK continues working at
WESTERN and denies under oath any knowledge or understanding as to why his son, Matt Tuck
was included in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release to silence Plaintiffs from saying
anything about his and his sons parts in WESTERNs Section 504 fraud, and to prevent
protesting and complaining to the Defendant UNITED STATES. As Academic Coordinator, Tuck
was required to provide equal educational opportunity to all WESTERN students, and instead,
Tuck pressured Professor Sawyer to give grade privileges to his son, Matt, against the rights of all
other studentsincluding against RANDYs rights.
454. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege RUARK went on to retire
from WESTERN after taking part in damaging Plaintiffs and other students and their families for
WESTERN and third parties. RUARK claimed, In terms of what Ive contributed to the

- 135 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
organization, I hope that people see and appreciate my willingness (and I hope ability) to help
people deal with difficult issues in a way that will result in their betterment. According to
RUARK, I think the most significant contribution that Ive made to the seminary has been
dealing with problem students and student problems. RUARK is the staff member who was at
the center of running civil litigation for WESTERN. He was the staff member who interacted with
Defendant UNITED STATES during the OCR investigation of WESTERN not having a Section
504 program, and RUARK made known false and misleading statements subject to 18 U.S.C.
1001. RUARK worked with DOWNS, ROBERTS, WIGGINS and the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS to undermine Plaintiffs two civil cases and the federal investigation with
unwritten policies by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS. He was also the one who worked to
destroy FORDs life, education, personal relationships, family life, work and future. [Another
student from WESTERN]. RUARK received glowing remarks by other staffers for his work.
VIII. SPELLINGS FRAUD: SCHOOL, ACCREDITORS AND GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY ALIGN TO DEFRAUD STUDENT AND FAMILY.

It is nothing new for beltway politics to destroy or diminish the effectiveness of political
or business opponents. This case shows how far government will go to meet those goals.
455. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege in Jan 2008, the AAEU
began investigating Plaintiffs complaints against Defendant Commission/ATS and NWCCU.
During the investigation, the AAEU determined that both accreditors had not correctly handled
complaints filed by RANDY against WESTERN in violation of 34 C.F.R 602.23, as well as both
having issues with 34 C.F.R. 602.20 and 602.22. While RANDY and CAROL sent material
supporting evidence for their claims of fraud and inducement to Margaret SPELLINGS,
TALBERT (General Counsel), MULA, and others, the new ASL Director, REGAN, claimed the
accreditors did nothing wrong and were compliant. REGAN's letters claimed the Defendant
Commission/ATS and NWCCU were compliant with 602.22 (thus 34 C.F.R. 602.20) in order
to cover for the accreditors, who were in turn covering for WESTERN.
STATES was previously negligent in its compliance oversight regarding Defendant
Commission/ATS and NWCCU, which created legal problems for Defendant Commission/ATS
and NWCCU as possible defendants in the concurrent civil cases underway against WESTERN.
Thus, Defendant UNITED STATES protected Defendant Commission/ATS and NWCCU, by
claiming that both were in compliance with 602.22 (thus 34 C.F.R. 602.20) at the time of the
AAEU investigations. By doing this, Defendant UNITED STATES guaranteed the failure of any

- 136 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
legal action against Defendant Commission/ATS and NWCCU on issues of educational fraud with
WESTERN. Defendant UNITED STATES protection of Defendant Commission/ATS and
NWCCU went further, as it also approved and guaranteed the investigative reviews by Defendant
Commission/ATS and NWCCU regarding the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release as being
completely valid, compliant, and not in violation of any accreditation standards or policies, or
federal or state laws.
457. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege Defendant Commission/ATS
protected WESTERN at the direct request and interests of WESTERN, WESTERNs employees
(TUCK, RUARK, KORCH, DOWNS, WIGGINS, ROBERTS) and WESTERNs insurance
companies secured protection for WESTERN, and then WESTERN was able to leverage its
important national reputation gained by Defendant UNITED STATES approving Defendant
Commission/ATS as a litigation strategy against Plaintiffs. By securing protection for
WESTERN, then WESTERN was able to leverage the important national reputation gained by
Defendant UNITED STATES approval of Defendant Commission/ATS as a litigation strategy to
avoid any other problems with KORCH, whose needs for cover up are obvious. By condoning
the support of WESTERN and the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release by
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and COMMISSION, and NWCCU, Defendant UNITED
STATES was also able to cover up its own part in the educational fraud by silencing RANDY and
CAROL through the unconscionable Settlement Agreement MCPHARLIN designed to cover up
molestations by KORCH, etc.
458. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege NWCCU protected
WESTERN at the direct request of WESTERN, for the interests of WESTERNs employees
(TUCK, RUARK, KORCH, DOWNS, WIGGINS, ROBERTS), and WESTERNs insurance
companies. By securing protection of WESTERN, then WESTERN was able to leverage the
important national reputation gained by Defendant UNITED STATES approval of NWCCU as a
litigation strategy against Plaintiffs. By securing protection of WESTERN, then WESTERN was
able to leverage the important national reputation gained by Defendant UNITED STATES
approval of NWCCU as a litigation strategy to avoid any other problems with KORCH, whose
needs for cover up are obvious.
459. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege by collectively working
together, WESTERN, Defendants and NWCCU were able to get what each wanted in both short
and long term objectives for their interests, while destroying or diminishing the effectiveness of

- 137 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evidence provided by the Plaintiffs provided for the investigation and would provide in the future.
Any reasonable person would conclude that the collective efforts of WESTERN, Defendants, and
NWCCU intended to destroy RANDY in particular, and to stigmatize him for life.
IX. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND DAMAGES
460. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and there upon allege moments and years have
been lost, lives have been changed, and futures have been redefined while a corrupt school,
WESTERN, publicly proclaims publicly it has done nothing wrong. ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS support WESTERN and the remaining other 259 schools to conduct the same
violations of human decency, the same unlawfulness, and to obsessively protect sex perverts and
religious hypocrites, while the government covers for years of its own related negligence.
461. Since 2002, RANDY has transitioned from good health and stability to a life filled
with daily agony and pain. This culminated when RANDY experienced complete mental anguish
and emotional distress that caused him to disappear in total despair, and humiliation. Randy was
intending to commit suicide after the arbitration award was buttressed by all Defendants letters
procured with reckless disregard claiming the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release did not
violate the standards of Defendants COMMISSION and ATS, NWCCU or laws.
462. RANDY trusted Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education to enforce
the Secretarys Criteria for Recognition for quality education as the PEOPLE and Congress
expect. RANDY also trusted the education offered in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release complied with the standards of Defendants ATS and COMMSSION as promised in the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, including compliance with state and federal laws.
RANDY settled for far less consideration just so he could finish his education that he passionately
desired what he had worked so hard for and deeply valued. Instead, his education was converted
and used as a means of extortion for WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK and KORCH to commit and
cover up their fraud, and corruption all of which ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS supported
for the benefit of WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK and KORCH in their perverted conflict of interest.
463. RANDY is beat up and is been greatly abused. He suffers grief, emotional and
mental anguish, and he is financially broken by the gross abuses and blatant violations of laws that
were maliciously, willingly, and knowingly perpetrated against him and his family by
DEFENDANTS in support of WESTERN, TUCK, KORCH, and RUARK. The abuse was further
compounded by the recent Defendants COMMISSION and ATS admission on December 16,
2011, that it has no authority or expertise to judge violations of laws, contrary to

- 138 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS previous communication to Defendant UNITED STATES
that the arbitrator used against Randy. This entire, obscene circumstance has put RANDY over the
edge. RANDY has lost everything now. His house, his land, his things, his education, his future,
his reputation, his marriage and his son are no longer his.
464. JOEL is being withheld from RANDY as a result of the abusive violations of laws
by WESTERN and the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS that corruptly influenced RANDYs
arbitration and CAROLs civil case against WESTERN, TUCK, KORCH, and RUARK. Because
of the unconscionable and tragic conduct by Defendants against Plaintiffs, for which Defendants
have expressed no remorse or compassion, RANDY and JOEL have been deprived of each others
father-son love, affection, solace, companionship, society, protection, moral guidance and support,
services, care, counsel, training, and advice. SUSAN unilaterally removed RANDY as JOELs
father until JOEL is an adult, or possibly forever. SUSANs conduct (aided by Donald Allister the
Bishop of Peterborough, Janice Allister, and John Allister) are depriving RANDY from raising
and instructing JOEL in the values and protection of a loving father, parental affection and
devotion shared with and between parents and their offspring. SUSAN is preventing and depriving
JOEL, by alienating RANDY from raising and instructing JOEL about and in American values, as
well as understanding his own life as an American. The loss of his young child deprives RANDY
of his instinctive need to nurture, guide and to affectionately love his child and to be the kind of
father RANDY wanted to be for his son, which he did not have himself. The loss of his father-son
relationship with JOEL associated with all the other losses RANDY experiences are substantial,
and should not be diminished or reduced. This has gone on for over 600 days now and counting.
465. RANDY has no life savings and he lives in fear and terror daily not knowing if he
can make ends meet. RANDYs stamina is debilitated, and he is unable to tolerate much stress or
work; he relies solely on the support of CAROL and DALE at this point. That reality is extremely
emotionally humiliating and debilitating, and it engulfs most of his daily thoughts as he has been
forced to shoulder the weight to cover for the sex pervert KORCH, for religious hypocrites, for an
immoral, unlawful, and unethical school, and to cover for a dysfunctional government hell-bent to
destroy every aspect of RANDYs life for the sake of concealing its own negligence of duty to
responsibly enforce 34 CFR PART 602. RANDY feels doomed to die without the satisfaction of
justice regarding corruption and negligence of duty by Defendant UNITED STATES with
taxpayers funds to not enforce laws and instead helping special interest accreditation agencies
who conducted business outside the Congressional expectations of lawful compliance. The

- 139 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and DOES 101-200 colluded in fraud with WESTERN,
KORCH, TUCK, and RUARK, and are backed by millions of insurance dollarsall of which the
Defendant UNITED STATES is fully aware. These undeniable facts of acts and omissions
directed against Plaintiffs have resulted in financial and emotional insecurities and ongoing
emotional and mental stressors that exacerbate RANDYs poor health.
466. The loss of SUSAN and RANDYs marriage with her is hard enough on RANDY.
RANDY did not stop loving his wife. The loss of JOEL adds mental anguish and torment that
causes RANDY to experience ongoing daily anxiety, depression, stress, freight, grief and distress.
When RANDY sees little children with their fathers, it is emotionally hard on RANDY, and
causes him extreme pain. When RANDY sees married couples with kids, it is even harder on him.
RANDY has been deprived of the comfort, companionship, societal relationships, and affectionate
love a young child gives to a parent, and in later life RANDY anticipates having no spouse or
child who will love him should he fulfill his life expectancy. Defendants unlawful and negligent
conduct has deprived RANDY. The loss of a father-son relationship is not a nominal occurrence
merely because JOEL was 21 months old when he became separated from his father, RANDY.
467. Susan and Plaintiff RANDY met at the University of Edinburgh on Sept 11, 2007,
they married on April 5, 2008, and they became divorced on Oct 19, 2011. SUSAN stated in her
UK Court divorce proceedings in 2011: The Respondent who is an American citizen has devoted
a large proportion of his time and energies conducting protracted litigation in the USA throughout
the duration of the marriage. The legal action was initially against a religious seminary he joined
as a student in the 1900s and was expanded to include other parties, culminating in a final
judgment against him in May 2010. The Respondents obsessive absorption in this litigation and
its morbid effect him has alienated the Respondent from the Petitioner and the parties young
child. The Respondent has been hindered from progressing his career or obtaining gainful
employment due to the demands of the court cases he has pursued. The Respondent has also run
up very high debts in court costs since 2002. This has prevented the Petitioner from obtaining a
visa for residency in the USA with their son Joel, which has had a negative impact on the parties
relationship and the Respondents relationship with Joel. The Respondent has not been to the U.K.
and has therefore not seen either the Petitioner or Joel, since the beginning of May 2010.
468. JOEL called his father, DADOO. However, SUSAN has since noted that she
intends to keep JOEL from his DADOO until JOEL is an adult. By that time, Randy will be in
his sixties and as expected DALE and CAROL will be dead. This occurred AFTER the

- 140 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
arbitration award that was intentionally delivered on RANDYs birthday. Lord Bishop Donald
Allister supports SUSANs divorce against RANDY and he supported keeping his grandson,
JOEL, from RANDY until JOEL is an adult or perhaps forever. SUSANs mother is Dr. Janice
Allister, M.D., who is a general medical practitioner who treats acute and chronic illnesses and
provides preventive care and health education for all ages. She is the former Chair of the Primary
Care Child Safeguarding Forum that is an independent professional organization in Britain
providing Doctors information regarding safeguarding children against abuse. Janice used
RANDY and JOEL, as a model to the Safeguarding Forum as an example of the need of parental
involvement by fathers in their childrens lives. However, after the arbitration award, Dr. Allister
then supported SUSANs divorce against RANDY and SUSANs intent to keep her grandson,
JOEL, from RANDY.
469. Randy so very much loved SUSAN and he dearly loved his little son, JOEL. He
daily deals with and is haunted by the cruelty of the divorce proceedings and the blatant
dishonesty of the arbitration award, that WESTERN and its attorney, Sam Phillips, knew had
untrue statements, but they filed the misrepresentations to the Court anyway in willful malice
against Randy. The thoughts of SUSAN being with someone else, and the thoughts of her loving
someone else, and JOEL missing out on all that JOEL was intended to know and be as a result of
his father-son relationship with RANDY that is destroyed, is almost more than RANDY can bare.
470. CAROL is nearly 72-years-old, and is a retired schoolteacher who spent the
majority of her life as a single-parent mother of four children of whom RANDY is the eldest.
Since 2002, CAROL has witnessed RANDY digress from good health and stability to a life filled
with agony, pain, and hopeless despair. RANDYs condition of poor health escalated downhill
after the arbitration award, and CAROL experienced tremendous mental anguish and emotional
agony as a result of RANDYs disappearance in total despair intending to commit suicide after the
arbitration award that was buttressed by letters from Defendants COMMISSION and ATS
claiming the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release did not violate standards of Defendants
COMMISSION and ATS that were procured with reckless disregarda business conduct that was
negligently policed by Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education.
471. CAROL trusted the Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education to
responsibly enforce the Secretarys Criteria for Recognition for quality education as the PEOPLE
expect and as Congress ordered. CAROL also trusted the education offered in the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release for RANDY complied with the standards of Defendant

