Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Nancy Love Indictment

    Transféré par

    Jesus Martinez
    2K vues17 pages
    Nancy Love Indictment

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Nancy Love Indictment

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    2K vues17 pages

    Nancy Love Indictment

    Transféré par

    Jesus Martinez
    Nancy Love Indictment

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 17
    KC. Document Page 1 of 17 WUDGE KATHLEEN CARDONE cILE ivctue unrven stares pisrrucr courr F {L.ED FORTHE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION pape 20 PM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SEALED INDICTME i Pint, 5 : £ cRIMINALNO. EP-16-c2-__ i § errsisuse 9371-Conspiey 12 g_ the United States 8 CT2: 18 USC §§ 1349 & 1341-Conspi § commit Mal Pros § CT 3: 18 USC §§ 134] & 2-Mail Fraud, and NANCY LOVE (6), 4 Aiding and Abetting Mail Fraud; § Cra isuse § 15150 257— Defendants § Sospiny vo Rett puta ne 3 CT 5:18 US.C. § 1623 False Declaration § Before rand ry, 3 CT 6: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 False Statements: ‘THE GRAND JURY CHARG EP16CRO69S COUNT ONE G8USC $371) (Conspiracy to Detraud the United States) Atal ies relevant to this indictment INTRODUCTION oteodart MMIII 2. on comloyee-aiinisrator of the El Paso Independent Schoo! District (EPISD). Durisg most of the period, he served as an EPISD Associate Superintendent. ef: Es enpoyessdiiistor of EPISD, Dasng ‘most ofthe period, be served asa ‘Assistant Superintendent-Secondary Sehoels Division lor AI 5a ephoye of the EPISD. During most ofthe period, he seved asthe Pvincipal of Austin High School ct: TR; x emplosee of the EP most of the period he served as.an Assistant Principal of Austin High Schoo) D. During Case 3:16-c1-00593-KC Document 24 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 17 5, ESEA, Title 1, NCLB: Tite |, Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1365 (ESEA), also known as the “No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). was enaeied in 2001 to help ensure that all children have an equal opportunity to obiain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on academic schieveinent standards, 6, Title I Funds/AYP; Tile I, NCLB provides federal financial assistance to public schools ‘with disadvantaged children (children ftom low-income families) by messuring exch School and school dsrcts progress toward meeting mandated goals based on Adequate Yearly Progress (AVP). [AYP goals include four indicators: readinglangvage avis and math test performance, Attendance and grackation rates. When a school district misses AYP, the state is required to take af least one of several specified corrective actions against the district, including, but not limited 10, requiring the institution of new curriculum, replacing the relevant personnel or removing specific cerapus(s) from the district's jurisdiction. 1. ‘TAKS: From 2007 through 2011, every eligible tenth grade Texas public high school student was required tobe assessed, forthe purposes of evaluating Texas high schools for federal accountabiliy, NCLB, using the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skis TAKS) test, which included assessments for progress in reading; writin, social studies, ‘mathematics, and science. 8. “Subgroups” or “federally required student groups” are groups of children classified by special needs, including: Limited English Proficiency (LEP), Special Education (SPED); Economically Disscvantaged; Hispanic and African-American, among others. NCLB established the number of students that constitute @ subgroup. The subgroups are set at {ify ($0) students or more foreach school, 9, Accountability for Subgroups: The data collected and reported to the U.S. Deparment ‘of Education (DOE) and the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for NCLB accountability ‘Purposes is required be accurate. Data fora subgroup is required tobe reported if there fre 50 or more students in the subgroup. If subgroup at a campus falls below fifty Soden, the campus is no longer measured for the performance of dat subgroup for accountability” purposes; those students are absorbed into the campus population 3s 2 ‘whole and there isa greater chance thatthe campus will meet AYP. 10. LEP- Limited Engish Proficiency (subgroup). EPISD received federal Title { funds based upon the understanding thet every stent, including those classified as members of the LEP subgroup, would take the designated test for accountability, spesfically, the tenth grade TAKS test Ifa Spanish speaking student was new to EPISD, for upto three yeas, if necessary, they could take the TAKS test in Spanish, the Linguistically Accommodated Test (LAT). The scores ofthe LAT did not count to measure NCLB accountability, but the student's satus 5 LEP was included inthe numbers comprising the subgroup. Case 3:16-cr-00383KC Document 34 Filed 04/2016 Page 3 of 17 11, SPED; NCLB denoninates Special Education (SPED) asa disadvantaged subgroup. 