On Nov 1, 2007, at 2:48 PM, John Berry wrote:
He's been out for a very very very long time.
Even *after* he was sent back for a parole violation? I would think
he would just be getting out. My memory is not so great though. I
looked back and this is what I found.
On May 1, 1998, at 4:12 PM, Ed Wall wrote:
At 12:26 PM 4/30/98 -0700, you wrote:
Jerry W. Decker wrote:
Joe Champion ...
He has taken an extended vacation at the request of the State of
Arizona.
Barry Merriman wrote:
Since some folks are asking me, I will confirm that my
preliminary finding is that this is indeed true---i.e.
Joe Champion is going to be in jail for at least several
years, and up to 10.
All I have to add is that, based on my close relationship
with Joe the past 2 years, I would say that both legally
and morally Joe deserves what he got.
<snip>
One thing about participating in this list: it is never predictable.
As bad as this may be for anyone who put any trust in Joe Champion,
there is
no reason that this revelation ought to diminish the legitimacy of
the quest
for good science at the fringe. Believing a deceiver is a result
of the
skills of the deceiver rather than the gullibility of the deceived,
unless
the deceived is testing the deceiver, as was the case with Barry
and Gene.
It is unfortunate that time and effort were wasted.
This stuff brings out the worst and best in a lot of people.
Ed Wall
On May 1, 1998, at 1:48 PM, Dan York wrote:
At 02:59 PM 5/1/98 -0500, Richard Wayne Wall wrote:
5/1/98
Unfortunately frauds and charlatans abound universally and not
only on
this list. Although the law is often slow and cumbersome, it is
designed to protect the unwary. So it is with the apprehension and
punishment of Joe Champion, if the above report is true.
This example should serve as warning to those who risk defrauding
others. US Postal laws are particularly well suited for
prosecution of
those who use the US mails to defraud. It is a criminal offense with
severe punishment for those who are convicted of using US mails to
defraud. Mail fraud is legally well defined, and not as some who
might wish define it in his or her own terms. Refund does not remove
the stigma of fraud.
It is not unreasonable to believe that other frauds may have taken
place on this list and warrants may possibly exist at this time.
Perhaps they may even apply to those abroad and they are just waiting
for service.
Richard Wall, J.D.
Without respect to whether Joe has defrauded anyone or not, Joe's
being
sent to prison this time was for a probation violation, NOT for
fraud. Part
of his terms of probation was that he had to notify his probation
officer
of any contracts he engaged in and any bank accounts he had access to.
About a year and a half ago Joe undertook a contract where he
received some
money which he put in the bank in an account in his wife's name,
but that
he could sign the checks. He did not notify his probation officer
about the
contract or the bank account. That is the violation that caused his
probation to be revoked and his original maximum of 10 year
sentence to be
invoked. There were some other complaints but none that were
prosecuted.
Barry Merriman's characterization of Joe and the facts he presented
are
correct.
Dan York
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