- 141 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMMISSION and ATS, and state and federal laws as promised. However, it was later learned
by Plaintiffs that none of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release complies with the
standards of Defendant COMMISSION and ATS or with state and federal laws including 34
C.F.R. PART 602 or with decisional court cases that preclude settlement agreements requiring
confidentiality clauses concerning child molestations. Plaintiffs discovered decisional court cases
preventing schools like WESTERN from using settlement agreement confidentiality clauses to
prevent students and others from filing complaints to the government, and threatening or charging
liquidated damages to students and third parties who do file complaints to the government.
472. CAROL feels beat up and abused as a 71-year-old senior citizen suffering grief,
emotional and mental anguish, and financially spent by the gross abuses and blatant violations of
laws that were maliciously, willingly and knowingly perpetrated against her and her family by
Defendants in support of WESTERN, TUCK, KORCH, and RUARK, who maliciously, willingly,
and knowingly violated laws against RANDY and CAROL within the Settlement Agreement and
Mutual Release. This has been further compounded by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
admission on December 16, 2011, to RANDY and CAROL stating it has no authority or expertise
to judge violations of laws, contrary to previous communications in 2008 by ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS to Defendant UNITED STATES, RANDY, and CAROL. This entire obscene
circumstance has nearly put CAROL over the edge as she has witnessed the perfect storm
conglomerate of corrupt business practices by WESTERN, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
and NWCCU that violate their own respective Articles of Incorporation, state and federal laws and
decisional court cases, their Missions, and 34 C.F.R. PART 602 that the Defendant UNITED
STATES Department of Education was legislated by Congress to responsibly enforce, and failed.
473. CAROL and DALE would like to have known JOEL and to communicate with
him, but they are being deprived of a loving grandparent-grandchild relationship with JOEL by
SUSAN and the Allister family who are alienating CAROL and DALE from JOEL, which is also
abusive to JOEL by obstructing him from the affection and care of his grandparents. SUSAN is
depriving CAROL and DALE of love, affection, solace, companionship, society, protection, moral
guidance and support, services, care, counsel, training, and advice with JOEL, while SUSAN has
removed CAROL and DALE from having a loving relationship with JOEL due to her divorce of
RANDY and due to the litigation. Susan likely will then seek to replace CAROL and DALE as
grandparents, with the expressed intent to revoke CAROLs and DALEs relationship until JOEL
is an adult at which time DALE and CAROL will probably be deceased. SUSANs conduct

- 142 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(bolstered and supported by the Allister family) has deprived Grandfather DALE and
Grandmother CAROL from instructing JOEL in the values of loving affection of his American
grandparents, and telling him stories about their lives and the lives of other family members now
deceased. SUSAN and the Allisters are alienating JOEL from the devotion and love that is
commonly shared with and between grandparents and their grandchildren. The loss of JOEL as a
grandchild to CAROL and DALE has also deprived DALE and CAROL of their instinctive need
to nurture, guide, and to affectionately love their grandchild, and to be the kind of grandparents,
RANDY wanted for his son, Joel Tristan Allister Chapel. The loss of the grandparent-grandchild
relationship with JOEL associated with all the other losses that DALE and CAROL experience are
substantial and should not be diminished or reduced. All of this happened as a result of the errors
and omissions by Defendants that culminated in August 2010 for RANDYs civil case against
WESTERN.
474. CAROLs life savings was depleted by the civil actions against WESTERN and
Defendant UNITED STATES, and at seventy-one-and-a-half years-old she lives in fear and terror
daily, not knowing if she can make ends meet. This living condition is extremely debilitating and
it consumes much of CAROLs thoughts about the future that appears to provide no promise by
Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education for enforcement of federal laws upon the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS for violating much more than the twenty sections of 34 CFR
PART 602 noted in the July 2011 letter from the Assistant Secretary, Ochoa. CAROL feels she is
doomed to die without the satisfaction of justice due to the corruption and negligence of duty with
taxpayers funds by Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education in order to help
special interests they preferred above and beyond Congressional mandates for lawful enforcement
of 34 C.F.R. PART 602. Carol also feels doomed to not see justice due to the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS collusion in fraud with WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, and RUARK who are
backed by millions of insurance dollarsall of which the Defendant UNITED STATES
Department of Education is fully aware. These acts and omissions directed against RANDY and
CAROL have resulted in financial insecurities and ongoing emotional and mental stressors that
exacerbate guarded health conditions of CAROL.
475. DALE retired from the Defendant UNITED STATES Army and is a 100% disabled
veteran with several debilitating medical conditions that require the attention, love, affection,
solace, companionship, societal community relationships, protection, support, services, care,
counsel, advice, as well as support from CAROL on a daily basis. DALE has had to deal with his

- 143 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
debilitating medical conditions, sometimes for extended periods of time alone in the house in
Hawaii, when CAROL needed to take care of RANDY in California. DALE is a first hand
witness of the effects on RANDY that impact CAROL, and dealing with the legal cases against
the corrupt business practices of WESTERN, TUCK, KORCH, and RUARK in collusion with the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS. Defendant UNITED STATES Department of Education
clearly articulated to the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS on May 8, 2008, about the need to
deal with things in a timely manner and to not hold off, because litigation can be prolonged and
more costly, and because the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS are accountable to protect and
assure the integrity and quality of education. However, because of the acts and omissions and the
totally unconscionable and inhumane disregard for the rights of RANDY, CAROL, and DALE,
the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS willfully, knowingly, and recklessly prolonged and
multiplied the suffering of Plaintiffs, including DALE whose committed oath to Defendant
UNITED STATES defended the very laws and Constitution that Congress entrusted to be upheld
by the Defendant UNITED STATES.
476. The ongoing negligence of duty by Defendant UNITED STATES Department of
Education to enforce full and appropriate consequences for violations of 34 C.F.R. PART 602 and
other federal regulations upon ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU has exacerbated
DALEs medical problems for which he requires additional and ongoing treatment.
477. Plaintiff DALE has been deprived of the love, affection, solace, companionship,
societal community relationship, protection, moral guidance and support, services, care, counsel,
training, and advice, as well as support concerning his marital relationship with CAROL that has
been negatively impacted and exacerbated by the ongoing refusal of Defendant UNITED STATES
Department of Education to take authoritative responsibility and control for its gross errors,
omissions, and negligence, and to deal once and for all with the corrupt actions by
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, and to enact legitimate oversight and law enforcement as
required and expected by Congress. DALEs quality of life and health have greatly degenerated in
direct correlation to the willful, knowing, and malicious acts of corruption by ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS to willfully and corruptly perpetrate harm to RANDY, CAROL, and DALE
about which Defendant UNITED STATES is fully informed and has negligently turned a deaf ear
toward. DALE feels beat up by the Defendant UNITED STATES that he took an oath to serve and
defend. DALE will continue to suffer anxiety and emotional distress along with his wife, CAROL
as they are retired and live on a fixed income while they attempt to make ends meet and continue

- 144 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
devoting support to RANDY who deserves justice and rule of law through responsible
enforcement by the Defendant UNITED STATES.
478. By reason of all the foregoing undeniable facts of evidence, Plaintiffs have
sustained damages and are entitled to compensatory damages together with any attorneys fees and
prejudgment interest and fees that Defendant UNITED STATES may waive and/or as this Court
deems proper.
479. Plaintiffs have also sustained damage from willful and knowing malicious intent,
and they are entitled to compensatory damages, against ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS in a
sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with such punitive and
exemplary damages, as well as such other damages, costs and fees as this Court may deem
proper. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive and exemplary damages to reform or deter the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS from engaging in continued actions (or inactions) similar to
their conduct that formed the basis of this lawsuit as ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS actions
impose a threat of similar injustice to over 81,000 other students and their families.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS express no remorse concerning their corrupt actions against
Plaintiffs and most of all against RANDY and the life long damages they have caused him to
suffer. RANDY has had to endure the destructive actions by WESTERN since 2001. RANDY
has had to endure the destructive errors, omissions and negligence that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS and Defendant UNITED STATES exacerbated on RANDY since each of their
involvements in 2005. RANDY has had to deal with these undeniably sustained damages for one-
fourth of his life now. RANDY is 46 and according to Defendant UNITED STATES, RANDY
has an estimated life expectancy at birth of 71.1 years.
160
If RANDY does not die in the process of
defending his rights and seeking justice, and if RANDY lives out his predicted life expectancy
according to Defendant UNITED STATES life charts, RANDY will have had to endure an
estimated thirty-six years with the errors, omissions and negligent actions of Defendants in corrupt
and unlawful support of WESTERN that has severely humiliated and stigmatized RANDYs life.
X. IRREPARABLE INJURY, IRREPARABLE HARM, IMPOSED DEMANDS AND
OUTCOMES
480. The ACTION imposes a present and ongoing hardship on Plaintiffs and has
severely humiliated and stigmatized RANDY for life.

160
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_09.pdf Table 21. Retrieved on June 3, 2012.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_09.pdf

- 145 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
481. RANDY has endured and continued to endure substantial pain and damage. He is
now severely and irreparably injured by the actions of the Defendants, WESTERN, TUCK,
KORCH, RUARK, DOWNS, ROBERTS and WIGGINS, and the Award confirmed pursuant to
CA Code of Civil Procedure 1287.4 on Aug 4, 2010, that is now a decisional case that was based
upon the letters by the Defendants.
482. RANDY has been deprived of his rights, severely humiliated, caused to suffer
emotional distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, stigma, and discriminated against by
Defendants UNITED STATES, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, WESTERN, and the
arbitration award. Compared to other similarly situated students in California and America,
RANDY has not had justice served for him by rule of law. All Defendants acted to support
WESTERN directly or through their negligent acts and omissions that are supported by known
unwritten policies of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU.
483. DALE and CAROL have been deprived of their rights, severely humiliated, caused
to suffer emotional distress, pain, suffering, psychological harm, stigma and discriminated against
as compared to other similarly situated family members of students in California and America, as
all Defendants have acted to support WESTERN directly or through their negligent acts and
omissions that are supported by known unwritten policies of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
and NWCCU.
484. Plaintiffs injuries will be redressed only if this Court declares the actions and
efforts by all Defendants that directly or negligently through their acts and omissions supported
the arbitration award; the ACTION that violates U.S. Constitution, State Constitution, federal and
state laws, decisional court cases, and public policy as void and thus, the approval of the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release is void ab initio and enjoins it from being enforced.
485. Due to the Defendants negligent acts and omissions, WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK,
and KORCH are currently enforcing the Award and Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release to
the direct detriment of Plaintiffs and most certainly against RANDY in a decisional case that is
against the PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA and the PEOPLE of America. Randy has lost everything:
his home, his land, his things, his education, his savings, and his health. His wife left him and
took their child away. In 2010, Randy was left for dead and to be damaged for the rest of his life.
This has now happened. RANDY has endured great losses of life, relationship and property for
rejecting and continuing to reject what is obviously not right. Everyone else who took part in the
fraud and cover up has succeeded; they express no remorse for what they have done against

- 146 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RANDY, DALE or CAROL. Plaintiffs need this to end. However, even when this ends, RANDY
will take years to heal, if that is even possible at this point.
161

XI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence per se 602.30-38 on NWCCU
486. RANDY brings Plaintiffs FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant
UNITED STATES as an action in law pursuant to jurisdiction provided by the Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA).
487. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the foregoing allegations in this Complaint.
488. Defendant UNITED STATES recognizes accreditation agencies. 602.1(a) The
Secretary recognizes accrediting agencies to ensure that these agencies are, for the purposes of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), or for other Federal purposes, reliable
authorities regarding the quality of education or training offered by the institutions or programs
they accredit, codified at 20 U.S.C. 1099b.
489. Defendant UNITED STATES had a duty to comply with 34 C.F.R. PART 602
Subpart C: The Recognition Process [ 602.30-38]. Failure to comply with this subpart
constitutes negligence per se.
490. Defendant UNITED STATES, its employees, agents, or those working on their
behalf failed to comply with 34 C.F.R. PART 602 Subpart C: The Recognition Process. Such
conduct constitutes negligence per se.
491. Defendant UNITED STATES publicly claimed NWCCU was compliant with 34
C.F.R. PART 602 when in fact and in truth, NWCCU was noncompliant in 2008, and had been
noncompliant for a number of years. Due to complaints filed by RANDY, Defendant UNITED
STATES employees analyzed NWCCUs policies and found deficiencies regarding required
criteria for recognition. As predicted by Defendant UNITED STATES own Office of Inspector
General in 2003, Defendant UNITED STATES employees failed to ensure NWCCU was
compliant for at least one period of recognition and likely more, all of which proceeded RANDYs

161
Kevin Ford, one of many students damaged by WESTERN has taken four years so far to get his life turned around. Of that, he spent years in
counseling, including cult-deprogramming counseling to deal with WESTERNs abuse. He lost his house, his wife filed for divorce, they filed for
bankruptcy, they lost friends, and they lost a lot of time personally in the family that cannot be recovered. Only now, with the healing of two
children wanting to be with their father and a wife that has ended her divorce proceedings, has his life turned around. He now is working. In
contrast, RANDY is far more damaged than Kevin and is expected to take many more years, given all the damage that has piled up over ! of his
life in dealing with WESTERN, the United States, various attorneys and two accreditors. Some aspects of RANDYs life are forever lost at this
point.