12, Priority Schools Division (PSD) -The EPISD Superintendent created the PSD at the end of the 2005-7008 school year te address academic needs at fifteen EPISD campuses ‘which were either scademically unacceptable or did not meet AYP for two eonsceutive years, and ai an additonal seven campuses which were labeled borderline by NCLB *aecountabilty” standards and needed serious intervention. Five of EPISD's high schools ‘were designed as riovty Schools. 13, Campus Directors: In order 19 monitor the progress of the campuses in the PSD, the EPISD Superintendent crested the positon of Associate Superintendent fo overse the PSD. Additionally, he created six positions entitled “Campus Director” and designated six individuals to work as Campus Directors with supervisory roles at Priority Schoo! campuses. |4, The United States Department of Education (DOE) is a federal regulatory agency of the Executive Brarch of the federal goverament whose mission is to promote student achievement ané preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational texcellence and enssring equal access. Among other activities, the DOE enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in programs that receive federal funding, including NCLB. 18, PEIMS: the Public Education Information and Management System (PEIMS) is a State of Texas computer tracking system which contains al the student demographic data for tach district inthe State, including data indicating whether a student is coded as being par ofa subgroup, such as LEP or SPED. 16, PEIMS Snapshot: TEA mandates that a “snapshot” of the isret’s PEIMS data be taken the last Friday in October of each year and sent to TEA. The purpose of the snapshot submission is o the State of Texas can Wdentfy which students will be taking the TAKS inthe Spring: which students taking the TAKS for accountability test in the tenth grade are members of subgroups; and other relevant data which is later passed on to national company located cuside ofthe state of Texas which prepares the ests foreach student based on the studert’s demographic description. 17. TEKS: TEA mancates Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) which are basic scademic requirements for student mastery of each course tsken to obtain a credit necessary for graduation. 18, Graduation Cohort: One Element of NCLB AYP is # campus’ graduation rate. Graduation rate is based on the percentage of freshmen who graduate in four years. A ‘sroup of studens who enter a high school as freshmen and graduate ws seniors ater four years is also known asthe “cohort.” 19, Credit for Attendance: Section 25,092 of the Texas Education Code requires, in part, ‘hat a student not te given ered for @ course unless he or she was in atlendence at lest ‘90% of the days the course was offered. To award a student credit fora course altended for less than 90% of the time, a petition from the student must be heard and granted by @ 3 20, 2 2B m4 Count Case 3:16-cr-0 KC Document 34 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 17 {formal Awendance Committee who may give credit to the student based on guidelines defining “extenuating circumstances" established by the district's Board of Trustees, A student sho is stiendance for at least 75 percent but less than 90 percent of the days @ lass is offered may be given creditor a inal grade for the class if the stadent completes 1 plan approved ty the school’s principal that provides for the student to meet the insrwtional requirements of the class. Credit for Foreign Transfer Students: Texas Administrative Code, Section 74.26(2\2) requires that a scheol district must ensure that records of out-f-country transfer students are evaluated and thatthe students placed inappropriate classes “prompsly.” Credit for Graduation: Texas Administrative Code, Section 74.26(c) mandates that a ssudent may only eam a credit for & course for high school graduation if the student receives a grade wich is the equivalent of 70 on a scale of 100, based upon the “essential knowledge and skills foreach course." Removal from the LEP subgroup: Texas Administrative Code (TAC) mandated specific criteria thar must be met inorder to remove a student from the LEP elessifiction subgroup: {89 TAC, Section 1225 (h): For ext ftom a bilingual education or English asa second language program, a student may be classified as English proficient atthe end of the school year in which student would be able to participate equally in general education, all English, instructional program. 