Urgent Update To Doj, FBI, Son, Da, Va Oig 6-13-2023

VA Office of the Inspector General
Lisa O. Monaco Department of Veterans Affairs Office

Deputy Attorney General of Inspector General
Department of Justice 717 14th Street, NW, 5th Floor,
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005
Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 727-2540
1-202-514-2000 Fax: (202) 727-9903
Email: oig@dc.gov
United States Secretary of the Navy FBI Director Christopher Wray

Attn: Mister Secretary, Carlos Del Toro FBI Headquarters
1200 Navy Pentagon 601 4th Street NW
Washington, D. C., 20350-1200 Washington, D. C. 20535
Navy Public Affairs Office – (703) 693-3591 (202) 324-3000
Assistant US Attorney Taylor Phillips

Department of Justice
719 Church Street, Ste. 3300
Nashville, TN 37203
(615) 736-5151
Date: 6-14-2023
Current Chancery Court Case Number: 20-CV-50050

Previous Appellate Court Case Number: M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV
Current Appellate Court Case Number: M2023-00666-COA-R3-CV
UPDATE FROM THE PLAINIFF’S / APPELLANT’S SINCE 6-1-2023
We have explained that the conditions are so harsh as to cause instantaneous breakouts on the skin. It has
become clear that those in the DOJ and the FBI do not understand the concept of (microscopic), it means
that a mold spore can penetrate your skin instantaneously without hindrance. (This is where joint pain
comes from.) This is the major cause for people’s knees breaking down, their hips breaking down, why
people age? It is due to the various mold species on our planet. Most are harmless to humans, but there
are approximately 400 species that can cause health problems up to causing death. I bring this to your
attention so that you can understand from Mr. Gafford of A-1 Waterproofing’s Reports that it is the
mycotoxins that cause the cancers, tumors, and death in people from mold infections.
Please note, in these images I provided below are to help you to understand how much pain I and my Wife
have with the mold infections. My Wife has the same issue only up in her lower legs up to her thighs and
we are in in pain every day. The mold has recently penetrated into the blood stream and it is causing blood
clots to form where the clots travel and some getting stuck in the arteries. Until you experience it, you
cannot imagine the pain it can cause. Clots have gone through my heart twice in the last two weeks. I now
Page 1 of 30
know what a Heart Attack feels like. Can you imagine the pain, the fear, the loss of hope? Can you imagine
thinking you are about to die in that moment? Did you know that you are immobilized in that moment
when you are having Heart Failure?
As I sit in this Tent, I am bombarded by trillions of mold spores due to the JMB construction across the
street and also due to the framers using hand brooms to remove the caked-up mold and shake them out
into the air which comes across to all of the houses around me harming not just me and my Wife, but also
everyone who lives out here in the area of the new construction. It affects my eyes, ears, nasal passages,
the skin itches and burns and this happens to I and my Wife daily. This is an extremely toxic environment!
So, please excuse my frustration from our ongoing circumstances, with the truth of what I and my Wife
have to endure daily, while you live and breath in clean offices and homes and think that it is okay that
you take your time to do anything about this situation! We do not have that time and your luxury, and I
already stated this to you in the very beginning, years ago!
The Justice system appears to be rampant with corruption and fraud. The Tribunal System needs to be
reinstated in all Court Systems in order for anyone to really have any opportunity at a fair and just Trial.
What has been allowed to occur is a tragedy for my Wife and I. The current situation has proven the
fallibility of the Justice System having a single Judge who can clearly be allegedly bought and paid for by
whatever the means even it is just a “favor.”
What this means is that the injured party, the Simpkins, the Plaintiffs have had to suffer for six years
without any support or monetary award for damages with no legal basis by the Builder or the Courts to
do so, while JMB and the Courts violated the law and the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights depriving the
Simpkins of their “Rights to those Laws and Lawful Remedies." During all these violations, the Simpkins
were entitled to reparations by the Builder, and several Judges have participated in the suppression of
Justice in opposition of the purpose of the legal system and the very laws that provided the Simpkins the
needed restitution. The standard Operating Procedure used by JMB the Simpkins found out is doing this
to everyone and the Judges back the Defendants and protect the Defendants by manipulation of the law
while abusing their power and authority for a criminal Builder. And further the previous cases involving
the Builder are sealed or expunged from the Court Records which is illegal. This is also why no one can
find anything negative about JMB which misleads Buyers while enticing them to purchase from JMB.
This images below of Mr. Simpkins infected eye and swollen glands are part of the suffering Mr. Simpkins
had to go through in March, where a mold infection in his eye caused it to rupture and bleed out for three
days until he could get the infection under control while he was in excruciating pain, constantly dizzy with
the room constantly spinning, and power vomiting if he moved to fast to get out of the tent to go into the
horrid and extremely toxic property to use the restroom. The Judge, Judge Hood knew this, she was being
kept informed by the Defendants as to the status of Mr. Simpkins, because the Simpkins have been
watched constantly from hidden cameras in their home to include people stalking the Simpkins and further
hacking of their phones and computers. With the FBI having knowledge of this information but doing
nothing about it. Which the failure of the FBI to investigate anything related to what the Simpkins
presented to the FBI proves their bias for the Defendants.
Page 2 of 30
From (EXHIBIT EX-A110 Supporting Mot. for Rec. & Charges Filed); this is called Keratitis, from a
fungal / mold infection. Note the bubbles on both sides of the eye in the sclera. Until you have this type
of infection, you cannot understand the type of pain it causes. You have to experience it to truly understand
it is the most devastating pain that will debilitate anyone.
Notice the swollen sinus gland at the eyebrow, above and below the eye the painful swelling. In the image
on the right, you can see the swollen eye lids which were burning painfully from the mold inside them.
Page 3 of 30
Judge Hood knowing that Mr. Simpkins’ eye infection started in February and escalated late February
colluded with Attorney Brewer to quickly setup a Hearing on March 7th, knowing that Mr. Simpkins could
not be there due to his illness. Then Judge Hood and Attorney Brewer did not provide any notice for the
hearing because they sent the Notices to the Simpkins’ home address knowing that John Maher would
intercept the mailing and either destroy it or delay it. Judge Hood did this violating her own order to send
all communications to the P.O. Box that Judge Hood Ordered the Simpkins to obtain knowing it was cost
they could not afford.
JMB has harmed thousands of homeowners and the State of Tennessee is in league with the Builders and
covers for the Builders.
Mr. Simpkins has an (Audio Recording) of Steve West, Investigator for the State Attorney General’s
Office, stating that they will not hold the Builders accountable. It couldn’t be clearer why the Simpkins’
case has been treated unjustly and railroaded by the State Agencies followed by the unlawful Court
Systems. The Judges abused the legal system in opposition of what it was designed to do, which is provide
Justice for all, not just the wealthy who can buy whatever they want. The Justice system in Tennessee is
currently set up to ensure that Courts with a single Judge on the bench can be manipulated to bend or
break the law for the sole benefit of those who are the guilty party so that they can get away with their
criminal acts. Because there is no other Judge there to keep the Law as the focus for each and all Legal
Matters. But the Judges of the Court took this to a whole new level by not just violating the Plaintiffs /
Appellant’s Constitutional Rights, the Judges have actually manipulated the situation, manipulated and
abused the laws and their authority over the Court, and further violated those laws to ensure that the
Simpkins will not receive a proper ruling in their favor. The Simpkins have WON their case hands down
since the Complaint was filed.
The Builder, JMB, “Abandoned” the Simpkins after the first month of ownership and committed
malicious acts since abandoning the Simpkins to cause them great distress, anguish, physical and mental
injury, and harm as well as maliciously caused financial ruin to include loss of their home based Health
Consulting Business. These acts are criminal in by law and both the Judge, and the Attorney for the
Defendants allowed the breach of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 and 8.4.
The Simpkins demand an answer as to what possible defense could the Builder, JMB,
present to a Court or Jury when JMB “Abandoned the Simpkins” after the very first
month of ownership, and have not been back to the property since the first month of
ownership from the day Simpkins purchased the property on August 4th, 2017?
In fact, JMB at the one and only warranty meeting on August 29th, 2017, told the Simpkins that if they
wanted things repaired that the Simpkins would have to provide a report that detailed the issues and
provide a resolution to correct the issues. The Simpkins did exactly what was asked at great cost to the
Simpkins and provided the Expert Reports as requested by JMB. But JMB never once addressed the issues
or even attempted to investigate the issues themselves. The scheme was to defraud the Simpkins of more
of their monies, to force the Simpkins to endure expenses to break the Simpkins financially over time, of
which JMB achieved.
Page 4 of 30
Then on July 23rd, 2018, the Simpkins sent a Demand Letter to JMB to pay back the monies the Simpkins
paid for the property and also demanded restitution to cover their losses on their furniture and clothes at
that time totaling $647,000 with the purchase of the property at $479,429.52 and the remainder for
$167,570.48 to cover the household goods losses, clothing losses, the moving expenses, storage fees,
deposits, hotel expenses, etc. But this did not cover the Simpkins’ actual losses. The amount that the
Simpkins were actually entitled to was an additional $347,527.00 and did not contain penalties that the
Simpkins were entitled to by law.
The Simpkins were told by four different Law Firms based on the number of issues and code violations
that the Simpkins at that time had discovered through the Expert Reports that the house was not a safe
house due to the number of structurally identified issues. And based on the Expert Reports, it would cost
approximately $326,000 to $425,000 to completely repair the property. This was devastating to the
Simpkins and mind boggling that the property even passed any of the inspections. The Simpkins later
found out that John Maher has an arrangement with the City and there are no Inspections.
The Law Firms explained to the Simpkins based on the number of code violations and the property was
not structurally safe and had both mold and termite infestation, the Simpkins were looking at reparations
of $3.3M to $4.8M in early 2018. They also stated to track all expenses because those expenses added up
over time and that the Pre-Interest would also add to the amount owed to the Simpkins for the Builder’s
failure to build the property in a “workmanlike manner.” The Attorneys explained that the property by
itself was the $3.3M to $4.8M, but that there could be punitive damages, emotional distress damages,
further damages for any health related injuries, and treble damages due to the concealment of the issues,
then further damages for “Abandonment” and further damages for the “Breach of Contract, “Breach of
Warranty,” “Fraudulent Concealment,” “Unfair and Deceptive Practices,” “Fraudulent
Misrepresentation,” and “Theft” of our monies. They stated the numbers could easily exceed $10M in
damages by piercing the Corporate Veil and then all the other Tennessee Laws would come into the picture
as stated previously compounding the damages. They felt because of JMB already being aware of all the
issues including the mold and termites prior to the sale of the property, but not disclosing them by law,
would pierce the Corporate Veil which they projected that JMB would settle out of Court to avoid the
Treble Damages because they also could be sued individually. They were wrong on the settlement out of
Court but correct on everything else.
From the Simpkins’ Motion, (Src File - Spec Consid R. App. P. 22 10-5-2021 );
“In case law Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Allen, 584 F. Supp. 386 (E.D. Tenn. 1984), the corporate veil
is pierced due to the fraud by the Officers of the Corporation. In the Conclusions of Law of Federal
Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Allen on Pg. 14, Paras 3, 4, 5 detail of how the Officers of the Corporation were
stripped of their corporate cloak when any fraud or illegality or injustice was committed in contravention
of public policy. Based on this information, when Tony Maher admitted to Spring Hill Police Detective
Carden that he had sold the property “with mold” he was admitting knowledge of wrongful conduct and
acted knowingly and intentionally reckless proving that the corporation was engaged in deceptive
practices along with intentional avoidance of the truth. Further proof was the fraudulent concealment and
fraudulent misrepresentation that the “utility penetrations” in the crawlspace had been sealed when the
Officers of the Corporation knew that they weren’t sealed. Further Tony Maher stated he had verified that
the utility penetrations” had been sealed, knowing the falsity of the statement, and knowing that the
Page 5 of 30
Appellants would rely on that statement as true, and knowing that the open penetrations would allow
continuous and ongoing damage to the occupant’s health and to the property.”
“In addition, when a corporation is dominated by an individual or individuals not only as to finance
but also as to policy and business practices so that the corporation has no mind, will, or existence
of its own and this domination is used to commit a wrong, or fraud or perpetrate a violation of
statutory or positive legal duty, the corporate *398 veil will be pierced. Continental Bankers Life
v. Bank of Alamo, 578 S.W.2d 625 (Tenn.1979). Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., 274 F.2d 320
(5th Cir. 1960).”
“The Appellate Court should clearly see that JMB, and its officers have maintained a “win-at-all-costs”
strategy so they can continue the public charade of “being innocent” of all of wrongdoing. The “costs” in