- 147 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
injuries that could have been prevented if Defendant UNITED STATES had acted responsibly and
unbiased with no favors for special interest accreditation agencies just as the 2003 Audit
previously identified.
492. Defendant UNITED STATES only cited NWCCU for 34 C.F.R. 602.20, 602.23
in May 2008 and hid the NWCCU noncompliance with 34 C.F.R. 602.22 from Plaintiffs, all
other students, their families, the 162 schools NWCCU accredits and the public. Defendant
UNITED STATES was clearly aware and noted in e-mail communications Defendant UNITED
STATES knowledge that NWCCU was noncompliant with 34 C.F.R. 602.22, and that it was
working with NWCCU to fix Defendant UNITED STATES and NWCCUs noncompliance
problem. Defendant UNITED STATES failed to follow the process outlined in 34 C.F.R. PART
602 Subpart C: The Recognition Process [ 602.30-38] knowing that such written statements
would be used against NWCCU, and would likely cause NWCCU to be sued by Plaintiffs.
MULA emphatically cautioned RANDY not to sue NWCCU, because if he did, MULA claimed
the Defendant UNITED STATES would no longer help RANDY, which MULA stated while he
was actually guiding NWCCU about what to write in its review to Randys attorney that was
only sent to Defendant UNITED STATES to then be used by Defendant UNITED STATES,
NWCCU, and WESTERN against RANDY and CAROL.
493. Defendant UNITED STATES admits to working with NWCCU, and together they
quietly modified NWCCUs policies and did so without documentation as shown in FOIAs filed
in the 2010-2012 FOIA litigation by Plaintiffs against Defendant UNITED STATES. The changed
NWCCU 34 C.F.R. 602.22 policies were supposedly meant to protect RANDY and all other
students from 162 schools NWCCU accredits. However, in 2008, NWCCU failed to enforce its
published standards upon WESTERN that were active in 2006 regarding the Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release of March 14, 2006, and in turn, NWCCU covered for WESTERN
during the federal investigation. WESTERN had failed to follow the written NWCCU policies in
2006 and needed help with its problems of administrative management noncompliance that
WESTERN continued under WARNING notations lasting 18 months from NWCCU. With
Defendant UNITED STATES help to cover its own negligent oversight for several years,
NWCCU modified its policies in 2008, after having been negligently approved as compliant in
2003 and in 2007 by Defendant UNITED STATES and NACIQI. Then NWCCU utilized the
modified version of its A-2 policy to use retroactively for WESTERNs benefit over and against
Plaintiffs. The modified A-2 policy omitted Level I and Level II categories of schools,

- 148 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
depending upon their accreditation history of probation and warnings and the Nature of
Change descriptions of major or minor changes identified by those two category levels. To
support those changes, NWCCU did nothing regarding WESTERNs false Annual Reports within
which ROBERTS and DOWNS concealed and omitted the two changed and noncompliant master
degrees offered to RANDY in the March 14, 2006, Settlement Agreementall of which MULA
and Defendant UNITED STATES was knowledgeable.
494. The conduct of Defendant UNITED STATES employees, and agents acting within
the course and scope of their authority and employment in overseeing the required criteria for
recognition of NWCCU, negligently and with reckless conduct contributed directly and
proximately causing injury and property loss, and resulting in damages to RANDY, DALE and
CAROL.
//
//
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence Failure to Cite NWCCU Concerning 34 C.F.R. 602.22
495. RANDY brings Plaintiffs SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant
Claims Act (FTCA).
constitutes negligence.
conduct constitutes negligence.
500. Defendant UNITED STATES owed a duty to RANDY who filed a complaint to
Defendant UNITED STATES, including a duty to the public, DALE and CAROL, to follow the
activities and recognition procedures required by 34 C.F.R. 602.30-38.

- 149 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
501. Defendant UNITED STATES violated that duty, knowing that NWCCU was not
compliant with 34 C.F.R. 602.22. In fact and in truth, Defendant UNITED STATES worked
with NWCCU to cause the accreditation agency to be compliant but failed to follow the activities
and recognition procedures required by 34 C.F.R. 602.30-38.
502. Because of the negligence of Defendant UNITED STATES by not following the
required statutory activities and recognition procedures, RANDY suffered injury and damage and
continues to suffer injury and damage. DALE and CAROL have also suffered injury and damage
and continue to suffer injury and damage.
503. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon re-allege the injury RANDY
suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Defendant UNITED STATES action or
inaction, and acts or omissions.
504. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon re-allege the injury DALE and
CAROL suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Defendant UNITED STATES
action or inaction, and acts or omissions.
//
//
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence per se 602.30-38 on ATS
505. RANDY brings Plaintiffs THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant
Claims Act (FTCA).
constitutes negligence per se.
conduct constitutes negligence per se.

- 150 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
510. Defendant UNITED STATES claimed publicly that Defendant COMMISSION
was compliant with 34 C.F.R. PART 602 when in fact and in truth, Defendants ATS and
COMMISSION was noncompliant for a number of years. ATS actually noted in a letter to
RANDYs attorney, Defendant UNITED STATES approved ATS and COMMISSION as
compliant for fifteen years until the May 8, 2008 citations. Due to complaints filed by RANDY,
Defendant UNITED STATES employees analyzed Defendants ATS and COMMISSIONs
policies and found deficiencies with respect to the required criteria for recognition. In fact as
evidence shows, Defendants ATS and COMMISSION did not have all the required policies that
an accreditation agency should have. As predicted by Defendant UNITED STATES own Office
of Inspector General in 2003, Defendant UNITED STATES employees failed to ensure Defendant
COMMISSION was compliant for at least one period of recognition and likely more, all of which
proceeded RANDYs injuries that were preventable if Defendant UNITED STATES had acted
responsibly and unbiased with no favors for special interest accreditation agencies just as the 2003
Audit previously identified.
511. Defendant UNITED STATES only cited Defendants ATS and COMMISSION for
34 C.F.R. 602.20, 602.23 in May 2008 and hid the Defendants ATS and COMMISSION
noncompliance with 34 C.F.R. 602.22 from Plaintiffs, all other students, their families, the 260
schools Defendants ATS and COMMISSION accredits and the public. Defendant UNITED
STATES was clearly aware and noted in email communication Defendant UNITED STATES
knowledge that Defendants ATS and COMMISSION was noncompliant with 34 C.F.R. 602.22
and that it was working with ATS to fix Defendant UNITED STATES and Defendants ATS and
COMMISSION noncompliance problem. Defendant UNITED STATES failed to follow the
process outlined in 34 C.F.R. PART 602 Subpart C: The Recognition Process [ 602.30-38]
knowing that such written statements would be used against Defendants ATS and COMMISSION,
and would likely cause ATS to be sued by Plaintiffs.
512. Defendant UNITED STATES admits to working with Defendants ATS and
COMMISSION, and together they quietly modified Defendants ATS and COMMISSIONs
policies and did so without documentation as shown in FOIAs filed in the 2010-2012 FOIA
litigation filed by Plaintiffs against Defendant UNITED STATES. The Defendants ATS and
COMMISSION 34 C.F.R. 602.22 policies is meant to protect RANDY and all other students
from 260 schools Defendant COMMISSION accredits. Defendants ATS and COMMISSION
failed to enforce its published standards upon WESTERN in 2008, and in turn, covered for

- 151 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WESTERN during a federal investigation. With Defendant UNITED STATES help to cover its
own negligence, Defendants ATS and COMMISSION finally wrote 602.22 policies in 2010-
2012, after having been negligently approved as compliant by Defendant UNITED STATES and
NACIQI for years. Defendants ATS and COMMISSION claimed policies that did not exist
existed, in spite of previously declaring it did not use the language of substantive change. This
was done by Defendants ATS and COMMISSION for WESTERNs benefit over and against
Plaintiffs.
513. The conduct of Defendant UNITED STATES employees and agents acting within
the course and scope of their authority and employment in overseeing the required criteria for
recognition negligently and with reckless conduct contributed directly and proximately causing
injury and property loss, resulting in damages to RANDY, DALE and CAROL. Further, the May
8, 2008, citation letters to ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU from Defendant
UNITED STATES acknowledged prolonging litigation by negligence of duty caused increased
litigation costs (amidst many other devastating damages) that therefore were willful and knowing
damages on the part of all Defendants including Defendant UNITED STATES.
//
//
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence Failure to cite ATS Concerning 34 C.F.R. 602.22
514. RANDY brings Plaintiffs FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant
Claims Act (FTCA).
constitutes negligence.

- 152 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conduct constitutes negligence.
519. Defendant UNITED STATES owed a duty to RANDY who filed a complaint to
Defendant UNITED STATES, including a duty to the public, DALE and CAROL, to follow the
activities and recognition procedures required by 34 C.F.R. 602.30-38.
520. Defendant UNITED STATES violated that duty, knowing that Defendants ATS
and COMMISSION were not compliant with 34 C.F.R. 602.22. In fact and in truth, Defendant
UNITED STATES worked with Defendants ATS and COMMISSION to cause the accreditation
agency to be compliant but failed to follow the activities and recognition procedures required by
34 C.F.R. 602.30-38 in 2008.
521. Because of the negligence of Defendant UNITED STATES in not following the
regulated activities and recognition procedures, RANDY suffered injury and damage and
continues to suffer injury and damage. DALE and CAROL have also suffered injury and damage
and continue to suffer injury and damage.
522. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon re-allege the injury RANDY
suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Defendant UNITED STATES action or
inaction, and acts or omissions.
523. The injury DALE and CAROL suffered was a reasonably foreseeable consequence
of the Defendant UNITED STATES action or inaction, and acts or omissions.
//
//
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence 34 C.F.R. Part 602
524. DALE, CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
against ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
526. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have a duty of care to Plaintiffs and to the
public and the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS breached that duty. As a duty,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS are required to demonstrate, retain knowledge and legal
expertise that their policies and procedures conform to 34 C.F.R. PART 602 prior to seeking
recognition. As a duty, when the policies and procedures change, ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS are to insure those changes are reflective of 34 C.F.R. PART 602. As a duty,

- 153 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
when 34 C.F.R. PART 602 is modified, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS are to insure that
those changes are reflected in the policies and procedures of the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS. The policies, procedures and standards that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS hold out to the public are to be maintained and to reflect 34 C.F.R. PART 602,
including when 34 C.F.R. PART 602 is modified. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS fully
admit that certain policies are unwritten (and thus not available and never available to the public or
Plaintiffs, let alone to Defendant UNITED STATES). Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and
thereupon re-allege these unwritten policies are controlling over policies, standards and procedures
that are in writing.
527. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS failed as a national accreditor, having been
negligent to retain knowledge or to purchase legal expertise required to conduct their accreditation
oversight as demonstrated in this case, with other students, and to the public, as Defendant
COMMISSION has been repeatedly cited for failing to have policies and procedures that conform
to 34 C.F.R. PART 602.
528. The conduct of these ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, acting within the
course and scope of their authority and employment and as corporations in overseeing the required
criteria for recognition negligently and with reckless conduct contributory, directly and
proximately caused injury and property loss, resulting in damages to DALE, CAROL and
RANDY.
529. Because of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS actions, DALE, CAROL and
RANDY have suffered, and continue to suffer, continue to be injured and suffer irreparable harm.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no change or taken any action, in spite of
knowing the damage caused to DALE, CAROL and RANDY to fix or otherwise undo any action
or otherwise retract any statement made which has caused damage to DALE, CAROL and
RANDY. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS conduct and disregard for DALE, CAROL and
most of all RANDYs life, has been with instituted with significant oppression, fraud, or malice.
DALE, CAROL and RANDY, therefore, are entitled to an award of monetary damages, including
punitive damages, exemplary damages and equitable relief pursuant to California Civil Code
3294 and 3345 to reform or deter the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS from engaging in
present and future conduct similar to that which formed the basis of this lawsuit.
530. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 17535 and 17203, that the
Court make such orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to any Plaintiff any money or

- 154 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
property that may have been acquired as a result of and by means of false or misleading
advertising or unfair competition by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and all persons who
acted in concert or participated with them in false or misleading advertising or unfair competition.
//
//
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence per se 34 C.F.R. Part 602
531. DALE, CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
534. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have a duty of care as a national accreditation
agency recognized by Defendant UNITED STATES under 34 C.F.R. PART 602 and
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS breached that duty.
535. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS are required to demonstrate that their policies
and procedures conform to 34 C.F.R. PART 602 prior to seeking recognition. As a requirement of
accreditation agencies recognized under 34 C.F.R. PART 602, when their policies and procedures
change, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS are to insure those changes are reflective of 34
C.F.R. PART 602. As a requirement of accreditation agencies recognized under 34 C.F.R. PART
602, when 34 C.F.R. PART 602 is modified, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS are to insure
those changes are reflected in policies, standards, and procedures of ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS. The policies, procedures and standards that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS hold out to the public are to be maintained and to reflect 34 C.F.R. PART 602,
including when 34 C.F.R. PART 602 is modified. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS fully
admit that certain policies are unwritten (and thus not available and never available to the public or
Plaintiffs or even to Defendant UNITED STATES). Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and
thereupon re-allege these unwritten policies are controlling over policies, standards and procedures
that are in writing.