89 TAC, Section 1240: The district shall notify the student's parent of the reclassification as English proficient and his or her exit from the bilingual edveation oF English asa secon¢ language program as required under Texas Education Code , Section 29,056(2) The parent of a student enrolled in a distiet which is required 10 offer bitingual education or English as a second language programs may appeal to the commissioner of education if the district fails to comply with the law othe rules, EPISD Official Bilingual Education Policy, Adopted February 8, 2000 and in place through June 6, 2013, regarding Bilingual Education, PROGRAM EXIT, tracked the language of Sections 1225 (hand 1240 ofthe TAC. Rewards for Mesting AYP: ESEA Section 1116(4)(2) provides that, should a local education agency meet or exceed the Site's definition of adequate yearly progress as defined in 1111(b)2KAYE, the State may make instutonal and individual rewards, including bonuses and recognition as described elsewhere in 11174). ‘The Grand Jury alleges and incorporates the Scheme and Anifie to Defraud alleged in Two as if fully set out herein, Beginning on or about February 1, 2006 and continuing to and Iuding on oF about ‘September 30, 2013, inthe Western District of Texas, the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 4 Filed 04/20/18. Page 5 of the defendants, conspired and agreed togeter, with other employees ofthe El Paso Independent School Disret (EPISD) known, but not charged herein, and with others unknown to deftsud the United States and an agency of the Unitsd Sites, that is, the defendants, by decepion, conspired to impair, obstruct and defeat the legiimate funetion of the United States Department of Education, and Overt Acts in furtherance ofthe conspracy, and to effect the objects thereof, a least one of the conspirators herein committed one or more of the following overt ats, among others, inthe Western District of Texas, and elsewhere: a a TES vo a Sse PSS gh reer epee erm aarp a 2. On oF about 2008 through and including on or about 2010, at meetings of EPISD Principals, defends, ET and others repeatedly gave high schoot principals “marching orders" “put up barriers” io prevent siudents inthe LEP subgroup from going onto the tenth grade Ino bout July 200, detest I inglemenied en EPISDstaesy ‘oihieling cts ose Op sigs wiv ned tastered to EPISD Mom Mess until the students hed completed the 9" grade at EPISD, at which time the students would be placed in the 11° grade, 4 Stee Denke 20 ed EE es» me EPID High School Prince and Leaders art een of Sophomores in ‘hich e woe, aong ar ings, “lense ote atached elton rein mi ‘year reclassificatior of 10% graders.” “Please note this reclassification process aids us in Tonorng sents puting cen scdemte er Furbemnore i gs te tue sep orto patting ina nel fon witht ess 5. On or about August 20,2008, defender SSAA sent cn email meskage 10 efendans,| ‘and others staling, among ther things, “When speaking with paren, please do not tll them that if their students pass fall semester 1 5 3:16-cr-00693-KC Document 34 Filed 04/20/16 Page 6 of 17 classes, they can peition to move to 10 grade at Christmas. That is against policy ~ they will remain 9 graders through May, 2009 regardless of ered performance during this schoo! year..." On of about Avugut 12, 2008, he defn III so 0) emai Sresagecretng Campus Diets and thr ols al ep ster ode in te ninth grade frente fist yar t EPISD respective ofthe frian reds vnich ey were ented testa Mat 269 Ie! cn a de icon ving ear mat stewed be pe ut of hk evled clases 1 fond TAKS math rg On oF sbout September 22, 2009, defender TTI secs “high priory” memorandum to High School Director, Testing Coordinators, ad ELL Leaders Concerning en opporunity exit stents fom LEP sas to a statu that didnot “count Sesinst you” which also read, in par “Wf you in any way ae predicting a remote possibility of being ander the 50/ 10%, geting as many Students ASAP to 11 F II status tserua: On or abou Sepenoer 23,200, de EE noses he EPISD Campus Dict ing the ruber often pade sens that were, 08 Ba fate sified es LEP cach EPISD high chook ering iia esting, eld Buter efendan ezmphasized that October 29, was the for subgroups and frovided instruction conceming the use of “Teaver codes” that would not affect AYP accountability. tn or about the Spring of 2011, defend, inscuces an administrator at EI Paso High School not to reflet i the school's records the fect that ‘credits that were avarded to students who had nat been enrolled in the class for which the credit was awarded had been eamed trough the “credit ecovery” methods. Coe Sec he ec a to approximately 77 sudens to reflect they did not have the appropriate number of credits to be classified as sophomores. Teroughout th 20-2010 school ea, defen St stn High School admin straor to change previously propeny marked absences of studens to sake il appear a ifthe student were present on days designated by the State to measure the atendance rate (On or about a date unknown, in the 2009-2010 school year, defendant told an Austin High School administrator to “make the attendance fappet, Ao mi hat ites,” and “target the second and sixth period.” ‘ Case 3:16-cr-04 KC Document 34 Filed 04/20/16 Page 7 of 17 \ own, in the 2009-2010 school year, defendant essed deen —z- is effors i cange Steer steric neets by incniewing sens wo mn een ard shen y thir teacher. 