this case have not just been JMB’s alleged undue influence on the Spring Hill Building Codes Department,
the Spring Hill Police Detective, the Contractors Board, and the Chancery Court, and several others, but
JMB’s win-at-all-costs strategy has meant JMB, and its officers were willing to deliberately harm a
homeowner, the Simpkins, and do so illicitly and unrelentingly in order to cause the homeowner to give
up and quash any negative public exposure for the Builder. The Builder in four (4) years’ time has never
acted reasonably and offered any repair, or payment of restitution, or offered to buy back the property.
The Appellees, JMB, Inc., are well aware that the subject property is endangering the
homeowners/occupants. JMB’s officers, and both the Chancery and Appellate Courts, are also informed
of the fact that a Mold Expert required the Builder to fund substitute housing for the safety of the
homeowners/occupants back in 2018. It has been over three (3) years since the Mold Expert’s first of
several advisories, but neither JMB nor the Courts have acted on the stated requirements by a mold expert.
In the Simpkins case, Mold Expert Mr. James Gafford issued such an advisory several times, which the
Simpkins previously noted for the Chancery Court and the Appellate Court. No funds for Substitute
Housing have been ordered by the Chancery Court nor by the Appellate Court to date, even in this
egregious case. The Appellate Court is forcing the Simpkins to endure a lengthy appeal process before
any enforcement action and restitution may be ordered by a Court of Law. The Simpkins have been due,
at minimum, the funds for substitute housing since July 2018 when this action was first required by the
Mold Expert, Mr. James Gafford reference page eighty-seven (87) starting at line 32 of the Memorandum
of Law, (See Exhibit - SIMP-00A91 – A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspection by Inspector James
Gafford, 10-30-20), (See Vol 5, Pg. 636, Exhibit Pg. 8, Para 4).
“I do not normally make these recommendations or statements in my report, but this has gone too
far for any normal situation. Based on the scientific studies listed above and those I referenced in
my January 2019 report, there is a clear toxic health effect on humans of mycotoxins from mold
spores, I am requesting that the State of Tennessee, or Federal Law Enforcement or a Court of Law
mandate that the Builder immediately and sufficiently compensate the Simpkins in order that the
Simpkins are able to immediately move into substitute housing arrangements of their selection (to
ensure a mold-free environment) that provides them with a safe and healthy living environment.””
That was in April of 2018 what the Law Firms were recommending, then the subsequent Expert Reports
in 2019. This is June of 2023. Five (5) years have gone by since that time and the increase of expenses
and costs and losses of business income have increased the base damages substantially. Today on base
compensatory damages alone come to an amount of $18,697,181.77 assessed against the entity of John
Maher Builders, Inc., and CEO, John Maher, and COO, Tony Maher individually, for an amount of
$56,091,545.31. The Pre-Intertest by Tennessee Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123 is $11,592,252.70
x3 is $34,776,758.1. The combined amount for damages and pre-interest for the three parties is
$90,868,303.41. Treble damages as allowed by Tennessee Statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109)(a)(3),
bring the amount to $272,604,910.23. This does not include Punitive Damages, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-
Page 6 of 30
104, or Emotional Distress Damages as allowed by law. The Appellate Court allowed the Simpkins to sue
the Officers of the Court individually due to the fact that Tony Maher admitted to Detective Carden that
they knew about the mold exiting prior to the sale but that they were not going to do anything about it.
The Simpkins ask the DOJ and the FBI to explain where in federal law where it states that the
Simpkins are not entitled to reparations and restitution by the law immediately? Because the
Simpkins found Federal Laws that made it (Mandatory) to pay the Simpkins Restitution. “Victims in
mortgage fraud cases are statutorily entitled to restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009).”
It has been six (6) torturous years that the Simpkins have had to endure daily pain and suffering while
allegedly the Courts and the DOJ and FBI are protecting the Builder and suppressing the Simpkins’ case.
This means that the DOJ and FBI are allegedly complicit with the criminal acts of the Builder. Therefore,
they are also responsible to pay reparations to the Simpkins for causing intentional harm to the Simpkins
for six egregious and horrific years. The local DA, DOJ, and the FBI have had five (5) years to press
charges for Mortgage Fraud by JMB, but instead, they allegedly suppressed the Simpkins complaints and
claims to benefit the Builder, the Defendants. What incentive were they provided to do that?
For the record, both the local DOJ and FBI stated that there were no laws that could provide restitution
for the Simpkins for the Mortgage Fraud. Yet, Mr. Simpkins found not only Federal Statutes that prove
their statements were intentionally false, but that the Simpkins could have been paid restitution years ago
by both Tennessee Statutes and Federal Statutes. Tennessee does not have a legal system; it has a Tariff
System that only allows Justice for those who pay the Tariff to have a win for their case. That is criminal
in and of itself. The Simpkins have proven their case with their evidence, by State Statutes, and by Federal
Laws. There is no excuse that the DA, DOJ or the FBI can make to correct the damage that they have
caused the Simpkins.
Based on the stark preponderance of evidence, the previous positive ruling in favor of the Simpkins by
the Appellate Court, on May 4th, 2022, the Simpkins request that the DOJ and FBI take into account the
seriousness of the Simpkins circumstances with the latest health development and act immediately to
provide the overdue monetary damages for relief by both Tennessee State Laws and Federal Laws for
Mortgage Fraud and violation of the Contract, Warranty of the property, and the Fraudulent Concealment,
and Theft of their monies and lives for the last six(6) years illegally by the Builder, the Defendants. The
Mortgage Fraud falls under the 2009 Fraud Enforcement and Recover Act, (FERA), and also falls under
the following Federal Laws; to where the District Court now has jurisdiction according to Federal Law;
18 U.S. Code § 3231 - District courts. The district courts of the United States shall have original
jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.
Therefore, the District Court supersedes the Chancery and Appellate Courts based on the Mortgage Fraud
and the alleged fraud and criminal acts by the Builder, JMB, and the Judges violating the Simpkins’
Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law” and “Rights to Remedies” under those laws. Further, the
Judges knew by the law and constitutional violations along with the various criminal acts and mortgage,
that they did not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction due to the Mortgage Fraud. The DOJ and the FBI knew
it as well. But forced the Simpkins to suffer without just cause, or any legal basis whatsoever.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Page 7 of 30
1) (18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False Statements),
2) (18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles, Mail Fraud),
3) (18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Frauds and swindles, Wire Fraud),
4) (18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud), [Interstate trafficking of funds from a Federal
Institution]
5) (18 U.S. Code § 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State
tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting) [Interstate trafficking of funds from a Federal
Institution]
6) (18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Sec. 1001 - Statements or entries generally), false and fraudulent
“Warranty of Completion of Construction.
7) (18 U.S. Code § 1010 - Sec. 1010 - Department of Housing and Urban Development and
Federal Housing Administration transactions),
8) (18 U.S. Code § 1012 - Sec. 1012 - Department of Housing and Urban Development
transactions),
9) (18 U.S. Code § 1031 - Major fraud against the United States), [This Federal Statute, 18 U.S.
Code § 1031, may apply because of the Loan is a VA Loan backed by the Federal Government,
which is the United States.)
“Victims in mortgage fraud cases are statutorily entitled to restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009).
Unlike loss calculations for purposes of sentencing, which are determined based on a "reasonable
estimate of loss" within broad ranges, courts typically require something more concrete for
restitution orders in terms of a provable amount based on evidence proven by a preponderance of
the evidence. Generally, this will require cooperation and information from the victims. In the
context of victim institutions (some of which may be in receivership or may have been sold), early
identification and contact is critical. It may also be necessary to explain differences between
compensable restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and compensable damages in
a civil action (which remain available even after a criminal restitution order).” By Joseph T. Dixon,
III, Deputy Criminal Chief, Fraud and Public Corruption Section, District of Minnesota.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2009) Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes. Therefore, restitution is
available immediately based on United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 2017).
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense
described in subsection (c), the court shall order, in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in addition
to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of
the offense or, if the victim is deceased, to the victim’s estate.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “victim” means a person directly and proximately harmed as
a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case of an
offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person
directly harmed by the defendant’s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern.
In the case of a victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal
guardian of the victim or representative of the victim’s estate, another family member, or any other person
appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the victim’s rights under this section, but in no event shall
the defendant be named as such representative or guardian.
Page 8 of 30
(3) The court shall also order, if agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement, restitution to persons other
than the victim of the offense.
(b) The order of restitution shall require that such defendant—
(1) in the case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a victim of the
offense—
(A) return the property to the owner of the property or someone designated by the owner; or
(B) if return of the property under subparagraph (A) is impossible, impracticable, or inadequate, pay an
amount equal to— or
(i) the greater of—
(I) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction; or
(II) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less
(ii) the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is
returned;
(2) in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury to a victim—
(A) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary medical and related professional services and devices
relating to physical, psychiatric, and psychological care, including nonmedical care and treatment
rendered in accordance with a method of healing recognized by the law of the place of treatment;
(B) pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary physical and occupational therapy and rehabilitation;
and
(C) reimburse the victim for income lost by such victim as a result of such offense;
Page 9 of 30
By the very fact the John Maher [knew] he was committing fraud as Tony Maher told the Simpkins, that
they do this to people all the time and that the Simpkins could not touch them, they were protected and
could do anything they wanted. What the Simpkins realize now, six years later, is that Tony Maher was
admitting that they knowingly committed fraud on every residential property they sell. Knowing that they
were harming every Buyer that they sold to. That is willful, knowing, malicious, intentional reckless
negligence to harm all Buyers! That is completely criminal, yet, JMB has been allowed to continue to
operate and sell thousands more houses to the unsuspecting public while the, Williamson County District
Attorney in 2018, Tristan Poorman, the Attorney General’s Office, the DOJ and the FBI had been informed
of what was going on since 2018. All Agencies were provided two, three (3) ring binders full of startling
preponderance of factual evidence and Expert Reports concerning the “Mortgage Fraud” by the
Defendants. Yet the DOJ and the FBI locally in Nashville, TN, both suppressed the information on behalf
of the Builder. The question that needs to be answered, is why would either Federal Agency protect the
Builder who as the two Special Agents of the FBI both stated, the Simpkins had presented substantial
evidence, the likes of they had never seen so well organized and documented, that they could practically
walk into a Federal Court and probably get an immediate ruling after the information was verified. They
were extremely impressed with what the Simpkins had put together. (See images below of the Binder of
Evidence provided to the Nashville FBI which they still have the two (2), three (3) ring binders to this
day.
John Maher, CEO of John Maher Builders, Inc., knowingly committed fraud, and fraudulent concealment,
when he signed the Federal Document, VA form 26-1859, form HUD-92544 titled “Warranty of
Completion Of Construction.” John Maher had knowledge that they did not conform to the standards of
the 2012 International Construction Codes, (ICC), nor the 2012 International Residential Construction
Codes, (IRC) nor the 2009 International Energy Conservation Codes, (IECC). But still he signed the
Page 10 of 30
Federal Document “Warranty of Completion Of Construction” knowing that the property had numerous
issues, new that there was mold and termites present in the property in both the crawlspace and the interior
of the dwelling. He knew this, because as JMB’s Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP) JMB does not use
a foam vapor barrier under the sill plate against the concrete block foundation of the structural frame
(which is mandatory by IRC 2012 Codes), which allows air, water, and bug intrusions into the crawlspace.
The actions by JMB, JM and TM falls under the “False Claims Act,” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) False Claims
Act as well.
2nd Binder, Notebook of Evidence #2
31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) – False Claims Act;