- 155 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
536. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have failed as a national accreditor, having
been negligent to retain knowledge or purchase legal expertise required to conduct their
accreditation oversight as demonstrated in this case, with other students, and to the public and to
the PEOPLE as Defendant COMMISSION has been repeatedly cited for failing to have policies
and procedures that conform to 34 C.F.R. PART 602.
537. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, its employees, agents, or those working on
their behalf failed to comply with 34 C.F.R. PART 602. Such conduct constitutes negligence per
se.
RANDY.
RANDY have suffered, continue to suffer, and continue to be injured and suffer irreparable harm.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no change or taken any corrective action, in
spite of knowing the damage caused to DALE, CAROL and RANDY to fix or otherwise undo any
action or otherwise retract any statement made with unwritten policies that caused damage to
DALE, CAROL and RANDY. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS conduct and disregard for
DALE, CAROL and most of all RANDYs life, has been with instituted with significant
oppression, fraud, or malice. DALE, CAROL and RANDY, therefore, are entitled to an award of
monetary damages, including punitive damages, exemplary damages and equitable relief pursuant
to California Civil Code 3294 and 3345 to reform or deter the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS from engaging in present and future conduct similar to that which formed the
basis of the lawsuit.
//
//

- 156 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence per se Section 504
541. RANDY brings Plaintiffs SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant
Claims Act (FTCA) and ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
543. Defendant UNITED STATES mishandled its investigation of WESTERN in 2005
by whistleblower RANDY. RANDY had been a whistleblower since 2001.
544. At the time of the mishandled investigation as learned through FOIAs, WESTERN
had made known false, fictitious and fraudulent claims to Defendant UNITED STATES (18
U.S.C. 1001), including backdating documents (Ca Penal Code 134) in order to retain federal
funding. RANDY and CAROL did not learn of this until December 2010.
545. WESTERN obviously was aware of their known false, fictitious and fraudulent
claims to Defendant UNITED STATES in 2005 and sought to cover them up by using a
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, which 1) constrained speech; 2) gagged RANDY and
CAROL; 3) compelled speech; 4) denied current and future complaints by RANDY or CAROL to
the government and 5) demanded liquidated damages should RANDY or CAROL break the
agreement and expose WESTERN for who they really are. All of this was tied to education.
546. Defendant UNITED STATES has already determined that federal regulations
prohibit the Seminary [WESTERN] from retaliating against you or from intimidating, threatening,
coercing, or harassing you or anyone else because you filed a complaint with OCR or because you
or anyone else take part in the complaint resolution process. Contact OCR if you believe such
actions occur. The 9
th
circuit court has already found that schools cannot trump up claims against
whistleblowers like RANDY or cause whistleblowers/employees like RANDY from not informing
the government of what they know (file complaints) and finally for schools retaliating either
directly or indirectly against those who do.
162

547. Defendant UNITED STATES has already determined that AAEU does not
contact other Department units, state licensing agencies, or other agencies as part of the

162
See Barker v. Riverside County Office of Education, No. 07-56313 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2009) Susan Lee Barker was employed by the Riverside
County Office of Education as a Resource Specialist Program teacher for students with disabilities. She brought suit against her employer based on
constructive termination arising out of an intolerable work environment. Barkers complaint alleged that her supervisors at the Riverside County
Office of Education retaliated against her after she voiced concerns that the Riverside County Office of Education was not complying with
requirements of federal and state law in how it provided educational services to its disabled students. The district court dismissed Barkers lawsuit
for lack of standing. Barker argues that she has standing to sue the Riverside County Office of Education pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions
of both section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We agree with Barker and
therefore reverse and remand.

- 157 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
163

548. As predicted, the AAEU failed to contact other Department units as they were
confronted with various ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS claims concerning their standards
and procedures for monitoring and enforcing its standards at accredited institutions. Instead,
AAEU concluded nothing prohibited WESTERN offering educational course work with standards,
objectives and outcomes that violate federal and state laws, decisional cases and public policies
also related to RANDY retaining his 81 previously earned accumulated credits, because the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS condoned WESTERNs unlawful demands including that
Defendant ATS schools can gag students, employees, and members of student families to prevent
their complaints to the government about unlawful conduct.
549. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have since admitted they do not maintain the
knowledge required of a national accreditor or have not purchased the legal expertise needed and
required of a national accreditor impacting the sovereign country of Canada and 35 sovereign
states within the Union, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In particular, Defendant
UNITED STATES took the statements made by the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS that
approve of Defendant ATS schools such as WESTERN can require and has the authority to
demand confidentiality clauses in agreements settling disputes with third parties, including
students, former students, and graduates, and their families that bar those who settle from
discussing any of the basis for their disputes with any governmental agency, and that purport to
require those who settle to pay those Defendant ATS schools liquidated damages such as
WESTERN did, in the amount of the entire sum paid under any settlement, if such confidentiality
clause is violated. In violation of a right protected by article I, section 3 of the California
Constitution. See Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal. 4th 1141, 1160 (2007) (finding
an injunction was overbroad as it prevented the plaintiff from presenting her grievances to
government officials, and noting that [t]he right to petition the government for redress of
grievances is among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.). Also
see People v. Corinthian Schools, Inc. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC374999
holding that no school has the authority to use a settlement agreement to cause a student to not

163

- 158 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
file a complaint to the government and to pay liquated damages if they break the gag being
imposed by the school regardless if the student is represented or not.
550. Defendant UNITED STATES has a duty of care to RANDY and to the public, and
the Defendant UNITED STATES breached that duty. As a duty, Defendant UNITED STATES is
required to demonstrate, retain knowledge and legal expertise that their enforcement of policies
and procedures from accreditation agencies ensure they conform to Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prior to seeking/ retaining recognition.
551. The conduct of Defendant UNITED STATES agents, acting within the course and
scope of their authority and employment in overseeing the required criteria for recognition,
negligently and with reckless contributory conduct, directly and proximately caused injury and
property loss, resulting in damages to RANDY as provided by California Evidence Code section
669 in which a statute or regulation was designed to prevent and to which RANDY is one of the
class of persons for whose protection the statute or regulation was adopted and to which
WESTERN or any other Defendant ATS school has the authority to make exception too
according to Defendant UNITED STATES belief in ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS morbid
claims. The conduct of these Defendant UNITED STATES employees, acting within the course
and scope of their authority and employment and in overseeing the required criteria for recognition
negligently and with reckless conduct contributory, directly and proximately caused injury and
property loss, resulting in damages to DALE, CAROL and RANDY.
552. //
553. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have a duty of care to RANDY and to the
expertise that their policies and procedures conform to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 prior to seeking recognition.
been negligent to retain knowledge or to purchase legal expertise required to conduct their
accreditation oversight as demonstrated in this case.

- 159 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RANDY.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no change or taken any correction action, in spite
of knowing the damage caused to DALE, CAROL and RANDY to fix or otherwise undo any
action or otherwise retract any statement made which has caused damage to DALE, CAROL and
most of all RANDYs life, has been instituted with significant oppression, fraud, or malice.
present and future conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.
//
//
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence per se 20 U.S.C. 1232g
558. RANDY brings Plaintiffs EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant
560. Defendant UNITED STATES has already determined that the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 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 Defendant UNITED STATES U.S. Department of Education.
FERPA intends that students rights be broadly defined and exceptions narrowly construed.
FERPA gives students certain rights with respect to their education records.

- 160 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
561. Defendant UNITED STATES has already determined that students have the right
to file a complaint with the Department that being the Defendant UNITED STATES U.S.
Department of Education.
164

165
As predicted, the
AAEU failed to contact other Department units and state licensing agencies as they were
confronted with various claims about their standards and procedures for monitoring and enforcing
by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS of its standards at accredited institutions. Instead,
AAEU concluded nothing prohibited WESTERN from offering the educational course work with
standards, objectives and outcomes that violate federal and state laws, decisional cases and public
policies also related to RANDY retaining his 81 accumulated and previously earned credits,
because the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS said they judged WESTERN and the Settlement
Agreement of March 14, 2006, did not violate Commission standards.
563. The ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have since admitted on December 16,
2011, they do not maintain the knowledge required of a national accreditor nor have they
purchased the legal expertise needed and required of a national accreditor impacting the sovereign
country of Canada and 35 sovereign states within the Union, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico. In particular, Defendant UNITED STATES took the statements made by the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS that approved of Defendant ATS schools such as
WESTERN to require with the authority to demand confidentiality clauses in agreements
settling disputes with third parties, including students and their families, former students, and
graduates, that bar those who settle from discussing with any governmental agency any of the
basis for their disputes, and which purport to require those who settle to pay those Defendant ATS
schools such as WESTERN, liquidated damages, in the amount of the entire sum paid under any
settlement, if such confidentiality clause is violated. In violation of a right protected by article I,
section 3 of the California Constitution. See Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal. 4th

164
Defendant UNITED STATES. FERPA for Students Accessed February 9, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/students.html
165

- 161 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1141, 1160 (2007) (finding an injunction was overbroad as it prevented the plaintiff from
presenting her grievances to government officials, and noting that [t]he right to petition the
government for redress of grievances is among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by
the Bill of Rights.). Also see People v. Corinthian Schools, Inc. Los Angeles County Superior
Court Case No. BC374999 holding that no school has the authority to use a settlement agreement
to cause a student to not file a complaint to the government and to pay liquated damages if they
break the gag being imposed by the school regardless if the student is represented or not.
scope of their authority and employment in overseeing the required criteria for recognition
negligently and with reckless conduct contributory, directly and proximately, caused injury and
WESTERN or any other Defendant ATS school has the authority to make exceptions to 20
U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR PART 99. Further, Defendant ATS schools have the authority and
WESTERN has the policy and rights to release student personal information who have never been
investigated regarding discipline issues and in spite of these points, schools shall have and can
invoke policies and procedures to release non-educational records/personally identifiable
student information to anyone, UNLESS the student (and his family member) signs a
settlement agreement causing the school to not release such information and gag the school from
doing so, otherwise, Defendant ATS schools have the authority and WESTERN has the policy and
rights to release students personally identifiable information without student consent at will in
which no provision under the law permits them to do so.
565. Defendant UNITED STATES has a duty of care to student RANDY and to all of
the other 58 million students in the U.S. and the Defendant UNITED STATES breached that duty.
As a duty, Defendant UNITED STATES is required to demonstrate, retain knowledge and legal
expertise that their enforcement of policies and procedures from accreditation agencies ensure they
conform to 20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR PART 99 prior to seeking/ retaining recognition.

- 162 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
669 in which a statute or regulation was designed to prevent harm and to which RANDY is one of
the class of persons for whose protection the statute or regulation was adopted and to which
567. //
expertise that their policies and procedures conform to 20 U.S.C. 1232g prior to seeking
recognition.
accreditation oversight as demonstrated in this case.
RANDY.
RANDY have suffered, continue to suffer, and continue to be injured and suffer irreparable harm.

- 163 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
572. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon re-allege the general damages (non-
economic damages) and special damages (economic damages) caused by Defendant UNITED
STATES cannot be undone. Once personally identifiable information has been made public, the
harm cannot be undone. and DOE experiences the irreparable harm suffered by those students
whose privacy interests are violated United States v. Miami University, No. 00-3518, 2002 U.S.
App. LEXIS 12830, (6th Circuit) June 27, 2002. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and
Defendant UNITED STATES has failed and refused to mitigate any damages done to RANDY,
and while Defendant UNITED STATES own employees are aware and have agreed that students
cannot be made to not file complaints, Defendant UNITED STATES negligently has and
continues to enforce claims that RANDY is unable to file a complaint with Defendant UNITED
STATES because ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS said so.
//
//
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Enforcement FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99)
574. RANDY brings Plaintiffs NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION against Defendant
576. Defendant UNITED STATES has already determined that the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 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 Defendant UNITED STATES U.S. Department of Education.
FERPA intends that students rights be broadly defined and exceptions narrowly construed.
FERPA gives students certain rights with respect to their education records.

- 164 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
577. Defendant UNITED STATES has already determined that students have the right
to file a complaint with the Department that being the Defendant UNITED STATES U.S.
Department of Education.
166

167
As predicted, the
AAEU failed to contact other Department units and state licensing agencies as they were
confronted with various claims about their standards and procedures for monitoring and enforcing
by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS of its standards at accredited institutions. Instead, AAEU
concluded nothing prohibited WESTERN from offering the educational course work with
standards, objectives and outcomes that violate federal and state laws, decisional cases and public
policies also related to RANDY retaining his 81 accumulated and previously earned credits,
because the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS said they judged the program and Settlement
Agreement did not violate Commission standards.
579. The ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have since admitted on December 16,
2011, they do not maintain the knowledge required of a national accreditor nor have they
purchased the legal expertise needed and required of a national accreditor impacting the sovereign
country of Canada and 35 sovereign states within the Union, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico. In particular, Defendant UNITED STATES took the statements made by the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS that approved of Defendant ATS schools such as
WESTERN to require and has the authority to demand confidentiality clauses in agreements
settling disputes with third parties, including students and their families, former students, and
graduates, that bar those who settle from discussing with any governmental agency any of the
basis for their disputes, and which purport to require those who settle to pay those Defendant ATS
schools such as WESTERN, liquidated damages, in the amount of the entire sum paid under any
settlement, if such confidentiality clause is violated. In violation of a right protected by article I,
section 3 of the California Constitution. See Balboa Island Village Inn, Inc. v. Lemen, 40 Cal. 4th

166
Defendant UNITED STATES. FERPA for Students Accessed February 9, 2012. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/students.html
167

- 165 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1141, 1160 (2007) (finding an injunction was overbroad as it prevented the plaintiff from
presenting her grievances to government officials, and noting that [t]he right to petition the
government for redress of grievances is among the most precious of the liberties
safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.). Also see People v. Corinthian Schools, Inc. Los Angeles
County Superior Court Case No. BC374999 holding that no school has the authority to use a
settlement agreement to cause a student to not file a complaint to the government and to pay
liquated damages if they the break the gag being imposed by the school regardless if the student
is represented or not.
negligently and with reckless conduct contributory, directly and proximately, caused injury and
WESTERN or any other Defendant ATS school has the authority to make exceptions to 20
U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR PART 99. Further, Defendant ATS schools have the authority and
WESTERN has the policy and rights to release student personal information who have never been
investigated regarding discipline issues and in spite of these points, schools shall have and can
invoke policies and procedures to release non-educational records/personally identifiable
student information to anyone, UNLESS the student (and his family member) signs a
settlement agreement causing the school to not release such information and gag the school from
doing so, otherwise, Defendant ATS schools have the authority and WESTERN has the policy and
rights to release students personally identifiable information at will without student consent in
which no provision under the law permits them to do so.
581. Defendant UNITED STATES has a duty of care to student RANDY and to all of
the other 58 million students in the United States, and the Defendant UNITED STATES breached
that duty. As a duty, Defendant UNITED STATES is required to demonstrate, retain knowledge
and legal expertise that their enforcement of policies and procedures from accreditation agencies
ensure they conform to 20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR PART 99 prior to seeking/ retaining
recognition.