16. On oF abey cece, A sen serail to defendant Jentided, “EPISD High School Credit Recovery Options" 0 which was alached 2 "Credit Recovery Matix” which, among other things, permitted a student who was denied credit for a course based on the fect that he or she had not met the 90 peeent State attendance requirement could “be handled solely by the principal if the stent had attended the clas at least 75 percent of the time, regardless ‘of the fact that no “extenuating circumstances” were present that caused the students? absences 17.05 stow nay 4,21, A coi eis See viata tee eee eer emmy os or Cee ee ee fot ts macs medio een ot 18.0n or about Febmary 23, 2011, TAKS tests, prepared using high school student demographie information provided by EPISD to'a test publishing company, were sen, via Federel Express, from lowa City, Iowa to EPISD in Fl Paso, Texas. 19, On or about April 2, 2011, TAKS tests, prepared using high school student demographic information provided by EPISD to @ tes publishing company, were sent, via Federal Expres, from [ova City, Iowa to EPISD in El Paso, Texas. 20. On or tout July 25,2011, deena, I ape 182 ret ecovery fers; esteringCdit which had been denied Aus High School student based on te Siar tandaed ras govemning excesive absences, whch forms proved obs for teremoval ofthe erat CNC ote 21 On or ant a 2, 201, nt IA re 54 rit vey forms retrng er which had beat Se AUN RBH Shoo! sudens bass on he Sine mandated uss governing exsosve absences, which forms povided no bass for the removal of he no ered (NC) code, 22.0n or about June of 2012, defends I 2s the removal of 418 “20 cedit" CNC") codes fom the recor Of students at Austin High School to restore cedis that counted for graduation of those stents 2. raat he 20.2010 sol pe et EE approximately 11,000 fraudulent entries regarding absences of Austin High School, IRdng 7756 changes tothe ec 0247 ets nthe 20082010 padating Sobor 2 aden BKC Documen Filed 04/20/16 Page 8 of 17, 2 Fall of 2010 and the Spring of 2011, defend Finsincted an Austin High Schoo! employee to withdraw studens from ihe school without tbe tenis’ consent oF ntiication, in violation of EPISD policy, andawhen Ui employes to do 50 without © written directive, the defendany ordered the employee to “just drop them.” all in violation of Tite 18, United States Code, Sestons 371, couNr Two (18 USC $§ 1349 & 1341) (Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud) “The Grand Jury re-leges and incorporates the Inoducton and Overt Acs alleged in Count One ofthis Indictment as if fll set out herein Beginning on or about February 1, 2006 and continuing to and including on or about September 30, 2013, inthe Western Dist of Texas, the Dist of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants, ‘conspired and agreed together with other employees ofthe El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) known, but not charged herein, and with others unknown 1.) to Knowingly attempt to Gevise and devise a scheme and artifice to defraud the United States Department of Education, the TEA and the EPISD and 2) to knowingly attempt to devise and devise a scheme and artifice to knowingly obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, represenations and promises both by affirmative acts and by deceitful concealment of material ‘ets, bth in violation of Title 18, United Sales Code, Section 1341; that is, the defendants conspired with each other and with others to violate the No Child Left Behind Aet (NCLB) portion of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in order to make the EEPISD campuses in the Priority School Division (PSD) appear to meet NCLB accountability ’ Coase 8:16-cr-00893-KC Document led 04/20/16 Page 9 of 17 status by arifiially iflaing the EPISD siste and federal accountability scores by providing materially fa 3, fetiions and fraudulent information to the TE? and th DOE regarding the grade classification, academic performance, and demographic make-up of students in order 0 mislead the United States government and the TEA conceming the manner in which the educational needs of the students were being met by EPISD; and in order to sucseed in the conduet and intimidated and threatened EPISD employees who did not follow the defendants’ rection regarding the improper administration of education and NCLB criteria; ‘SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD For the purpose of furthering the objects ofthe conspiracy, it was pert ofthe scheme and tific to defraud thatthe defendants used the following means forthe purpose of executing the scheme and aifice to defraud: 1. Beginning in about July 2006 and continuing through June 2013, the defendants, as ‘administrators and employees forthe EPISD, created and implemented a strategy to meet NCLB accountability to reduce atrsk student population subgroups in the EPISD to below filly students each so thatthe performance of the subgroups" students would not be measured for ‘Adequate Yearly Progress(AYP) as part of tbe NCLB accountability standards 2, Between July 2006 cantinuing through June 2013, the defendants, as administrators and employees forthe EPISD, put policies