(a) Liability for Certain Acts.—
(1) In general.—Subject to paragraph (2), any person who—
(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or
approval;
(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a
false or fraudulent claim;
(C) conspires to commit a violation of subparagraph (A), (B), (D), (E), (F), or (G);
(D) has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government
and knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that money or property;
Page 11 of 30
(E) is authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used, or to be used,
by the Government and, intending to defraud the Government, makes or delivers the receipt without
completely knowing that the information on the receipt is true;
(F) knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from an officer
or employee of the Government, or a member of the Armed Forces, who lawfully may not sell or
pledge property; or
(G) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to
an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government, or knowingly conceals or
knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property
to the Government,
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more
than $10,000, as adjusted by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C.
2461 note; Public Law 104–410 [1]), plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government
sustains because of the act of that person.
Furthermore, John Maher knew that as their SOP, they do not foam or caulk the utility penetrations from
the crawlspace into the interior of the walls, subfloors, intermediate flooring between the first and second
floor. All of what is described here can be seen today, right now of the current new builds in progress. This
information was stated to the DOJ and the FBI to where they could just come out to the construction sight
and immediately see all the visible code violations. But they refused to do so. Why would the DOJ and
FBI not want to prove the Simpkins claims and facts?
John Maher further knew as their SOP that they did not caulk around the electrical outlets in the exterior
walls or the electrical light switches on exterior walls. Further, he knew that the HVAC Systems being
installed were not the required proper rating for the size of the property due to the load on the system for
the size of the property. Furthermore, John Maher knew that they bypassed the electrical cutoff switch of
the Air Handler Unit to save money on the cost of the switches. This was recorded on a Video by Lee
Company, Governor Lees previous Company. (See Exhibit - SIMP-00A104 - Air Handler Unit Power
Safety Switch Missing ). Therefore, if there is a fire in the Air Handler Unit, the normal sensor response
to shut off the power from the door interlock switch will never happen because it is no longer a switch but
hard wired. Therefore, if there is a fire, the blower motor will fan the flames and force feed the fire through
the duct system and potentially accelerate the fire throughout the property possibly preventing the
inhabitants from having proper notification to egress from the Residential Property to Safety. This is an
alleged intentional act to ensure that if there is a fire that the entire building will be consumed to cover up
the failure of the Builder to built the property not only NOT TO CODE but also NOT IN A
WORKMANLIKE MANNER!
These are just a few of the many problems, and code violations, intentional omissions of key components
to the structure, such as the missing “hurricane clips” which are “mandatory” to hold the roof on but
were never installed. Or the “collar ties” that are mandatory and are required to be spaced evenly at
every forth rafter but were hit or miss and not enough were installed. Or the joist hangers for the spanner
floor joists, which is “mandatory” to lock the spanner joists to the rim joists to prevent movement of the
floors, walls, and entire structure.
Page 12 of 30
“Residential mortgage fraud” is committed by a person who, knowingly and with intent to defraud,
presents, causes to be presented, or prepares with knowledge or belief that it will be used in
soliciting an applicant for, applying for, underwriting or closing a residential mortgage loan, or
filing with a county clerk of any county in the state arising out of and related to the closing of a
residential mortgage loan, any written statement which:
1. contains materially false information concerning any fact material thereto; or
2. conceals, for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 the offense of making a false statement include:

1. Making a false statement or willfully overvaluing property or security knowing the same to be
false,
2. for the purpose of influencing in any way the action,
3. of the enumerated agencies and organizations.
Under 8 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud include:

(a) Activities prohibited
It is unlawful for any person or entity knowingly—
(1) to forge, counterfeit, alter, or falsely make any document for the purpose of satisfying a
requirement of this chapter or to obtain a benefit under this chapter,
(2) to use, attempt to use, possess, obtain, accept, or receive or to provide any forged, counterfeit,
altered, or falsely made document in order to satisfy any requirement of this chapter or to obtain
a benefit under this chapter,
The Simpkins have provided substantial evidence of Federal Mortgage Fraud due to Simpkins’ Mortgage
is a VA Loan. Both the Simpkins and the United States Government have defrauded of their monies by a
corrupt and unlawful Builder, John Maher Builders, Inc., (JMB), CEO John Maher, (JM), and COO, Tony
Maher, (TM). So, you have to ask why the Nashville DOJ and FBI allegedly also wanted
to help defraud the United States Government? There is no excuse whatsoever for the DOJ or
the FBI not investigating the Mortgage Fraud when the evidence proved mortgage fraud before the
Appellate Court Ruling on May 4th, 2022. Therefore, the DOJ and FBI are also being held responsible for
the corrupt acts of the Builder and allowing further harm to come to the Simpkins. Who does a person go
to in order to sue the very Agencies that are supposed to uphold the law but instead protected the Builder
and violated the Simpkins’ Constitutional Rights to “Due Process of Law?” This seems to be a habit by
all authorities in the State of Tennessee.
Further, the Appellate Court on May 4th, 2022, issued an “Opinion” and a “Judgment” In Favor of the
Plaintiffs / Appellants, David and Sally Simpkins that the Builder, JMB, CEO, JM, and COO TM,
committed “fraud” in a “Breach of Contract,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-109(a)(3), “Breach of Warranty
Express or Implied,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314. Implied warranty -- Merchantability -- Usage of Trade.
The Appellate Court Tribunal even stated that the Simpkins had proven the requirements for “Fraudulent
Concealment” perpetrated by the Defendants, John Maher Builders, Inc., CEO John Maher, and COO
Tony Maher. (See below).
Page 13 of 30
In (Binding Authority), David Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-
R3-CV (May 4th, 2022), Page 29, Paras 4 and 5;
“Accepting the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint as true, we determine that Plaintiffs’ factual
allegations have satisfied the following elements required to demonstrate fraudulent
concealment:
(1) Defendants affirmatively concealed and/or failed to disclose material facts regarding a cause of
the injury to Plaintiffs’ property despite a duty to do so;
(2) Defendants knew that Plaintiffs had been injured and the identity of the wrongdoer; and
(3) Defendants concealed material information from Plaintiffs by “‘withholding information or
making use of some device to mislead’ the plaintiff in order to exclude suspicion or prevent
inquiry.” See Redwing v. Catholic Bishop, 363 S.W.3d at 463 (Tenn. Feb 2012).
“Moreover, “[w]hether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care and diligence in discovering the
injury or wrong” is typically a fact question for the trier of fact to determine. Wyatt v. A-Best Co.,
910 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tenn. 1995).”
We conclude that a trier of fact could determine that Plaintiffs, in the exercise of reasonable care
and diligence, could not have discovered this potential cause of their injury until January 2018
due to Defendants’ attempts to conceal this cause. If so, the statute of limitations would not have
begun to run until that date, rendering Plaintiffs’ claims subject to the three-year statute of
limitations timely filed.”
Therefore, based on the Appellate Court Ruling and Judgement on May 4th of 2022, and the stark,
“unquestioned authenticity” of the Simpkins “preponderance of evidence”, and the laws of the State of
Tennessee and the Federal and Constitutional Law violations, by all parties to include the Courts and
Officers of the Courts, the Simpkins are entitled to at minimum “interim damages” of no less than
$30,289,434.47 per the entity, John Maher Builders, Inc., and each individual, CEO, John Maher, and
Coo, Tony Maher, x3 for a total of $90,868,303.41. But by law, the Simpkins are entitled to
$272,604,910.16 immediately1 and a further total of $593,417,042.86 dollars for Full Damages by
Tennessee law. This does not include the Federal Violations that the Simpkins are entitled to.
The Simpkins have provided the full list of laws supporting the Simpkins case for Compensatory
Damages, Punitive Damages, Treble Damages, Incidental and Consequential Damages, Emotional
1Note that all damages mentioned are for the parties, John Maher Builders, Inc., CEO, John Maher, COO, Tony Maher. The other parties
mentioned, will also be required to pay the same damages as the Defendants due to their willful, knowing, maliciously intentional alleged
conspiracy to aid and abet the Defendants as follows: Williamson County, Franklin, TN Chancery Court Judge, Judge Martin (forced
Retirement due to the Simpkins’ case), Williamson County, Franklin, TN Chancery Court Judge, Judge Hood, Davidson County, Nashville,
TN, Appellate Court Judge, Presiding Judge Clement of the Appellate Court, Appellate Court Clerk, James Hivner (committed tampering or
evidence, manipulated the Rule of App. Proc.), Chancery Court Clerk Debra Stevens, (Allegedly aided and abetted the Defendants with
their case and cast dispersions against the Simpkins in the Chancery Court Clerk’s Office to other employees of the State and other
Attorneys). People forget that their statements false as they may be, get around and the results are usually the information concerning
“Defamation of Character” and “Slander” will get to the very people who are being falsely accused.
Page 14 of 30
Distress Damages with Pre and Post Interest are at the end of this document and have been updated to
June 13, 2023.
The damages are based on the Simpkins’ actual cumulative expenses and losses with both Pre and Post
Interest calculated and included. (See Exhibit - SIMP-00A131 - 1375 Round Hill Ln Mit. of Damages
Expenses - FINAL 6-13-2023).
The Simpkins have presented both State and Federal Law where the Simpkins, the Plaintiffs and also now
as the Appellants have been entitled to monetary damages since the filing of their Complaint, see attached,
(Complaint Against John Maher Builders Final 1-1-21). See the Tennessee Statutes that back up the
Simpkins’ complaint. (In the Simpkins response to Judge Hood’s alleged unlawful and malicious
manipulation of the law to railroad the Simpkins Compliant out of the Court to cause intentional further
injury, harm, and delay to obviously benefit the Builder, JMB. (Response to Court Dismissal of the
Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023).
Further, the Simpkins had filed two separate Motions and requested a change of Venue and Judge Hood
never addressed the requests in any way, she completely ignored the requests and dismissed the Simpkins’
Complaint allegedly unlawfully under a false legal basis which was based on Sanctions by R. of Civ. Proc.
37 for failure to appear for the April 4th hearing. Which the hearing was set for the same time as Mr.
Simpkins’ first meeting with his new Primary Care Physician to intentionally make Mr. Simpkins miss the
hearing. (See Exhibits - Mot. Rmve Judge Hood Frm Case, LSMJ, Chg of Venue 3-29-2023), and (Filed
Copy of Motion to Chg Ven & Intent Harm 4-4-2023).
Further, the Simpkins never received any Official Notice of the Hearing for the aforementioned reason.
Judge Hood in violating her own Order to use the P.O. Box address, sent the Notice to the Simpkins’ home
address as confirmed by the Clerk and Master, Attorney Jakob Schwendimann. Judge hood also used an
old email address that she had already been notified had been hacked and stolen,
dms.consultant@gmx.com, but sent emails there anyway. All of this knowing that the Simpkins would not
receive the Notice of the April 4th Hearing set for 10:30AM. These are wanton malicious acts by an Officer
of the Court. That is alleged criminal “Fraud on the Court,” by the Officer of the Court. Mr. Simpkins’
appointment was at 10:30 AM on April 4th and had been set three (3) months in advance which the Court
was made aware of in February of 2023. (See Exhibit - David Simpkins VA Hospital Appt. 4-4-2023).
Again, Sirs, you forget, that you work in a nice office, you live in a nice clean home environment. You
cannot begin to even imagine what this Builder and the so called Legal or Justice system, meaning the
Court Judges who are all allegedly owned by the Builder for one reason, or another have done to protect
their monetary interests at the pain and suffering of the people who bought these “Death Traps” And you,
the Department of Justice, you, the Federal Bureau of Investigations are both allowing and allegedly being
complicit with the Builder’s and the Court’s alleged unlawful acts. But the local DOJ and the local FBI
have suppressed our case for “five (5) years”. Notice the indentation in the center of the left foot, the mold
consumed the tissue. There are several indentations over various areas of Mr. Simpkins’ body all caused
by the conditions in the Simpkins property which has carried over to their tent in the driveway.
Page 15 of 30
Left Foot Mold Infection Under Skin Right Foot Mold Infection Under Skin
These pictures are without question poor quality taken with a 2 Mega Pixel Alcatel Cell Phone because
our 980 numbers for the Samsung Galaxy S7s, (8 Mega Pixels) are hacked by the Builder or someone he
hired to do it along with stealing the information off of our computer then wiping the hard drive. It was
the only computer left after the destruction of 3 laptops and 1 desktop server in our tent as well as the theft
of all 5 boxes of printed case documents and all backup DVDs, CDs, thumb drives, and backup external
drives on September 12th, 2022. They destroyed the only computer we had left in February of this year as
well as destroying the software in the Printer and preventing the Simpkins from using the AT&T Router.
Causing some type of failure.
Page 16 of 30
Right Foot Mold Infection (Image 1) In these pictures I had to increase the light and decrease
the clarity, to reduce the glare. Plus, the images were
blurry.
Right Foot Mold Infection Showing

Various Mold Colonies (Image 2)
The question I have Sirs, is when are you going to do something about getting us the monetary award we
have been entitled to for six (6) years especially when I have provided all the information required for a
Judge to make a definitive ruling in favor of the Simpkins based on the indisputable preponderance of
unquestioned authenticity of the Simpkins’ evidence? Imagine my and my Wife’s suffering, pain,
depression, disappointment, on a daily basis. I have left kidney failure, I have liver failure, I have a
damaged left eye, I have a sick stomach filled with mold, I have four “shattered teeth with nerves
exposed!” I have two teeth completely rotted out by mold and the jawbone is painfully exposed with mold
Page 17 of 30
still spreading in it. I have a left shoulder joint with severe pain with a suspected mold infection. Can you
imagine that every time you move your shoulder just how painful that is. Could you handle the daily pain
that I and my wife have had to endure the past six years? I do not think that you could Sirs. No one is
supposed to even have to deal with a fraction of this type of abuse by a Builder much less the Courts who
have protected the Builder and assisted in causing injury, harm and delay against this Veteran and his Wife.
The Simpkins will help you understand how simple this is.
1) The Builder sold a Brand-New Home Incomplete With Fifty-Eight (58) Documented Code
Violations, Omissions, And Damaged Materials Infested With Termites And Mold, and substandard
materials that were already cracked or split or damaged in some way but still installed the damaged
materials regardless of their condition!
(See Appellate Court Tribunal, (ACT), Presiding Judge, Judge Frierson’s Statement concerning
the “Authenticity” of the Simpkins’ Evidentiary “Exhibits” being “Unquestioned” in, David
Simpkins, et. al. v. John Maher Builders, et. al. No. M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV (May 4th, 2022).
“We note that “exhibits attached to the complaint whose authenticity is unquestioned”
may be considered by the trial court without converting the Tennessee Rule of Civil
Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss to a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56
motion for summary judgment. Felker v. Felker, No. W2019-01925-COAR3-CV, 2021
WL 3507745, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2021).”
(See the Following Reports that “prove these facts.”