- 166 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
583. //
expertise that their policies and procedures conform to 20 U.S.C. 1232g prior to seeking
recognition.
585. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS failed as a national accreditor, having been
negligent to retain knowledge or to purchase legal expertise required to conduct their accreditation
oversight as demonstrated in this case.
RANDY.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no corrective change or taken any action, in spite
of knowing the damage caused to DALE, CAROL and RANDY to fix or otherwise undo any

- 167 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
588. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon re-allege the general damages (non-
economic damages) and special damages (economic damages) caused by Defendant UNITED
STATES cannot be undone. Once personally identifiable information has been made public, the
harm cannot be undone. and DOE experiences the irreparable harm suffered by those students
whose privacy interests are violated United States v. Miami University, No. 00-3518, 2002 U.S.
App. LEXIS 12830, (6th Circuit) June 27, 2002. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and
Defendant UNITED STATES failed and refused to mitigate any damages done to RANDY, and
while Defendant UNITED STATES own employees are aware and have agreed that students
cannot be made to not file complaints, Defendant UNITED STATES negligently has and
continues to enforce WESTERNs demands in the Settlement Agreement that RANDY is unable
to file a complaint with Defendant UNITED STATES because ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS said so.
//
//
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17500 (Untrue Or Misleading Statements -
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS)
590. DALE, CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
592. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have violated and continue to violate
Business and Professions Code section 17500 by making or disseminating untrue or misleading
statements, or causing untrue or misleading statements to be made or disseminated in or from
California, with the intent to induce members of the public to enroll in vocational training

- 168 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
programs offered by WESTERN and other schools and to purchase other goods or services.
Specifically, the untrue or misleading statements are:
a. Defendant ATS member schools can make exceptions to accommodate
students and their families, in which these accommodations violate any Canadian law, U.S.
Constitution, State Constitution, federal and state laws, decisional court cases, and public policy;
b. Statements concerning programs (34 C.F.R. 602.3) involving contracts between
Defendant ATS member schools and students and family members are valid and approved, when
they are not approved according to statute requirements and there is no documentation to
demonstrate approval;
c. Statements to governmental investigators performing investigations concerning
programs (34 C.F.R. 602.3) within settlement agreement contracts between Defendant ATS
member schools and students and family members do not violate Commission standards, when
they do not comply with Commission standards, and years later the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS admitted to having no authority or legal expertise to judge legal issues such as
those within settlement agreement contracts in order to prove compliance that was awarded via
unwritten policies;
d. That you can earn an accredited degree if you cover up sexual misconduct between
an adult and an underaged child as a required standard, objective and outcome to earn an
education and retain previously earned education the student already paid for;
e. That you can earn an accredited degree if you cover up tax evasion as a required
standard, objective and outcome to earn an education and retain previously earned education the
student already paid for;
f. That you can earn an accredited degree if you cover up that a school lied to the
government in order to gain federal funds as a required standard, objective and outcome to earn an
education and retain previously earned education the student already paid for;
g. claiming policies exist through the negative, when in fact, the unwritten policies
never existed at all;
h. claiming credits of the Master of Theology program WESTERN contracted are
independent study when in fact, no statement in the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
of March 14, 2006, declares those units are independent study;
i. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS mislead Defendant UNITED STATES
concerning CEC 94810 which required school contracts to students to include the location of

- 169 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
instruction offered by the school and that willful omission was a crime under CEC 94834(a) that
caused a contract to be unenforceable under CEC 94985(a);
j. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS portray themselves to Defendant UNITED
STATES to have no conflicts of interest with WESTERN while they willfully collaborated with
WESTERN and their legal representatives to cause harm to RANDY, CAROL, and DALE, and to
cause their loss of property, loss of funds through expensive litigation, and a near loss of
RANDYs life as a result of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS willful acts of deception with
misleading statements and unwritten policies;
593. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have violated and continue to violate
Business and Professions Code section 17500 by making or disseminating untrue or misleading
statements, or causing untrue or misleading statements to be made or disseminated in or from
California, with the intent to induce members of the public, impact Plaintiffs, impact Court
proceedings, induce students at other Defendant ATS schools to accept terms in contracts or
purchase goods or services.
594. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS knew or by the exercise of reasonable care
should have known that the statements set forth above were untrue or misleading at the time the
statements were made, and are subject to 18 U.S.C. 1001. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
refuse to correct themselves and the record.
//
//
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (Unfair Competition -
595. DALE, CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
597. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have engaged in and continue to engage in
unfair competition as defined in Business and Professions Code section 17200 as set forth in this
paragraph:
a. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have provided inaccurate information
regarding degree requirements found in the March 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Release to Defendant UNITED STATES, Plaintiffs and the public, under the claim such degree
requirements found in the March 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release are valid

- 170 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
while those requirements held standards, objectives and outcomes that violate federal and state
laws, decisional cases and public policies that related to RANDY;
b. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have provided inaccurate information to
prospective students, Plaintiffs, Defendant UNITED STATES, the Courts and others about the
Instutional Integrity of WESTERN;
c. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have provided inaccurate disclosures to
Defendant UNITED STATES during a federal investigation regarding educational programs
offered by Defendant ATS schools;
d. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have provided inaccurate claims concerning
contracts, when ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS were aware that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS do not maintain knowledge nor have they purchased legal expertise to enable
them to make legal determinations;
e. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS refused to provide to RANDY, CAROL, and
their attorney its policy for substantive change or exceptions upon request;
f. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS refused to answer basic accreditation
questions by RANDY, CAROL, DALE, and their attorney, HANNON;
g. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS prolonged litigation and increased litigation
costs to a student and family due to the unfair acts of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS that
were willfully meant to assist WESTERN;
h. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS maintained policies in violation of 34 C.F.R.
PART 602 without intending to enforce them and without seeking proper legal expertise or
developing knowledge like any other proper national accreditation agency is required to do;
i. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS provided inaccurate information regarding
WESTERN concerning that schools unethical and unlawful administrative practices harming
students, their families that the public has a right to know about;
j. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS colluded in conflict of interest with their
member school, WESTERN, who solicited ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS to work with the
school against a student and family, and the government;

- 171 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
k. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS approve the required use of confidentiality
clauses in agreements settling disputes with third parties, including students, former students, and
graduates, which bar those who settle from discussing any of the bases for their disputes with the
government and which purport to require those who settle to pay Defendant ATS schools
liquidated damages, if such confidentiality clauses are violated among other things.
598. These wrongful and nefarious business practices and acts by ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS as set forth above constitute unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices or
act in violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq., and threatened harm
to students and families of educational services. The actions stated above constitute unfair business
practices, including unlawful acts in violation of the cited statutes. These ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS, and each of them, by their failures and refusals to comply with statutory and state
Code obligations, and in deceptive statements as part of its business of and educational
accreditation, and in its disparate treatment of Plaintiffs as compared with its treatment of other
students and families, each constitute unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices
within the meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
599. As a result of these ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS' unfair business practices
or actions, and each of them, Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law, and
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS continue to engage in said wrongful practices or acts.
Plaintiff is entitled to relief to specific and preventive relief that may be granted to enforce the
penalties, forfeitures, and penal provisions of the statutes and codes to rectify the unfair trade
practices of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, both on behalf of Plaintiffs and on behalf of
other present, past, and future students, their families and on behalf of the welfare of the general
public.
600. As a result of acts of unfair competition by these ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution and disgorgement; to obtain the remedies and
relief sought herein, and for attorneys fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5 as relief
sought results in an enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest.
//
//

- 172 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression (42 U.S.C. 1983 -
601. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION against
ACCREDITAION DEFENDANTS.
603. //
604. By claiming that RANDY though an accommodation
168
(accreditation business
practice that 260 schools have authority to enact through purported unwritten policy and practice)
can only retain his previously earned and paid for 81 credits and earn future educational credits
with standards, objectives and outcomes that violate federal and state laws, decisional cases and
public policies also related to RANDY, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have declared and
defended that member schools can cause students and family members to be required to sign a
contract abandoning their rights to freedom of thought, speech, religion, and association, protection
under the law, and at the same time denigrating them both personally and professionally, among
other things, for education.
605. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS by purported condoned unwritten policy and
practice have enforced, encouraged, enabled the depriving of not only RANDYs (and CAROLs)
of their ability to freely express their ideas on issues of religious and political concerns at the
member school WESTERN and in the educational theological profession, but also directly led
Defendant UNITED STATES to conclude Defendant ATS schools have unprecedented authority
over and against the U.S. Constitution, state Constitutions, laws of Canada, federal and state laws,
community standards, decisional court cases, and public policies.
606. At this time, Defendant UNITED STATES remains convinced that Defendant ATS
schools have such unprecedented authority, as ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no
effort to modify or correct any view otherwise. At this time, WESTERN freely enforces a contract
between it and RANDY and CAROL that WESTERN claims its authority to make exceptions
comes from its two accreditorsNWCCU and ATS / COMMISSION.

168

- 173 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
607. By enforcing such mendacious accreditation polices and practices,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have deprived RANDY (and CAROL) of their ability to
freely express their ideas on issues of religious and political concern at WESTERN, outside of
WESTERN, in the theological and ministry profession, at the Church, and to the public.
608. Without WESTERN using such enforceable cultish and unorthodox accreditation
policies and practices that are unwritten, unpublished, contrary to 34 C.F.R. PART 602, and to
which no one can articulate any provision, meaning or even exception to the unwritten exception
policy, WESTERN and any other 259 other member schools can freely deprive any other 81,000
plus students and their family members from their ability to freely express their ideas on issues of
religious and political concern.
609. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, acting under color of state law, and according
to purported existing exception policy and practice, have explicitly and implicitly discriminated
on the basis of viewpoint and deprived RANDY (and CAROL) of their clearly established rights
to freedom of speech and expression secured by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
610. //
611. Furthermore, and not limited too, RANDY and CAROL have been deprived of the
ability to freely express their ideas concerning the sexual perversion of KORCH and WESTERN,
KORCHs unfitness for Christian leadership, that his own ordination Church agrees with, that other
third parties agree with, the bearing of false witness, and about actions of fraud and
misrepresentations by WESTERN, TUCK, DOWNS, ROBERTS, WIGGINS, KORCH and
RUARK.
612. Due to ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS actions, DALE, CAROL and

- 174 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
613. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, RANDY and CAROL are entitled to an
award of monetary damages in an amount to be determined by the evidence and this Court and the
reasonable costs of this lawsuit, including RANDY and CAROLs reasonable attorneys fees and
costs.
//
//
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression First Amendment Retaliation (42
U.S.C. 1983 - ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS)
614. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
616. //
169
can only finish his education with standards, objectives and outcomes that violate federal and state
laws, decisional cases and public policies also related to RANDY and retain his previously earned
and paid for 81 credits, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have declared and defended that
member schools (like WESTERN) can cause students and family members to be required to sign a
contract abandoning their rights to freedom of thought, speech, religion, and association, and at the
same time denigrating them both personally and professionally, among other things, for education.
618. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS by its purported condoned, unwritten policy
and practice have enforced, encouraged, enabled the depriving of RANDY (and CAROL) of their
ability to freely express their ideas on issues of religious and political concerns at the member
school without retaliation and in the educational theological profession, but also directly led
Defendant UNITED STATES to conclude Defendant ATS schools have unprecedented authority

169

- 175 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
over and against the U.S. Constitution, state Constitutions, laws of Canada, federal and state laws,
effort to modify any view otherwise. At this time, WESTERN freely enforces a contract between it
and RANDY and CAROL that WESTERN claims its authority to make exceptions comes from
its two accreditors.
620. By using its unwritten, enforceable accreditation policy and practice
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS retaliated against RANDY (and CAROL) concerning by
restricting their ability to freely express their ideas on issues of religious and political concern at
WESTERN, outside of WESTERN, in the theological and ministry profession, at the Church, and
to the publicby judging WESTERNs Settlement Agreement with RANDY and CAROL is not a
violation of the COMMISSIONS Standards, even through ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
knew at that time they had no expertise, knowledge, or authority to make that judgment.
policy and practice that is unwritten, unpublished, contrary to 34 C.F.R. PART 602, and to which
no one can articulate any provision, meaning or even exception to the unwritten exception policy,
WESTERN and any other 259 other member schools can freely retaliate against any other 81,000
plus students and their family members concerning their ability to freely express their ideas on
issues of religious and political concern.
to purported existing exception policy and practice, have engaged in actions that are retaliatory
and have therefore deprived RANDY (and CAROL) of their clearly established rights to freedom
of speech and religious expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
623. //
624. Furthermore, and not limited too, RANDY and CAROL have been retaliated
against for expressing their ideas concerning the sexual perversion of KORCH and WESTERN,
KORCHs unfitness for leadership, that his own ordination Church agrees with, that other third

- 176 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
parties agree with, the bearing of false witness, actions of fraud and misrepresentations by
WESTERN, TUCK, DOWNS, ROBERTS, WIGGINS, KORCH and RUARK.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no change or taken any corrective actions, in
spite of knowing the damage caused to DALE, CAROL and RANDY to fix or otherwise undo any
costs.
//
//
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression Compelled Speech (42 U.S.C.
1983 - ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS)
627. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
629. //
170
can only finish his education with standards, objectives and outcomes that violate federal and state
laws, decisional cases and public policies also related to RANDY and retain his previously earned

170

- 177 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and paid for 81 credits, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have declared and defended that
member schools (like WESTERN) can cause students and family members to be required to sign a
practice have enforced compelled speech, encouraged compelled speech, enabled compelled
speech by RANDY (and CAROL) of their ability to freely express their ideas on issues of religious
and political concerns at the member school and in the educational theological profession, but also
directly led Defendant UNITED STATES to conclude Defendant ATS schools (like WESTERN)
have unprecedented authority over and against the U.S. Constitution, state Constitutions, laws of
Canada, federal and state laws, community standards, decisional court cases, and public policies.
632. This compelled speech requires RANDY (and CAROL) to forego their religious
beliefs and adopt the preferred beliefs of WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, DOWNS,
ROBERTS, WIGGINS and WESTERNs BOARD as well as ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS.
633. This compelled speech requires RANDY (and CAROL) to agree to the selected and
preferred beliefs of WESTERN, KORCH, TUCK, RUARK, DOWNS, ROBERTS, WIGGINS and
WESTERNs BOARD as well as ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS what only should be
espoused for the rest of RANDYs and CAROLs lives as the only means for RANDY to earn an
education.
634. This compelled speech is contrary to the expressed ideas, moral beliefs, ethical
beliefs, religious beliefs and political beliefs RANDY and CAROL.
corrective effort to modify any view otherwise. At this time, WESTERN freely enforces a contract
between WESTERN, RANDY and CAROL, and WESTERN claims its authority to make such
exceptions in that contract comes from its two accreditors.
636. By enforceable accreditation policy and practice ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS have compelled speech for RANDY (and CAROL) concerning their ability to
freely express their ideas on issues of religious and political concerns at WESTERN, outside of
WESTERN, in the theological and ministry profession, at the Church, and to the public.

- 178 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
637. Without WESTERN using such enforceable, cultish and unorthodox accreditation
policy, WESTERN and any other 259 other member schools can freely compel speech from any
other 81,000 plus students and their family members concerning their ability to freely express their
ideas on issues of religious and political concern.
to a purported existing exception policy and practice, have compelled RANDY (and CAROL) to
advocate and speak in favor of ideas which are not their own, thereby depriving RANDY and
CAROL of their clearly established rights to freedom of speech and expression secured by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
639. //
640. Furthermore, and not limited too, RANDY and CAROL have been retaliated
against for expressing their ideas concerning the sexual perversion of KORCH and WESTERN,
KORCHs unfitness for leadership that his own ordination Church agrees with, that other third
parties agree with, the bearing of false witness, actions of fraud and misrepresentations by
WESTERN, TUCK, DOWNS, ROBERTS, WIGGINS, KORCH and RUARK that are contrary to
the compelled speech.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS made no corrective changes or actions, in spite of knowing
the damages caused to DALE, CAROL and RANDY to fix or otherwise undo any action or
otherwise retract any statement made that caused damage to DALE, CAROL and RANDY.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS conduct and disregard for DALE, CAROL and most of all
RANDYs life, has been instituted with significant oppression, fraud, or malice. DALE, CAROL
and RANDY, therefore, are entitled to an award of monetary damages, including punitive
damages, exemplary damages and equitable relief pursuant to California Civil Code 3294 and
3345 to reform or deter the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS from engaging in present and
future conduct similar to that which formed the basis of this lawsuit.

- 179 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
costs.
//
//
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression Unconstitutional Conditions
Doctrine (42 U.S.C. 1983 - ACCREDITAION DEFENDANTS)
643. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION against
645. //
171
practice have enforced, encouraged, enabled the depriving of RANDY and CAROL of their ability
to freely express their ideas on issues of religious and political concerns at the member school and
in the educational theological profession, but also directly led Defendant UNITED STATES to
conclude Defendant ATS schools have unprecedented authority over and against the U.S.
Constitution, state Constitutions, laws of Canada, federal and state laws, community standards,
decisional court cases, and public policies.

171

- 180 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
between WESTERN, RANDY, and CAROL, and WESTERN claims its authority to make
exceptions comes from its two accreditors.
DEFENDANTS have violated RANDYs and CAROLs ability to freely express their ideas on
issues of religious and political concern at WESTERN, outside of WESTERN, in the theological
and ministry profession, at the Church, and to the public.
650. Without WESTERN using such an enforceable cultish and unorthodox accreditation
WESTERN and any other 259 other member schools can freely violate any other 81,000 plus
students and their family members concerning their ability to freely express their ideas on issues of
religious and political concern.
to purported existing exception policy and practice, have enacted policies and school
enforceable conditions that are unconstitutional in order for any student such as RANDY to
retain previously earned credits, as well as any further education and have therefore deprived
RANDY and CAROL of their clearly established rights to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
652. //
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no corrective change or action to fix or otherwise
undo any action or otherwise retract any statement made which has caused damage to DALE,
CAROL and RANDY. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS conduct and disregard for DALE,
CAROL and most of all RANDYs life, has been instituted with significant willful oppression,
fraud, or malice. DALE, CAROL and RANDY, therefore, are entitled to an award of monetary
damages, including punitive damages, exemplary damages and equitable relief pursuant to
California Civil Code 3294 and 3345 to reform or deter the ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS from engaging in present and future conduct similar to that which formed the
basis of this lawsuit.

- 181 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
costs.
//
//
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of First Amendment Right to Free Exercise of Religion (42 U.S.C. 1983 -
655. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION against
657. //
172
contract abandoning their rights to free exercise of religion at WETSERN, outside of WESTERN
and in the theological profession, and at the same time denigrating them both personally and
professionally, among other things, for education.
practice have enforced, encouraged, enabled the depriving of not only RANDYs and CAROLs
ability to freely express their ideas on issues of religious and political concerns at the member
school WESTERN and in the educational theological profession, but also directly led Defendant
UNITED STATES to conclude schools of Defendant ATS have unprecedented authority over and
against the U.S. Constitution, state Constitutions, laws of Canada, federal and state laws,

172

- 182 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
between WESTERN, RANDY and CAROL, and WESTERN claims its authority to make
DEFENDANTS have deprived RANDY and CAROL of their ability to free exercise of religion at
WESTERN, outside of WESTERN, in the theological and ministry profession, at the Church, and
to the public.
plus students and their family members from their ability to free exercise of religion.
to its purported existing exception policy and practice, have explicitly and implicitly
discriminated on the basis of viewpoint and deprived RANDY and CAROL of their clearly
established rights to freedom of speech and expression secured by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
664. //
665. Furthermore, and not limited too, RANDY and CAROL have been deprived of their
third parties agree with, the bearing of false witness, and actions of fraud and misrepresentations by
WESTERN, TUCK, DOWNS, ROBERTS, WIGGINS, KORCH and RUARK.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no corrective changes or taken any actions to fix
or otherwise undo any action or otherwise retract any statement made which has caused damage to
DALE, CAROL and RANDY. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS conduct and disregard for

- 183 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DALE, CAROL and most of all RANDYs life, in spite of knowing the damage caused to DALE,
CAROL and RANDY has been instituted with significant oppression, fraud, or malice. DALE,
CAROL and RANDY, therefore, are entitled to an award of monetary damages, including punitive
damages, exemplary damages and equitable relief pursuant to California Civil Code 3294 and
3345 to reform or deter the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS from engaging in present and
future conduct similar to that which formed the basis of this lawsuit.
costs.
//
//
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Law (42 U.S.C. 1983-
668. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
670. //
173
he can only retain his previously earned and paid for 81 credits and earn future educational credits
defended that member schools (like WESTERN) can cause students and family members to be
required to sign a contract abandoning their rights to equal protection of the law, and at the same
time denigrating them both personally and professionally, among other things, for education.
practice have enforced, encouraged, enabled the depriving of not only RANDY and CAROL of
their rights to equal protection of the law, by treating them differently than any other student and

173

- 184 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
family member due to their religious Christian beliefs that what WESTERN is doing is wrong,
immoral, unethical and unlawful.
673. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS led Defendant UNITED STATES to conclude
Defendant ATS schools (like WESTERN) have unprecedented authority over and against the U.S.
decisional court cases, and public policies to do what WESTERN has perpetrated against the
Christians, RANDY and CAROL.
WESTERN and any other 259 other member schools can freely deprive any other 81,000 plus
students and their family members from their equal protection of the law.
against RANDY and CAROL, and deprived RANDY and CAROL of their clearly established
rights to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
677. //
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no corrective change or taken any action to fix or
otherwise undo any action or otherwise retract any statement made which has caused damage to
DALE, CAROL and RANDY, in spite of knowing the damage caused to DALE, CAROL and

- 185 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
costs.
//
//
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Fourteenth Amendment Right to Procedural Due Process (42 U.S.C. 1983 -
680. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
682. //
174
public policies also related to RANDY. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have declared and
required to sign a contract abandoning their rights to freedom of thought, speech, religion, and
association, and at the same time denigrating both them personally and professionally, among other
things, for education.
practice have enforced, encouraged, and enabled the depriving of RANDYs and CAROLs clearly
established right to procedural due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. As such, RANDY and CAROL are unable to seek due process redress

174

- 186 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
as a matter of RANDYs education, and thus, RANDY and CAROL have been deprived of their
right to procedural due process (e.g., 20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR PART 99, Section 504, .) by all
Defendants who condoned WESTERNs contract demanding RANDY and CAROL not file
complaints to the government.
685. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have also directly led Defendant UNITED
STATES to conclude Defendant ATS schools have unprecedented authority over and against the
U.S. Constitution, state Constitutions, laws of Canada, federal and state laws, community standards,
687. Due to its unwritten exception accreditation policy and practice that condoned the
unethical standards, objectives and outcomes of the master degree programs in the Settlement
Agreementincluding no complaints to the government, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
deprived RANDY and CAROL of their clearly established right to procedural due process
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
plus students and their family members from their clearly established right to procedural due
process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
to purported existing exception policy and practice, have failed to provide RANDY and CAROL
their clearly established right to procedural due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
690. //

- 187 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DALE, CAROL and RANDY in spite of knowing about the damage they caused to DALE,
CAROL and most of all RANDYs life, has been instituted with significant oppression, fraud, or
malice. DALE, CAROL and RANDY, therefore, are entitled to an award of monetary damages,
including punitive damages, exemplary damages and equitable relief pursuant to California Civil
Code 3294 and 3345 to reform or deter the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS from
engaging in present and future conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.
costs.
//
//
NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Freedom of Speech under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 2
(ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS)
693. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
695. //
175

175

- 188 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
697. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS by purported condoned unwritten policies and
practices have enforced, encouraged, and enabled, depriving RANDYs and CAROLs ability to
freely express their speech.
698. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS directly led Defendant UNITED STATES to
between WESTERN, RANDY and CAROL, and WESTERN claims its authority to make these
DEFENDANTS deprived RANDY and CAROL of their ability to freely express their ideas on
issues of religious and political concern at WESTERN, outside of WESTERN, in the theological
and ministry profession, at the Church, and to the public.
policy.
to the purported existing exception policy and practice, have explicitly and implicitly
established rights to freedom of speech and expression secured under California Constitution,
Article 1, Section 2.
703. //
704. Furthermore, and not limited too, RANDY and CAROL have been deprived of their

- 189 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
third parties agree with, the bearing of false witness, and actions of willful fraud and
misrepresentations by WESTERN, TUCK, DOWNS, ROBERTS, WIGGINS, KORCH and
RUARK.
RANDY have suffered, and continue to suffer, and continue to be injured and suffer irreparable
harm. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no corrective change or taken any action
to fix or otherwise undo any action or otherwise retract any statement made which has caused
damage to DALE, CAROL and RANDY, in spite of knowing the damage caused to DALE,
CAROL and most of all RANDYs life, has been instituted with significant oppression, fraud, or
malice. DALE, CAROL and RANDY, therefore, are entitled to an award of monetary damages,
including punitive damages, exemplary damages and equitable relief pursuant to California Civil
Code 3294 and 3345 to reform or deter the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS from
engaging in present and future conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.
//
//
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Right to Instruct and Petition Government for Redress of Grievances under
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 (ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS)
706. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION against
708. //
176

176

- 190 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
required to sign a contract abandoning their rights to freedom of thought, speech, religion, and
association, ability to seek redress to the government, and at the same time denigrating them both
personally and professionally, among other things, for education.
practices have enforced, encouraged, and enabled, depriving RANDY and CAROL of their ability
to seek redress to the government.
between WESTERN, RANDY and CAROL, and WESTERN claims its authority to make these
713. By enforcing its unwritten accreditation policies and practices ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS have deprived RANDY and CAROL of their ability to seek redress to the
government.
714. Without WESTERN using such enforceable cultish and unorthodox its accreditation
policy.
on the basis of viewpoint and deprived RANDY and CAROL of their clearly established rights to
seek redress to the government, secured under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 3.
716. //
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have made no corrective change or taken any action to fix

- 191 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
//
//
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of Right to Free Exercise and Enjoyment of Religion under California Constitution,
Article 1, Section 4 (ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS)
718. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
against ACCREDITAT/ION DEFENDANTS.
720. //
177
required to sign a contract abandoning their rights to freedom of thought, speech, Free Exercise and
Enjoyment of Religion, ability to seek redress to the government based on their free exercise of
religion, and at the same time denigrating them both personally and professionally, among other
things, for education.
practices have enforced, encouraged, and enabled the depriving of RANDYs and CAROLs Free
Exercise and Enjoyment of Religion.