1. SIMP-00A1 - A-1 Waterproofing Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report for
Simpkins 7-20-18
2. SIMP-00A2 - Lee Company Investigative Service Report with Pricing
3. SIMP-00A3 - Simpkins Failed Carpet Report 1-1-18
4. SIMP-00A4 - 1375 Round Hill Ln HIR 7-13-17
5. SIMP-00A5 - SE&I Engineering Report
6. SIMP-00A15 - A-1 WP Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report
7. SIMP-00A16 - MTMR Highlighted Inspection Report & Contract 1-16-18
8. SIMP-00A68 – Agape Invoice Drywall Dust Still Coming out of Carpet 10-3-17
9. SIMP-00A70 - Pro Painter Affidavit of no Primer on any walls in entire property 9-12-17
10. SIMP-00A91 - A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspect by Inspector James Gafford 10-30-20
2) Then the Builder, John Maher Builders, Inc., “Abandoned” the Simpkins after the first month of
ownership. What do you not understand about that? By abandoning the Simpkins after the first
month, they violated the Warranty and failed to perform on the warranty without any legal or
other justification, other than Tony Maher’s statement that they could do as they pleased because
they are protected all the way to the top of the Government of the State of Tennessee. The
“Abandonment and Failure to Perform Without any Justification,” immediately leads to
Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to
perform, without justification, and this occurred exactly one month after we had purchased the
property. But to this day, not one Judge in the Chancery Court or the Appellate Court has issued
Page 18 of 30
orders to have the Builder pay restitution to the Simpkins, which they are entitled to
immediately.
3) Then the JMB “Stonewalled” the Simpkins for the next six (6) years.
4) The Builder manipulated the law, the City of Spring Hill Municipality, the Courts, and allegedly
blackmailed, coerced, made promises, offered favors, or outright bribed State and Government
Officials to suppress the Simpkins complaints starting with the City of Spring Hill Codes
Department, Chris Brooks, then the Codes Compliance Department who never once responded to
the Simpkins, then a Complaint filed with Tennessee State Commerce and Insurance, Deputy
General Counsel, Maliaka Bass, then Contractor’s Board, (we were the only ones that were not
allowed to file an appeal, yet everyone else was.), then the Insurance Division of Commerce and
Insurance who helped cover up the Insurance Fraud by John Maher and Builders Mutual, then the
Attorney General’s Office when they deleted the Simpkins case from their databases, and claimed
they had no record of our filing. How stupid can they be when their system spits out an email
stating they received our complaint. Then a supposed Investigator, Stacey Troutt for the
Contractors Board, then Corum Engineering who filed a false Report on behalf of the Contractors
Board. (Ron Corum of Corum Engineering while investigating saw numerous things that he stated
were impossible to happen. Then filed a fraudulent report without including all of the “impossible”
things that he saw.) The list goes on and on.
5) But the Simpkins discovered in April of 2023, that there were laws in existence that supported the
Simpkins’ case from the very start which Judge Martin knew about, but maliciously and
intentionally ignored those laws (listed below) for the benefit of the Builder, JMB, due to his
alleged friendship and alleged business relationship with John Maher.
The Tennessee State laws for contractor’s responsibilities to the Buyers or Homeowners, that were
discovered in April of 2023, are as follows which prove that the Abandonment and Failure to
Honor the 2 year Warranty, was a criminal act by John Maher Builders, Inc, CEO, John Maher
and COO, Tony Maher:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510. Prohibited acts. For; Abandonment or willful failure to perform,
without justification
1. Abandonment or willful failure to perform, without justification, any home improvement contract
or project engaged in or undertaken by a contractor or willful deviation from or disregard of plans
or specifications in any material respect without the consent of the owners;
2. Making any substantial misrepresentation in the procurement of a home improvement contract or
making any false promise of character likely to influence, persuade or induce;
3. Any fraud in the execution of, or in the material alteration of, any contract, mortgage, promissory
note or other document incident to a home improvement transaction;
5. Willful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building, sanitary and health laws of this state
or of any political subdivision of this state or of the safety, labor, or workers' compensation insurance
laws of this state.
Page 19 of 30
Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511. False Documentation
The fraudulent “Warranty of Completion of Construction” signed by John Maher.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Criminal Penalty, commits a Class A misdemeanor. Each
violation is deemed a separate offense.
After six (6) years the penalties add up to 3,038 Class A Misdemeanors. What is the conversion to
the number of Class A Felonies at this time? There is already a single Class A Felony for “Theft”
of the Simpkins’ monies of over $250,000 by Tennessee Law. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-154.
Actions by home improvement services provider that constitute offense.
Chapter 14 - Offenses Against Property; Part 1 – Theft; § 39-14-105. Grading of Theft

A Class A felony if the value of the property or services obtained is two hundred fifty thousand dollars
($250,000) or more.
Additional information by several people who the Simpkins do not know nor have any relationship
with, have told the Simpkins various stories of the defamation of character by the Mahers against
the Simpkins, to include that the Simpkins lost their case in May of 2022, and won nothing, which
was a blatant lie. That the Simpkins made everything up and nothing they published was true. That
the Mahers had already taken care of the case, that it had already been handled, and that they had
a definite win this second time in the Chancery Court.
Local Community Harassment By Teenagers

They were clearly Instructed by John Maher to do so based on their statements of which they would have
no knowledge of unless they were involved in the case or attorneys.
On May 8th, 2023, the teenagers upped the ante and used some type of chemical that caused an immediate
headache, dizziness, and traveled slowly from my frontal lobes through my head all the way to my
occiputs. I can tell you that I have never experienced that in my entire life. It affected my vision and caused
immediate mucous drainage down the back of my throat and blisters on my skin. Since that time, I now
have shaking hands and tremors. That occurred around 9:30 PM the night of May 8th, 2023. I called the
Police and do not know the Officer’s name, but he went down the street and talked to the kids but who
knows if they were the correct ones.
But this is officially out of control. And since the DOJ and the FBI has failed to protect my Wife and I,
this has now escalated to the point that everyone is now a potential threat. Especially anyone who shows
up at or on our property without any notice. And I will not trust anyone going forward. And if anyone
shows up to our property with a weapon, I will defend my Wife and I to the fullest extent of the Law for
OUR SAFETY!
Since the DOJ and the FBI ignored the previous notice, it means you do not care or worse. I am stating
this as an Official Notice to the DOJ and FBI, that any teenagers or children who are injured or harmed
in any way will be your responsibility and blame falls squarely on your Agencies. You, the DOJ and
FBI are allowing this to go on! You are allowing the builder to allegedly use children to do his bidding!
Page 20 of 30
But you, the DOJ and FBI, again are going to be held solely responsible for any harm to any teenagers
or children who get injured in any way due to what is going on. And they will not be harmed by us!
What you, the DOJ, and the FBI have done is to allow a Builder who has committed Mortgage Fraud
against the Simpkins and the United States Government, and allowed the Builder, John Maher Builders,
Inc., CEO John Maher and COO Tony Maher, to commit numerous frauds against an unsuspecting public
and sell the same type of incomplete and damaged properties to hundreds if not thousands of families over
the last six (6) years ensuring that they would be harmed. The DOJ and the FBI are responsible for all the
people injured and harmed especially for any Buyer’s health issues related to the properties. And you, the
FBI, that I had so much respect for what you do, had five years after I and my Wife met with Agent Casper
Cromwell and Agent Caeser Casar who both stated that we had clear fraud and substantial evidence
proving fraud. Therefore, we had clear Mortgage Fraud, and Special Richard Baer also stated we had clear
mortgage fraud from the substantial
For our case, I reiterate what we are entitled to immediately, which is at minimum “interim damages” of
$272,604,910.16. You could have done something for us already because as you can see the Chancery
Court and the Appellate Court are without question extremely (Prejudiced) against us and acting in an
unlawful manner as well blatantly breaking the law. Especially since the Appellate Court sent the
Simpkins a message by assigning the numbers “666,” to their case insinuating that the Simpkins are the
“Devil” when in fact, they have acted dishonorably, unethically and criminally throughout our time in the
Chancery and Appellate Courts. Yet, you have done nothing against the unlawful Court Judges and Clerks
who have tampered with evidence and transcripts over and over and forced us to suffer without any legal
justification.
See the full write up from the Plaintiffs in Response to the Defendants alleged criminal Attorney working
in alleged collusion with the Chancery Court, (Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion
Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023).
As stated before, the Simpkins are entitled to a Default or Final Judgement based on the “Fraud on the
Court,” by the Court Officers allegedly colluding and conspiring with the Builder to intentionally allow
the Builder to violate the law and the Court violating the law along with the Builder.
Further by Federal Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to either $27,000,000 or $52,000,000 based on the
fraudulent “Warranty of Completion Of Construction” and failure to adhere to the Federal Law for
“Warranties,” (38 U.S. Code § 3705 –Warranties), and penalties for failure to perform or comply, (42
U.S. Code § 1320d–5 - General penalty for failure to comply with requirements and standards); 3(C),
(D), under 42 U.S. Code § 1320d–5 (a),(1),(C),(ii),(3),(D).
Prayer for Relief