177

- 192 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
conclude Defendant ATS schools (like WESTERN) have unprecedented authority over and against
the U.S. Constitution, state Constitutions, laws of Canada, federal and state laws, community
standards, decisional court cases, and public policies.
between WESTERN, RANDY and CAROL, and WESTERN claims its authority to make
725. By enforceable unwritten accreditation policies and practices ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS have deprived RANDY and CAROL of their Free Exercise and Enjoyment of
Religion.
policy.
to the purported existing exception policy and practice, have explicitly and implicitly
established rights to Free Exercise and Enjoyment of Religion, secured under the California
Constitution, Article 1, Section 4.
728. //

- 193 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
//
//
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence Accreditation (ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS)
730. CAROL and RANDY bring Plaintiffs TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
732. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon re-allege these Defendants have a
duty of care to Plaintiffs and to the public, and these Defendants breached that duty.
accreditation oversight as demonstrated in this case, with other students, and to the public as
Defendant COMMISSION has been repeatedly cited for failing to have policies and procedures that
conform to 34 C.F.R. PART 602.
734. The conduct of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, acting within the course and
scope of their authority and employment, and as corporations to oversee the required criteria for
recognition, have negligently and with reckless conduct contributory, directly and proximately
caused injury and property loss, resulting in damages to Plaintiffs.

- 194 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
//
//
TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Loss of and Destruction of Marital Consortium
736. RANDY brings Plaintiffs TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION against DOES
101-200, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and Defendant UNITED STATES as an action in
law pursuant to jurisdiction provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
738. RANDY met SUSAN on September 11, 2007, and they married on April 5, 2008,
and they divorced on October 19, 2011, by decree of the Peterborough Crown & county court in the
UK by a divorce petition brought by SUSAN. SUSAN clearly cited the ongoing legal actions and
time spent by RANDY as a primary cause of the divorce. Defendant UNITED STATES became
involved in the ongoing legal actions through RANDYs complaints filed to Defendant UNITED
STATES in 2005, and then to Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings in March 2007, up and
through September 2008. On May 8, 2008, Defendant UNITED STATES clearly expressed to
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and NWCCU their knowledge that litigation can be prolongs
and costly. In spite of that awareness of prolonged time and costs for Plaintiffs as a result of acts
by NWCCU, ATS and COMMISSION, ALL DEFENDANTS have acted to prolong the litigation
with acts and omissions and negligence that prolonged litigation, including Defendant UNITED
STATES causing five FOIA litigation cases filed for its failure to timely act and to provide FOIA
responsessome of which continue to be concealed or withheld or destroyed by Defendant
UNITED STATES. All of these actions, omissions and negligent acts go unmitigated and have
forced this instant Action. Defendant UNITED STATES willfully refused to engage Plaintiffs in
any meaningful communication, or with any responsible administrative action that Plaintiffs
repeatedly requested, and Defendant UNITED STATES continued to willfully and in wanton, and
with reckless disregard to leave Plaintiffs to suffer, refused to engage Plaintiffs while Defendant
UNITED STATES actually worked to cover up negligent acts by Defendants UNITED STATES
from the Plaintiffs and from the PEOPLE. Defendant UNITED STATES actually circulated a

- 195 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Memo that directed its employees to not reply or respond to communications from Plaintiffs or
their attorneyevidenced by a FOIA response of that Memo.
739. ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS refused to engage Plaintiffs in any meaningful
communication, and refused to seek resolution through an administrative action.
740. SUSAN brought her divorce petition after the confirmation of the award, after public
statements and false declarations regarding RANDY were not averted by responsible administrative
action. SUSAN, a British national and her family are completely fed up and have moved on,
leaving RANDY to face the dysfunctional Defendant UNITED STATES government and corrupt
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS whose collective negligent errors and omissions helped to
perpetuate WESTERNs unlawfulness that all collectively almost cost RANDYs life.
741. Due to ALL Defendants failing to responsibly act, SUSAN suffered from loss of
companionship, emotional support, sexual relations, affection, services, e.g., chores, caring for Joel
so she could have time off, love, society and comfort, among many other things that are caring and
loving acts that a wife needs and deserves from her husband. RANDYs ability to provide SUSAN
with the love and care she needed and deserved was eviscerated from RANDYs life by errors and
omissions by ALL Defendants as they condoned WESTERNs demands in the Settlement
Agreement, and it nearly cost RANDYs life.
742. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon re-allege each Plaintiff spouse has a
CLAIM for loss of consortium that was caused by a negligent or intentional injury to the other
spouse by a third party. Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382, 408 [115
Cal.Rptr. 765, 525 P.2d 669]. California Civil Code section 1431.2 provides for economic
damages such as costs of obtaining substitute domestic services as well as non-economic
damages that include but are not limited to non-monetary losses pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury
to reputation and humiliation. Friends and family in the UK and the US are now aware of the
divorce and the losses, including injury to society, companionship, consortium, reputation and
humiliation impacting RANDY and SUSAN. Subsequently, RANDY suffers and will continue to
suffer, and will be required to obtaining substitute domestic services.

- 196 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
//
//
TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Loss of Marital Consortium
744. DALE and CAROL bring Plaintiffs TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
against DOES 101-200, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and Defendant UNITED STATES
as an action in law pursuant to jurisdiction provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
746. CAROL and DALE have spent the last ten years not able to take care of their own
marriage, as RANDY was being damaged and they stood by him against ALL DEFENDANTS
and WESTERN, TUCK, RUARK, and KORCH. DALE held things together as best as a 100%
disabled veteran with PTSD could do, while CAROL went back and forth, including living in
California to keep RANDY alive. Their marriage has suffered for 10 years and it will reasonably
continue to suffer as Defendant UNITED STATES refuses to engage Plaintiffs in any meaningful
communication or in any administrative action, and has continued to willfully and in wanton and
with reckless disregard to leave Plaintiffs to suffer, while the Defendant UNITED STATES
actually worked to cover up its acts of negligence from the Plaintiffs and from the PEOPLE.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS refuse to engage DALE and CAROL in any meaningful
communication and Defendants refuse to seek resolution through an administrative action.
CAROL is 71 3/4 and DALE is 61.
747. Each spouse has a CLAIM for loss of consortium, caused by a negligent or
intentional injury to the other spouse by a third party. Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974)
12 Cal.3d 382, 408 [115 Cal.Rptr. 765, 525 P.2d 669]. California Civil Code section 1431.2
provides for economic damages such as costs of obtaining substitute domestic services as well
as non-economic damages that include but are not limited to non-monetary losses such as,

- 197 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and
companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation. Due to their ages and
time spent on litigation that could have been mitigated years ago by responsible enforcement by
Defendants UNITED STATES, or by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS (Charles Willard)
admitting in 2007 ATS had no authority or expertise to make legal judgments related to settlement
agreements or violations of state and federal laws, CAROL and DALE will continue to suffer, will
continue to suffer in the future, continue to have loss of consortium, loss of society, affection,
assistance, and conjugal fellowship, all to the detriment of their marital relationship and they will
be required to obtain substitute domestic services if they live long enough. Furthermore, CAROL
and DALE have "economic damages" that include verifiable monetary losses including and not
limited to additional medical expenses and loss of earnings to go towards the consortium loss.
//
//
TWENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
749. RANDY, DALE and CAROL bring Plaintiffs TWENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF
ACTION against DOES 101-200, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and Defendant UNITED
STATES as an action in law pursuant to jurisdiction provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA).
751. The conduct by Defendants toward Plaintiffs were stated and enacted recklessly,
outrageously, unconscionably, actionably, with a failure to act, with a refusal to act or with the

- 198 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
intent to cause Plaintiffs to suffer from severe emotional distress, while singling Plaintiffs
RANDY and CAROL out to cover for a known child molester and habitually dishonest, immoral,
unethical administrators at WESTERN who offered a barbaric and unconscionable level of master
degree program education to RANDY, among many other things.
752. Defendant UNITED STATES relied upon the reckless, outrageous,
unconscionable, actionable conduct, with a failure to act and with a refusal to act by
753. The conduct by Defendants against Plaintiffs is extreme and outrageous to any
community in America, such that purported policies provide the support of educational schools in
America (9% of ATS schools are in California) and 36 schools in Canada now have the power to
violate any Canadian or federal law, or state law, previous decisional court cases or public policy,
at will while claiming the degree associated to such violations is valid. The Defendant ATS
schools (like WESTERN) can threaten and hold hostage a students previously held and paid for
accumulated credits, transcripts, course grades, and any future education until at such time a
student is so beaten down by religious rhetoric and unfounded harassment to bully the student
until he/ she accepts terms of accommodation by the school (like WESTERN), that are
unlawful, unconscionable and heinous, and beyond the standards of civilized decency and utterly
intolerable in a civilized society. As concluded by Defendants with reckless disregard, the criteria,
admissions, standards, objectives, and outcome requirements for master degrees found in
Settlement Agreements used by Defendant ATS schools (like WESTERN) as vehicles for fraud
and to cover up THEIR immoral, unethical, unconscionable and heinous acts that a decent and
civilized society has already determined is intolerable with catastrophic results which the
government condones and insulates against the PEOPLE, and they ALL tied that vehicle of fraud
and unlawfulness to the education of a student.
754. The actions stated above constitute unfair business practices, including unlawful
acts in violation of the cited statutes, including, but not limited to California Education Code
sections 94832, 94897, 94810, 94911, and California Business and Professions Code 480.
Defendants, and each of them, by their failures and refusals to comply with statutory and Code
obligations each constitute unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices within the
meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200. As a result of ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS unfair business practices which are supported by Defendant UNITED STATES,
Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law, and Defendants continue to engage

- 199 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in said wrongful accommodation practices that enable fraud and other unlawful acts at other
Defendant ATS schools (like WESTERN) and with other students. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief
to specific and preventive relief that may be granted to enforce the penalties, forfeitures, and penal
provisions of the statutes and codes to rectify the unfair trade practices of Defendants, both on
behalf of Plaintiffs and on behalf of other present, past and future students and their families, and
on behalf of the welfare of the general public. The remedies sought by this CLAIM are
cumulative to each other and to the remedies or penalties available under all other laws of this
state and as pled in all other causes of action herein.
755. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereupon allege that the actions as to RANDY
by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS was 1) a repeat of similar harassment and pretextual
termination of educational benefits of another student who had attended WESTERN; 2) RANDY
was persecuted by Defendants who used abusive discrimination of educational benefits that were
used against no other student of the 260 schools that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS oversee
and are associated with, contributing directly and proximately, and producing extreme emotional
distress and property damage, all of which DALE and CAROL witnessed and suffered as
witnesses.
756. As a proximate result of the reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress
by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs sustained a loss of educational benefits, loss of
monetary and time investment, loss of property, personal injuries of pain and suffering, and severe
emotional distress.
757. The actions of Defendants were done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights.
Plaintiffs are thus entitled to a recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, DOES 101-200, and each of them.
758. Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys fees and costs to obtain the remedies and relief
sought herein. Plaintiffs therefore request recovery of attorneys fees and costs according to
proof.

- 200 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
//
//
TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
760. RANDY, DALE and CAROL bring Plaintiffs TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF
ACTION against DOES 101-200, ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and Defendant UNITED
STATES as an action in law pursuant to jurisdiction provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA).
762. The conduct by Defendants toward Plaintiffs were stated and enacted recklessly,
outrageously, unconscionably, actionably, with a failure to act, with a refusal to act or with the
intent to cause Plaintiffs to suffer from severe emotional distress, while singling Plaintiffs
RANDY and CAROL out to cover for a known child molester and habitually dishonest, immoral,
unethical administrators at WESTERN, among many other things.
763. Defendant UNITED STATES relied upon the recklessly, outrageously,
unconscionably, actionably, with a failure to act, with a refusal to act by ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS.
764. The conduct by Defendants to Plaintiffs are extreme and outrageous to any
community in America, such that purported policies provide the support of educational schools in
America (9% of ATS schools are in California) and 36 schools in Canada have the power to
violate any Canadian or federal law, state law, previous decisional court cases or public policy,
while claiming the degree associated to such violations is valid. The Defendant ATS schools
can threaten and hold hostage a students previously held and paid for accumulated credits and any
future education until at such time a student accepts terms of accommodation by the school (like
WESTERN), that are unlawful, unconscionable and heinous, and beyond the standards of civilized
decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. As concluded by Defendants and with
reckless disregard, criteria and standards requirements and admissions requirements for degrees
found in Settlement Agreements can be used by Defendant ATS schools (like WESTERN) as a

- 201 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vehicle for fraud and as a means to cover up THEIR immoral, unethical, unconscionable and
heinous acts that a decent and civilized society has already determined is intolerable with
catastrophic results being insulated by the government against the PEOPLE, while tying such a
vehicle to the education of a student who they eviscerate emotionally, academically, spiritually,
and socially to the point he loses hope and contemplates suicide.
765. The actions stated above constitute unfair business practices, including unlawful
acts in violation of the cited statutes, including, but not limited to California Education Code
section 94832, 94897, 94810, 94911, and California Business and Professions Code 480.
Defendants, and each of them, by their failures and refusals to comply with statutory and Code
obligations each constitute unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices within the
meaning of Business and Professions Code section 17200. As a result of ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS unfair business practices which are supported and condoned by Defendant
UNITED STATES, Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law, and Defendants
continue to engage in said wrongful accommodation practices that enable fraud and other
unlawful acts at other Defendant ATS schools (like WESTERN) and against other students.
Plaintiffs are entitled to relief to specific and preventive relief that may be granted to enforce the
penalties, forfeitures, and penal provisions of the statutes and codes to rectify the unfair trade
practices of Defendants, both on behalf of Plaintiffs and on behalf of other present, past and future
students, and on behalf of the welfare of the general public. The remedies sought by this CLAIM
are cumulative to each other and to the remedies or penalties available under all other laws of this
state and as pled in all other causes of action herein.
766. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereupon allege that the actions against
RANDY by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS was 1) a repeat of similar harassment and
pretextual termination of educational benefits of another student who had attended WESTERN; 2)
RANDY was persecuted by abusive discrimination of educational benefits against no other
student of the 260 schools that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS oversee and associated with,
contributing directly and proximately, and producing extreme emotional distress and property
damage, all of which DALE and CAROL witnessed and suffered as witnesses of such
unscrupulous cruelty and unlawfulness.
767. As a proximate result of the reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress
by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs sustained a loss of educational benefits, loss of
monetary and time investment, loss of property, personal injuries, and severe emotional distress.

- 202 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
768. The actions of Defendants were done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights.
Plaintiffs are thus entitled to a recovery of punitive and exemplary damages against
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, DOES 101-200, and each of them.
769. Plaintiffs have incurred attorneys fees and costs to obtain the remedies and relief
sought herein. Plaintiffs therefore request recovery of attorneys fees and costs according to
proof.
//
//
XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, ALL PLAINTIFFS pray judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a preliminary and permanent
injunction against all Defendants by ordering the relief requested herein.
2. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court declare that ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS failed to disclose the written policies, procedures, and answers about
accreditation policies that are required to be public and were requested by Plaintiffs, and the
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS conduct violated 34 C.F.R. PART 602.
3. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court declare ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS failed to maintain or to publish their policies they purport to exist.

- 203 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiff Randy Chapel all
available general damages (non-economic damages) and special damages (economic damages)
caused by Defendant UNITED STATES in the sum certain of $40,000,000 dollars.
5. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiff Carol Nye-Wilson all
caused by Defendant UNITED STATES in the sum certain of $1, 555, 000 dollars.
6. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiff Dale Wilson all
caused by Defendant UNITED STATES in the sum certain of $1, 050, 000 dollars.
7. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiffs all available general
damages (non-economic damages) and special damages (economic damages) caused by
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS which is separate and distinct from Defendant UNITED
STATES.
8. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiffs for all available
damages at law.
9. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiffs for all exemplary
damages, if available.
10. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court pursuant to Business and Professions
Code section 17535, that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, their employees, agents,
representatives, successors, assigns, and all persons who acted in concert or participated with them
to be permanently enjoined from making any untrue or misleading statements concerning judging
Plaintiffs education, concerning judging the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release in
violation of Business and Professions Codes section 17500, including the untrue or misleading
statements alleged in the TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.
11. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court, pursuant to Business and Professions
Code section 17203, declare ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS, their employees, agents,
representatives, successors, assigns, and all persons who acted in concert or participated with them

- 204 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to harm Plaintiffs be permanently enjoined from committing any acts of unfair competition,
including the violations alleged in the ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.
12. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court pursuant to Business and Professions
Code sections 17535 and 17203 make such orders or judgments as may be necessary to restore to
any and each Plaintiff any money or property that may have been acquired as a result of and by
means of false or misleading advertising or unfair competition by ACCREDITATION
DEFENDANTS and all persons who acted in concert or participated with them in false or
misleading advertising or unfair competition.
13. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiffs CAROL and DALE
treble damages for unfair or deceptive practices against Plaintiffs CAROL and DALE (senior
citizens or disabled persons) by the ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS and all persons who
acted in concert or participated with them under Cal. Civ. Code 3345.
14. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiffs for prejudgment, post-
judgment interest, fees, and costs of suit incurred herein, if available;
15. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award attorneys fees and costs, if
available.
16. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award expenses including reasonable
attorneys fees under the Cal. Business & Professions Code 17200, et seq.
17. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a preliminary and a permanent
injunction enjoining enforcement or application of the Nancy C. Regan letter dated August 29,
2008 to Daniel Aleshire and made on behalf of the Defendant UNITED STATES.
injunction enjoining enforcement or application of the Nancy C. Regan letter dated September 29,
2008 to John Hannon, and made on behalf of the Defendant UNITED STATES.
injunction enjoining enforcement or application of the Nancy C. Regan letter dated August 29,
2008 to Sandra Elman, and made on behalf of the Defendant UNITED STATES.

- 205 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
injunction enjoining enforcement or application of the Cheryl Oldham letter dated October 24,
2008 to Congresswoman Mazie K. Hirono and made on behalf of the Defendant UNITED
STATES.
21. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court award Plaintiffs punitive and
exemplary damages against ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS to reform or deter them from
engaging in present and future conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit; and
punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code 3294.
22. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter judgment against Defendants
and in favor of Plaintiff for restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains as allowed by law and
equity as determined to have been sustained by Plaintiffs;
23. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a specific finding of fact that
accreditation actions by ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS identified in this action are arbitrary
and capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, 34
C.F.R. PART 602, Section 504, 18 U.S.C. 1001, and 20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99.
24. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court upon enter for Judgment,
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS are immediately and permanently enjoined from engaging in
or performing, directly or indirectly, all the following activities:
a. Making or causing to be made any untrue or misleading statement to
Defendant UNITED STATES that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS know or should know is
inaccurate and not true.
b. Making or causing to be made any untrue, misleading or deceptive
statement or engaging in any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent act or practice in connection with any
matter related to the accreditation of any school.
c. Making or causing to be made any untrue, misleading or deceptive
statement or engaging in any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent act or practice in connection with any
matter related to this action.

- 206 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court make an order for the protection and
welfare of the general public in accordance with 34 CFR 602.23(e)(1) and (2) within thirty days
after entry for Judgment, requiring ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS shall provide a statement
to Defendant UNITED STATES and this Court in which ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
inform all ATS member schools, the Secretaries of State and the Bureaus For Private
Postsecondary and Vocational Education for California and Oregon under whom WESTERN is
licensed to operate, to NWCCU, and to Plaintiffs that WESTERN has been noted with N2.1
Institutional policies or their implementation do not adequately ensure that students, faculty,
administrators, or employees are treated in ethical ways. N8.3 The governing board exercises
its authority or discharges its responsibilities ineffectively or inappropriately. N4.4 This school
offers degree programs without the approval of the Board of Commissioners.
ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS will then make such notations on the www.ats.edu member
school website for WESTERN for a period of ten years for the welfare of the public.
26. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court order thirty days after entry for
Judgment, that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS shall provide a statement to Defendant
UNITED STATES and this Court in which ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS inform all ATS
member schools the following:
a. Use of any settlement agreement or student contract that in any way
demands unlawful conduct or conditions, either expressly or implicitly is a prohibited and unfair
business practice and act by schools, rendering such settlement agreements or student contracts
void, and unenforceable. [Authority: General Institutional Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.4]
b. Use of any settlement agreement or student contract that in any way
demands unlawful conditions or limits on educational programs and a students accumulated
credits, either expressly or implicitly is a prohibited and unfair business practice and act by
schools, rendering such settlement agreements or student contracts void, and unenforceable.
[Authority: General Institutional Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.4]
c. Use of any settlement agreement or student contract that in any way
demands unlawful conditions or limits on educational programs and a students accumulated

- 207 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
credits, and that either expressly or implicitly prevents the ability of a student or students family
member to that agreement from communicating with a state agency or government agency is a
prohibited and unfair business practice and act by schools, rendering such settlement agreements
or student contracts void, and unenforceable. [Authority: General Institutional Standards 2.1, 2.2,
2.4]
d. Use of any settlement agreement or student contract that in any way
demands conditions or limits, either expressly or implicitly, the ability of any party to that
agreement from communicating with any third-party without including a statement to the effect
that nothing in the settlement agreement prohibits or places any conditions on filing a complaint to
any government agency. [Authority: General Institutional Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.4]
e. Use of any settlement agreement or student contract that in any way
conditions or limits, either expressly or implicitly, act to waiver or make exceptions for state,
provincial, and federal authorities tied to educational services or the retention of previously earned
educational credits is prohibited, void, and unenforceable. [Authority: General Institutional
Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.4]
f. Schools shall conduct their operations in compliance with all applicable
provincial, federal and state laws and regulations [Authority: General Institutional Standards 2.2]
g. Schools offering exceptions to students, shall only allow those
exceptions and the operation of those exceptions in compliance with all applicable provincial,
federal and state laws and regulations [Authority: General Institutional Standards 2.1, 2.2, 2.4].
h. Shall make a public correction concerning the M.Div. and Th.M. Programs
(34 C.F.R. 602.3) as described in the March 14, 2006 Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release
between WESTERN, TUCK, KORCH, RUARK, CAROL and RANDY, that said Programs (34
C.F.R. 602.3) are not compliant with Commission Standards. [Authority: 34 C.F.R. 602.18,
602.23(e)].
Judgment, that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS shall provide evidence to Defendant
UNITED STATES and to this Court to demonstrate ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have

- 208 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
purchased and retained legal expertise to function appropriately as a national accreditation agency
encompassing 35 states, the Sovereign country of Canada, the District of Washington, and a U.S.
territory. [Authority: 34 C.F.R. 602.15 [The agency must have the administrative and fiscal
capability to carry out its accreditation activities in light of its requested scope of recognition ].
Judgment, that ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS shall provide evidence to Defendant
UNITED STATES and this Court in which ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS have developed
a plan to retain knowledge and to train directors to function appropriately as directors/employees
of a national accreditation agency encompassing 35 states, the Sovereign country of Canada, the
District of Washington, and a U.S. territory. And that such developed plan is accepted by
Defendant UNITED STATES for ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS to adopt and execute on.
[Authority: 34 C.F.R. 602.15 [The agency must have the administrative and fiscal capability to
carry out its accreditation activities in light of its requested scope of recognition ].
29. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court, order thirty days after entry for
Judgment, that Defendant UNITED STATES perform an administrative action in the form of an
INTERIM/COMPLIANCE REPORT of all currently recognized accreditation agencies [34 C.F.R
602.30(c)]. The purpose of this INTERIM/COMPLIANCE REPORT is for AAEU investigators
to obtain knowledge concerning which currently recognized accreditation agencies are using
unwritten or unpublished or otherwise standards and/or procedures not in compliance with 34
C.F.R. 602.23. Upon receipt of the Secretarys letter, each agency shall have thirty days to
respond [34 C.F.R 602.31(c)]. Upon receipt of each currently recognized accreditation agencys
response, AAEU investigators shall have one hundred and twenty days to determine which agency
is in compliance and which is not or seek additional materials. Currently recognized accreditation
agencies not in compliance will be notified by determinations and recommendations. AAEU staff
will be assigned to transition the recognized accreditation agency off from unwritten,
unpublished, or otherwise standards and/or procedures not in compliance with 34 C.F.R.
602.23 to ones, which are compliant. [as noted in this complaint three recognized accreditation
agencies were using unwritten or unpublished or otherwise standards and/or procedures not in

- 209 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
compliance with 34 C.F.R. 602.23. ABA was not compliant as determined in 2006-2008.
Defendant UNITED STATES negligently allowed two additional recognized accreditation
agencies to continue in noncompliance with 34 CFR PART 602 causing damages to Plaintiffs and
most of all RANDY. This allows recognized accreditation agencies to be cited as being compliant
and those who are not, allowed time to be brought into compliance while working with
Departmental staff within a time frame based on AAEU investigation. At the end of this task, and
respectfully requested by the Plaintiffs, all recognized accreditation agencies should have written
and published standards and/or procedures in compliance with 34 C.F.R. 602.23 for the
betterment of the public]
injunction enjoining enforcement or application of the Arbitration Award and Settlement
Agreement and Mutual Release that was based upon the letter reviews of misleading statements,
unwritten policies, and under unfair business practices of ACCREDITATION DEFENDANTS
and NWCCU with WESTERN that Defendant UNITED STATES condoned without just cause.
31. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter a determination that the
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release is void ab initio.
32. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court maintain jurisdiction over this action
concerning every order of this Court; and
33. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court, provide for such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial for all issues so triable against Defendants
COMMISSION ON ACCREDITING OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THEOLOGICAL
SCHOOLS, THE ASSOCIATION OF THEOLOGICAL SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, DANIEL ALESHIRE, JEREMIAH MCCARTHY, and DOES 1 to 200

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: June 21, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

By: /S/
Maj. DALE WILSON, Ph. D. (Ret. USA)

610 West Dr.
Cell: 808/968-7423
Email: docdale6@gmail.com

By: /S/
CAROL NYE-WILSON

610 West Dr.
Cell: 808/968-7423
Email: carolnyewilson@gmail.com

By: /S/
Randy Chapel
PO Box 1050
Cell: 831/331-9653
Email: randychapellegal@gmail.com

In Pro Per

This Document Is Part of A Larger Case, Which Is Posted On: WWW - Westernseminary.info

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This Document Is Part of A Larger Case, Which Is Posted On: WWW - Westernseminary.info

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

standardheader.

Potrebbero piacerti anche