The Simpkins respectfully request a Federal Court to award “Interim Damages,” to be paid immediately
as stated in Prayer for Relief in their (Response To Court’s Dismissal Of Plaintiffs Complaint Without
Proper Cause), (amount of damages have been updated to reflect up to June, 2023). Minimum
Compensatory Damages per Corporation and each Officer of the Corporation, John Maher and Tony
Maher, no less than $18,697,181.77 dollars, plus Pre-Interest by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123, of
$11,592,252.70, combined Compensatory Damages and Pre-Interest is $30,289,434.47 for a total of
$90,868,303.39 Compensatory Damages with Pre-Interest for all three. And with Treble Damages of
Page 21 of 30
$272,604,910.16 dollars, plus Punitive Damages of $181,736,606.78, by Tennessee Statute, Tenn. Code
Ann. § 29-39-104 Punitive Damages, plus Emotional Distress Damages of $102,000,000 for a total of
$556,341,516.94. Plus $37,075,525.92 Post Interest by Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-123, , therefore, the
Simpkins are entitled to a Default or Final Judgment for a total for a total of $593,417,042.86 dollars for
Full Damages by Tennessee law.
Interim Damages required at a minimum of $272,604,910.16 for the base damages by all three parties.
Adding in the additional Federal Damages as allowed by law, either $27,000,000 + $593,417,042.86 for
a total of $620,417,042.86 or if the $52,000,000 is allowed due to the egregiousness and malicious
intentions by the Builder, JMB, then the total due to the Simpkins is, $52,000,000 + $593,417,042.86 for
a total of $645,417,042.94.
Link to all Evidence is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/jnhsn0lht6psppnt7sqyt/h?dl=0&rlkey=t6j7nktgjpfg4yveiagpk6jbz
Sincerely,
David M. Simpkins
Veteran U.S. Navy USS Will Rogers
SSBN 659 (GOLD) CREW
And Sally E. Simpkins
Phone: (931) 398-4085
Email: d.simpkins.consultant@gmail.com
Primary Document for Update (This Document):

1) URGENT Update to DOJ, FBI, SON, DA, VA OIG 6-13-2023
Primary Immediate Read Supporting Documents:

1. URGENT Update to DOJ, FBI, SON, DA, VA OIG 6-13-2023
2. Complaint Against John Maher Builders Final 1-1-21
3. Judgment by App Ct against JMB 5-4-2022
4. David Simpkins v. JMB Opinion 5-4-2022
5. EXHIBIT EX-A110 Supporting Mot. for Rec. & Charges Filed
6. FINAL - Plaintiff's Rule 10B Motion for Recusal 1-11-2023
Page 22 of 30
7. Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023
8. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023
Department of Justice, (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigations, (FBI), Franklin, TN, District
Attorney’s Office, (FTNDA), Secretary of the Navy, (SECNAV), Veterans Association, Office of the
Inspector General, VA-OIG) List of Updates and Failure to take action on those Updates:
1. Department of Justice Notification and Request of Status Final 4-20-2022
2. Department of Justice Update and New Developments as of 5-17-2022
3. Department of Justice Update and No Relief as of 5-27-2022
5. Sally's 2nd Email to DOJ, FBI, and VAOIG 6-2-2022
6. Sally's 3rd Email to the DOJ, FBI, VAOIG 6-2-2022
7. Sally's Department of Justice Update as of 6-4-2022
9. Department of Justice Update James Hivner Destruction of Court & Federal Documents 6-28-
2022
10. Statement of the Case for Charges to Be Filed by the DOJ, FBI, DA 8-8-2022
11. October Complaint Sent to DOJ on 10-10-21
12. READ ME FIRST Cvr Ltr for FBI Constitutional Violations 11-23-2022
13. READ ME FIRST US Navy Constitutional Violations 11-23-2022
14. Department of Justice Update Judge Hood Violated Const. Rights Completely 11-21-2022
15. Dpmt of Just Updt Judge Hood Vio Const. Rits Completely 12-9-2022
16. UPDATE - DOJ, FBI, USN, VA OIG Update R. 10B Mot. for Recusal Judge Hood 1-11-2022
17. Update to DOJ, FBI, VA OIG, SON Jdg Hood Denies Motion to Recuse 2-3-2023
18. Update to DOJ, FBI, VA OIG, SON Extreme Health Affects Due to Mold 2-16-2023
19. Cover Letter to DOJ, FBI, VA OIG, SON Extreme Health Affects Due to Mold 2-28-2023
20. Update Concern Life Threaten Health Isssues to DOJ or Taylor Phillips V2 3-13-2023
21. Update on Unlawful Acts and Constitutional Rights Violations 4-9-2023
List of Documents Attached as Evidentiary Exhibits:

1. 3-52 AM David's Left Bottom Foot Pain – Mold
2. 3-55 AM David's Left Top Foot Searing Pain – Mold
3. 7-8-18 DVD of all Case Documents
4. 7-8-19 Bottom Side View of Case Evidence Notebook Binder
5. 7-8-19 DVD Table of Contents
6. 7-8-19 Page 1 of Table of Contents of Case Documentation
9. 7-9-19 Meredith Vitale Proof of ST of TN Receipt of Case Docs 2
10. 7-9-19 Meredith Vitale Proof of ST of TN Receipt of Case Docs
Page 23 of 30
11. Affidavits for Motion to Recuse Judge Hood 1-11-2023
12. Alleged Canon Violations by Judge Hood 12-29-2022
13. Alleged Unlawful Order by Judge Hood 1-2-2023
14. Cancer & Other Diagnosis 12-24-18
15. Chancery Court's Final Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's Case 4-4-2023
16. Chest CT Scan - Granulomas
17. Courts Records Retention Schedule By T.C.A. § 18-1-202
18. David Simpkins v. JMB Opinion 5-4-2022
19. David's Left Hand
20. David's Left Side Nasal Wall
21. David's Lower Left Leg
22. David's Mold infected neck and back
23. David Simpkins VA Hospital Appt. 4-4-2023
25. EX-A1 App. Ct. Record Cross-Ref to Appel. Evidence Vols 1-12 11-11-21
26. Exhibit 1A - Mold in MSTR BTH Ceiling
27. Exhibit 1AA - Mr. Simpkins Mold Infections in Skin all over Body
28. Exhibit 1AB - Mrs. Simpkins Swollen and Inflamed Knee from Mold
29. Exhibit 1AC - Mrs. Simpkins Leg damaged from Mold Exposure
30. Exhibit 1AD - Mrs. Simpkins Leg with Painful Mold Rash
31. Exhibit 1AE - Mrs. Simpkins Leg with Painful Mold Rash
32. Exhibit 1AF - Mrs. Simpkins Thigh with Painful Mold Rash
33. Exhibit 1AG - Kitten Bashful Suffering from Mold Infection
34. Exhibit 1D - Cold Season coming - Another Season - No HVAC
35. Exhibit 1H - MSTR BR - Ceiling, Windows & Floors - 1 of Harshest Rooms
36. Exhibit 1K - Mr. Simpkins - Feet-Legs-Stomach Swollen Mold Infection in Skin
37. Exhibit 1M - Simpkins evidence is in Color Chanc. Court ruined evidence in B&W
38. Exhibit 1N - Mr. Simpkins Swollen Painful Purple Feet – Edema
39. Exhibit 1O - MSTR Bedroom trying to hold back the mold in drywall
40. Exhibit 1Q - Suburban Ruined by Mold from House
41. Exhibit 11A - Email Communications Between the Appellate Court and Mr. James Hivner 6-22-
2022
42. Exhibit 11B - Email Comms Between the Simpkins & Mr. James Hivner 6-24-2022
43. EXHIBIT EX-A110 Supporting Mot. for Rec. & Charges Filed
44. Exhibit X28 Under Sink Cabinet Space - Duct Supply
45. FINAL - Appel. Emerg. Mot. to allow Evid. due to ruined Evid. in Record 12-28-21
46. FINAL - Motion for Court Order Defendants pay Interim Damages 11-7-2022
47. FINAL - Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Damages 10-5-2022
48. FINAL - Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Damages 10-11-2022
49. FINAL - Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Award of Damages 10-31-2022
50. FINAL - Plaintiff's Rule 10B Motion for Recusal 1-11-2023
51. FINAL 4th Notice to App. Ct. of Evidence Tamp. 10-26-21
52. FINAL Appeals Court Statement of Issues 5-4-2023
53. Fungal keratitis of Cornea - GAFFI FACT SHEET
54. Healthe Vet Message to Dr. MacMillan for Radiation Treatments 10-1-19
55. JMB - Helpful Hints - Anything that could cause more harm or Safety Issues
Page 24 of 30
56. L Temple Tumor Removed
57. Master Bathroom Ceiling Mold
58. Mot. Rmve Judge Hood Frm Case, LSMJ, Chg of Venue 3-29-2023
59. Motion for Change of Venue and Incompetence Against Judge Hood 4-3-2023
60. Mr. Simpkins Sleeping After Full Body Rash 2
61. Mr. Simpkins Sleeping After Full Body Rash
62. Notice from App. Ct. of Destruction of Plaintiffs App. Ct. C
63. Notice of Appeal John Maher Builders, Inc 5-4-2023
64. Plaintiff's New Court Ordered Contact Information
65. Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal 5-4-2023
66. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants Frivolous Motion Sanctions Demanded 5-2-2023
67. Response to Court Dismissal of the Simpkins Complaint 4-24-2023
68. Right Lung Vertical CT Scan - Granulomas Present 3
69. Sally Simpkins AFFIDAVIT FOR COURT OF APPEALS 5-4-2023
70. SIMP-00A1 - A-1 Waterproofing Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report for Simpkins
7-20-18
71. SIMP-00A2 - Lee Company Investigative Service Report with Pricing
72. SIMP-00A3 - Simpkins Failed Carpet Report 1-1-18
73. SIMP-00A4 - 1375 Round Hill Ln HIR 7-13-17
74. SIMP-00A5 - SE&I Engineering Report
75. SIMP-00A6 - Air Barrier & Insulation Installation
76. SIMP-00A15 - A-1 WP Investigative Property & Mold Inspection Report
77. SIMP-00A16 - MTMR Highlighted Inspection Report & Contract 1-16-18
78. SIMP-00A56 - Drywall Dust Built up in Carpet (1) 7-8-17
79. SIMP-00A57 - Drywall Dust on Hard Wood Floors (1) 7-8-17
81. SIMP-00A59 - Drywall Dust on Half Bath Tile Floor 7-8-17
82. SIMP-00A60 - Debris and Drywall Dust fills the Carpet 7-08-17
83. SIMP-00A61 - Carpet Not Protected - Drywall Dust piled up in Corner 7-08-17
84. SIMP-00A62 - Carpet Grayed out from Drywall Dust 4 8-7-17
85. SIMP-00A63 - Carpet Grayed out & matted from Drywall Dust 3 7-08 -17
86. SIMP-00A64 - Carpet Grayed out & matted from Drywall Dust 2 8-7-17
87. SIMP-00A65 - Carpet Grayed out & matted from Drywall Dust 1 8-7-17
90. SIMP-00A68 – Agape Invoice Drywall Dust Still Coming out of Carpet 10-3-17
91. SIMP-00A70 - Pro Painter Affidavit of no Primer on any walls in entire property 9-12-17
92. SIMP-00A71 - Erin Krueger Email Response Concerning Home Environment 8-29-18
93. SIMP-00A73 - James Gafford Affidavit 12-5-2020 PG1.pdf – Shortcut
94. SIMP-00A73 - James Gafford Affidavit 12-5-2020 PG2.pdf – Shortcut
95. SIMP-00A77 - VA MPR PG 12-11 Sec 12.06 Hazards and Defective Conditions
96. SIMP-00A78 - Van Woody States is Perfectly Normal to have drywall dust on floors and Carpet
97. SIMP-00A80 - To Wty Dept. Mold & Other Issues not resolved 9-12-17
98. SIMP-00A81 - To Wty Dept. Follow Up Email to September Email 10-6-17
99. SIMP-00A82 - Wty Dept. Follow Up Email to Lack of Response 11-9-17
100. SIMP-00A83 - To Wty Dept. Mold Report & Failed Carpet Report 2-7-18
Page 25 of 30
101. SIMP-00A84 - Notebook 2 Wades Grove List of JMBI Properties Not Built to Code 2-
102. SIMP-00A91 - A-1 Waterproofing Suppl Invest Inspect by Inspector James Gafford 10
30-20
103. SIMP-00A103 - 75k Tone BTU Furnace 3 Ton Evap Coil
104. SIMP-00A104 - Air Handler Unit Power Safety Switch Faulty
105. SIMP-00A105 - All Inspection Cuts resealed properly
106. SIMP-00A106 - Attic Ducting on Main Duct is not to Code 5 within 3 feet
107. SIMP-00A107 - Confirmed another take-off not sealed properly
108. SIMP-00A108 - Duct pinched in crawl space, Not to Code
109. SIMP-00A109 - Kitchen Toe Kick Not to Code, Hard Duct R6, not R8 not to code
110. SIMP-00A110 - Ducts - some are R6, not R8 Not to Code
111. SIMP-00A111 - Duct Line 12 Inch reduces down to 10 inch RTN undersized for 3 Ton
Evap
112. SIMP-00A112 - 5 Vent Supply Lines within 3 Ft not to Code
113. SIMP-00A113 - Duct System not to TVA Standards
114. SIMP-00A114 - Duct to Kitchen is not to Code, open underneath Cabinet
115. SIMP-00A115 - Kitchen Floor Vent & R6 Not Code
116. SIMP-00A116 - Main Duct R Side 4 Lines 3 7 inch 1 8 inch ducts
117. SIMP-00A117 - No brick lintel supporting brick
118. SIMP-00A118 - Pipe Leaking 10-20-17
119. SIMP-00A119 - No mastic Sealant on Takeoff Ducts
120. SIMP-00A120 - Final Assessment Code Violations in Crawlspace
121. SIMP-00A121 - Simpkins Response to Eddie Savage Response 2-21-19
122. SIMP-00A129 - Sill Plate Missing Vapor Bar, Unsealed, Shims Violating Mandatory
Code
123. SIMP-00A129A - Sill Plate Missing Vapor Barrier, Unsealed & Metal Shims Violating
Code 2
124. SIMP-00A131 - 1375 Round Hill Ln Mit. of Damages Expenses - FINAL 6-13-2023
125. SIMP-00A132 - L1-L25 Lowes Receipts 8-1-19
126. SIMP-00A133 - L26-L56 Lowes Receipts 8-1-19
127. SIMP-00A134 - MDPH1-MDPH2 Receipts 8-1-19
128. SIMP-00A135 - OMS1-OMS2 Receipts 8-1-19
129. SIMP-00A136 - PIR1-PIR6 Property Inspection Reports Receipts
130. SIMP-00A137 - PSD1-PSD5 Receipts 8-1-19
131. SIMP-00A138 - Ken Gillespie - Claim #CPP001047803 - Claim Denied 9-18-18
132. SIMP-00A139 - SW1-A - SW17 Receipts 8-1-19
133. SIMP-00A144 - Vent Pipe not to Code
134. SIMP-00A157 - Statute of Limitations Addressed for Plaintiff’s Complaint – 20CV-
50050
135. SIMP-00A160 - Mr. Simpkins Pillow Covered in Mold 1-22-2021
136. SIMP-00A161 - Mr. Simpkins Left Hand Exposure to Mold 1-18-2021
137. SIMP-00A165 - Mr. Simpkins Right Hand 3 Exposure to Mold 1-18-2021
138. SIMP-00A216 - Mr. Simpkins' Left Hand at 4 hours of infection – 2
139. SIMP-00A219 - Plaintiff's MSTR BR Covered in Plastic and Tarps for Protection – 36
140. SIMP-00AC010 - MSTR BTH CEILING MOLD 1
141. SIMP-00AC011 - MSTR BTH CEILING MOLD 2
Page 26 of 30
142. Simpkins Entitled Damages By Law $514M 2-16-2023
143. Skin Solutions Dermatology Diagnosis 12-12-18
144. Stachybotrys chartarum, Trichothecene Mycotoxins, and Damp Building-Related
Illness
145. Tumor Growth removed from R Back
146. Tumor removed from Left Back
147. Tumor that grew behind left ear
148. Update to DOJ, FBI, VA OIG, SON Extreme Health Affects Due to Mold 2-16-2023
149. WHO Dangerous Fungi Pathogen List 10-2022
Case Law Referenced For Specific Points in various documents:

1. Bowling v. Jones, 300 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.Ct.App.2008)
2. Brenda Benz-Elliott v. Barrett Enterprises, Lp Et. al.
3. Bush v. Cathey 598 S.W.2d 777 (1979)
4. Carey v. Piphus March 21 1978
5. Carpenter v. Donohoe
6. Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender
7. Connie Givens v. Ed Mullikin - 11-28-2000
8. Dianne Lutzak v. Phoenix Dev. Part. M2015-02117-COA-R3-CV-(10-18-2017)
9. Doe v. Sundquist
10. Fayne vs Vincent 121109
11. Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters. - E2009-02065-SC-R11-CV
12. Felker v. Felker, No. W2019-01925 WL 3507745, at 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2021)
13. Finchum v. Ace USA E2003-00982-COA-R3-CV. 8-23-2004
14. First Nat. Bank of Louisville v. Brooks Farms
15. Forrest Construction v JL Lauglin II v Thomas B Naive OPN
16. Holladay v. Speed 208 S.W.3d 408 Tenn. Ct. App. 8-21-2006
17. Joseph Riccardi V. Carl Little Construction, 7-26-2021
18. Murvin v. Cofer, 968 S.W.2D 304 (TENN. CT. APP. 1997)
19. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967)
20. Pro Se Litigant Filing Guide Revised 3-2010
21. Ralph Hall Et Al. v. Jimmy D. Tabb Et Al. (March 25, 2021)
22. Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc
23. Restatement 402A
24. Riccardi V. Carl Little Const. Co. No. E2020-00678-COA-R3-CV – (July 26, 2021)
25. Scott Campbell, Et Al. v. William H. Teague, Et Al. (March 31, 2010)
26. Smith v. UHS of Lakeside, Inc
27. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Tomlin
28. Wilson v. Dealy 434 S.W.2d 835 (1968)
29. Winkler v. Interim Services, Inc., 36 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (M.D. Tenn. 1999)
30. 13 Am.Jur.2d Building and Construction Contracts § 10 (2000)
31. 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 612 (2011)
32. Mireles v. Waco 502 US 9, 116 L Ed 2d 9, 14, 112 S Ct 286 (US 1991)
33. 261 Kan. at 862
34. 37 Creighton L. Rev. 493, 502 (2004)
35. Alisa Leigh Eldrige, et al. v. Lee Savage M2012-00973-COA-R3-CV (Ct. of App, December 28, 2012)
Page 27 of 30
36. Allen v. Corsano, D.C. Del., 56 F. Supp. 169, 170
37. Blanchard v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., C.A.5 (Fla.) 1965, 341 F.2d 351
38. Bodne v. Austin, 156 Tenn. 366, 2 S.W.2d 104 (Tenn. 1928)
39. Boro v. Hidell, 122 Tenn. 80, 120 S.W. 961 (Tenn. 1909)
40. Bowden, 27 S.W.3d at 916, (Bowden v. Ward, 27 S.W.3d 913 (Tenn. 2000)
41. Bowling v. Jones, 300 S.W.3d 288, 291 (Tenn.Ct.App.2008)
42. Brungard v. Caprice Wreckers, Inc., 608 S.W.2d 585, 590 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980)]." 812 S.W.2d at 592
43. Carter v. Krueguer, 916 S.W.2d 932 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)
44. Cole v. Wyndchase Aspen Grove Acquisition Corp., No. 3:05-0558, 2006 WL 2827452, at *4 (M.D.
Tenn. Sept. 28, 2006)
45. Coleman v. Daystar Energy, Inc., No. E2007-00226-COA-R3-CV, 2007
46. Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901, 904 n.1 (Tenn. 1999)
47. Custom Built Homes by Ed Harris v. McNamara, M2004-02703-COA-R3-CV, (2006)
48. Dailey v. Bateman, 937 S.W.2d 927, 930 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)
49. Dixon v. Mountain City Constr. Co., 632 S.W.2d 538, 541 (Tenn. 1982)
50. Dobbs v. Guenther, 846 S.W.2d 270, 274 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)
51. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn.1999)
52. Edwards v. Travelers Ins. of Hartford, 563 F.2d 105, 112 (6th Cir. 1977)
53. Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
54. Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters, 354 S.W.3d 287 (2011)
55. First Nat’l Bank of Louisville v. Brooks Farms, 821 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tenn. 1991)
56. FTC v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67, 81 (1934)
57. Gillespie v. Broadway Nat’l. Bank, et al., 68 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Tenn. 1934)
58. Greeter Const. Co. v. Tice, 11 S.W.3d 907, 910-11 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999)
59. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)
60. Hardcastle, 170 S.W.2d at 80
61. Haynes v. Cumberland Builders, Inc., 546 S.W.2d 228, 232 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976)
62. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 245-246 (1944)
63. Henry v. Goins, 104 S. W. 3d at 479 (Tenn. Sup. Ct. 2003)
64. Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325, 342 (Tenn. 2012)
65. Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896, 901 (Tenn. 1992)
66. Holladay v. Speed, 208 S.W.3d 408, 415 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)
67. Holt v. American Progressive Life Ins. Co., 7[31 S.W.2d 923, 927 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987)
68. Houseboating Corp. v. Marshall, 553 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tenn.1977)
69. Howell v. Davis, 43 Tenn. App. 52, 60, 306 S.W.2d 9, 12-13 (1957)
70. Hurley v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 922 S.W.2d 887, 892 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995)
71. In Re Estate of Greenamyre, 219 S.W.3d 877, 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005)
72. In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003)
73. In re Estate of Sylvia Marlene Tolbert, et al., v. State of Tennessee, No. M2017-00862-COA-R3-
CV)
74. Jones v. Prof’l Motorcycle Escort Serv., L.L.C., 193 S.W.3d 564, 572 (Tenn. 2006)
75. Karash v. Pigott, 530 S.W.2d 775, 777 (Tenn. 1975)
76. Keith v. Murfreesboro Livestock Market, Inc., [780 S.W.2d 751 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989)
77. Lavy v. Carroll, M2006-00805-COAR3-CV, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 809, at **9-10 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Dec. 26, 2007)
78. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S. Ct. 2194 (1988)
79. Macon Cty. Livestock Mkt. Inc. v. Ky. State Bank, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 343, 349 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)
80. Maddox v. Olshan Found. Repair & Waterproofing Co. of Nashville, L.P., No. M2018-00892-COA-R3-
CV, 2019 WL 4464816, at *17 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2019)
81. Marquette Corp. v. Priester, D.C.S.C. 1964, 234 F. Supp. 799
Page 28 of 30
82. McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997))
83. McClain v. Kimbrough Constr. Co., Inc., 806 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)
84. Morrow v. Jones, 166 S.W.3d 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004)
85. Murvin v. Cofer, 968 S.W.2d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)
86. Nobes v. Earhart, 769 S.W.2d 868, 874 (Tenn. Ct. App.1988)
87. Parrott v. Parrott, 48 Tenn. 681, 687 (1870))." 42 S.W.3d at 67-68
88. Patel v. Bayliff, 121 Macon Cty. Livestock Mkt. Inc. v. Ky. State Bank, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 343, 349
(Tenn. Ct. App. 1986)
89. Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240
90. Price v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 06-2216, 2008 WL 2910610, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 6,
2008)
91. Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233
92. Ralph Hall Et Al. v. Jimmy D. Tabb Et Al. W2020-00740-COA-R3-CV (March 25, 2021)
93. Ray v. Williams, No. W2000-03000-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 974671, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2002)
94. Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d at 457 (Tenn. 2012)
95. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 1979)
96. Restatement § 402A Special Liability Of Seller Of Product For Physical Harm To User Or Cons
97. Scott Campbell, Et Al. v. William H. Teague, Et Al. No. W2009-00529-COA -R3-CV (March 31, 2010)
98. Simmons v. Evans, 185 Tenn. 282, 206 S.W.2d 295, 296 (1947)
99. Sostchin v. Doll Enters., Inc., 847 So.2d 1123, 1128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
100.Southern Coal & Coke Co. v. Beach Grove Mining Co., 381 S.W.2d 299, 302 (Tenn. 1963)
101.Stacks v. Saunders, 812 S.W.2d 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990)
102.State v. Stevens, 78 S. W. 3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002)
103.Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn.1997)
104.Tartera v. Palumbo, [453 S.W.2d 780, 782 (Tenn. 1970)
105.TSC Indus., Inc. v. Tomlin, 743 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987)
106.U.S. v. $3,216.59 in U.S. Currency, D.C.S.C.1967, 41 F.R.D. 433
107.U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)
108.U.S.S. v. Cirami, C.A.2 (N.Y) 1977, 563 F.2d 26
109.United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985)
110.United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)
111.Valley v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348, 41 S. Ct. 116 ( 1920 )
112.Vic Davis Constr., Inc. v. Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc., No. E2017-00844-COA-R3-
CV, 2019 WL 1300935, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2019)
113.Wallace v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 938 S.W.2d 684, 686 (Tenn. 1996)
114.Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 432 (Tenn. 2011)
115.Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 670 (Tenn. 2006)
116.Whitaker, 32 S.W.3d at 230
117.Williamson v. Berry, How. 945, 540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 ( 1850 )
118.Young v. Enerpac, 299 S.W.3d 815, 817 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009)
119.Yvonne M. Hampshire v. Ricky L. Hampshire 934 P.2d 58, 254-261 Kan. at 862, (March 7, 1997)
Federal Statutes Referenced:

1. 2009 Fraud Enforcement and Recover Act, (FERA)
2. (18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 - Fraud And False Statements),
3. (18 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and swindles, Mail Fraud),
4. (18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Frauds and swindles, Wire Fraud),
5. (18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud), [Interstate trafficking of funds from a Federal Institution]
Page 29 of 30
6. (18 U.S. Code § 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax
stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting) [Interstate trafficking of funds from a Federal Institution]
7. (18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Sec. 1001 - Statements or entries generally), false and fraudulent
“Warranty of Completion of Construction.
8. (18 U.S. Code § 1010 - Sec. 1010 - Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal
Housing Administration transactions),
9. (18 U.S. Code § 1012 - Sec. 1012 - Department of Housing and Urban Development transactions),
10. (18 U.S. Code § 1031 - Major fraud against the United States), [This Federal Statute, 18 U.S. Code
§ 1031, may apply because of the Loan is a VA Loan backed by the Federal Government, which is
the United States.)
11. (18 U.S.C. § 3663A - Mandatory restitution to victims of certain crimes)
12. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) False Claims Act
13. 18 U.S.C. § 1014 the offense of making a false statement
14. 8 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud
Tennessee Statutes Referenced:

1. 39-14-154. Actions by Home Improvement Services Provider That Constitute Offense
2. 47-2-715 Buyer's Incidental and Consequential Damages 2021
3. 47-14-123. Prejudgment interest
4. Tenn. Code Ann. § 18-1-202 (2021 )Documents Disposable
5. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-510, Prohibited acts.
6. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-511 False Documentation (2021)
7. Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-6-512. Home Improvement Criminal Penalty
8. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103 - Limitation of actions — Exception
9. Tennessee_Construction_Compendium_2017
10. Tennessee_USLAW-Construction_Compendium_2021
11. Tennessee Constitution Article I, § VIII
12. Tennessee Constitution Article I, § XVII
13. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-105
14. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-109
15. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-202
16. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-205
17. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103
18. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-154
19. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101
20. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104
21. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109
22. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-314
23. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-715
24. Tenn. Code Ann. § 66-5-202
Page 30 of 30

Urgent Update To Doj, FBI, Son, Da, Va Oig 6-13-2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urgent Update To Doj, FBI, Son, Da, Va Oig 6-13-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VA Office of the Inspector General

Lisa O. Monaco Department of Veterans Affairs Office

United States Secretary of the Navy FBI Director Christopher Wray

Assistant US Attorney Taylor Phillips

Current Chancery Court Case Number: 20-CV-50050

UPDATE FROM THE PLAINIFF’S / APPELLANT’S SINCE 6-1-2023

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a) – False Claims Act;

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 the offense of making a false statement include:

Under 8 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud include:

Right Foot Mold Infection Showing

(See the Following Reports that “prove these facts.”

Chapter 14 - Offenses Against Property; Part 1 – Theft; § 39-14-105. Grading of Theft

Local Community Harassment By Teenagers

Prayer for Relief

Link to all Evidence is here:

Primary Document for Update (This Document):

Primary Immediate Read Supporting Documents:

List of Documents Attached as Evidentiary Exhibits:

Case Law Referenced For Specific Points in various documents:

Federal Statutes Referenced:

Tennessee Statutes Referenced:

You might also like