and practices in place that prevented all applicable and cligibe students from taking the tenth grade TAKS tes, nd practices which atficially inflated the graduation rates of eampuses through the improper awarding or restoration of subject credis ‘These variables to AYP were intentionally manipulated for the purpose of evading federal accountability and misrepresenting the true level of academic performance of EPISD campuses 3. An EPISD administrator created the Priority School Division (PSD), to identify, seratinize, and control EPISD school campuses of all grade clasifications which had failed to make ‘Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by NCLB and TEA standards, and which were in the process (of falling AYP or would likely fail AYP. 4. An EPISD administrator ereated the postion of Associate Superintendent of PSD, and Assistant Supetintendent of Secondary Education, which oversaw PSD and who would insure ‘every measure was taken to “make sure the campus would ge out of AYP jal.” — re ° Case 3:16-¢r-00693-KC Document 24 24 04/20/16 Page 10 of 17 6 3 lo eo, appoinied to supervise the PS 7. AnEPISD administrator created the positions of “Campus Director” which were supervised ‘by the Assovite or Assistant Superintendent of the PSD. Each Campus Director was assigned {0 several PSD campuses. Although the EPISD administration stated that « Campus Director ‘was to ficiltsle and essst the campus adminisration, in truth, regardless of the education, Cerifietion, o experience of the Campus Director, the Campus Director had more authority than the sehoo! Principal and had the power to set individual campus policy and t discipline and fie faculty if they di not comply with the conspirators’ methods of securing AYP. 8, The defendants and others engaged in a systemic scheme to artificially inflate perfomance in EPISD secondary schools, prsiculrly in Priority Schools, and thereby proved federal and state ‘education agencies with fle information that affected federal and state sccountability measures 8. The defendants devised methods 10 reduce he total tenth grade LEP student demographic by changing the numberof ereits required for LEP students tobe classified as tenth graders; 9, The defendants devised a method to reduce the mimber of students taking the tenth grade TAKS test by creating a folicy to wihold legitimately eared foreign credits from students iransferring to EPISD from Mexico for @petiod of time that ensured the students did not enter the tenth grade in a timely manner, in contravention o Site law. 10. The defendants devised a method to reduce the number of students taking the tenth grade TAKS test by improperly reclessfying studenis from the tenth grade to the ninth or eleventh trade, by changing passirg grades 10 failing and filing grades to passing and by deleting students" credits from theirtanscrps. 11, The defendants devised a method whereby students who were removed from classes for ‘TAKS turing were awarded false passing grades forthe class from which they were pulled, thus the students received credits for the classes they rarely altended assuring they would graduate with their cohort. 12, The defendants devised and caused to be administered sham credit recovery methods, thus aiving students eredit for courses required for graduation which the students did not earm, in Coniravention of TEA ILKS and ‘without ensuring mastery of the subject ur demonstrating ‘masiery of the subject 13. In order to disguise the fat tha certain schools were failing espects of AYP, including sraduation rate, the defendants encouraged and permited the administration of eredit recovery Tethods, such as “minicmesters,” 10 provide students with original credit for courses they had ‘ol taken, instead of limiting credit recovery methods fo students who had taken, but filed the ‘course, in contravention of tate policy and the spirit of “recovery.” 14, The defendants devised methods, including forgery of documents, o forgive excessive student absences in contravention of State standards, resulting in stodents achieving passing grades and course credit for participating in classless than the TEA mandated 90% attendance rie. 15, Ateach EPISD Campus Directors’ Meeting, conspirators required each Campus Director to "0 Case 3:16-cr-00€93-KC Document 34 Filed 04/ ‘dentfy students at their respective campuses who could be emaved from the LEP subgroup by reclassification out of the tenth grade; those who could be placed in bogus credit recovery programs and/or TAKS tutoring pull out initiatives to regain or slay in their cohort for {Baduation; or other means t0 maintain a LEP demographic of fewer than $0 students al the tampus to avoid AYP accountability or lo artificilly promote stadens to graduate espectively, 16, Each Campus. Diresor . sdministators and of defendant 8 the Associale Superintendent o Rand The Aswan Superimtengent of Secondary Education, to reduce tenth gtade LEP numbers to 49 students of less and to meet AYP by using tnd abusing any and all methods evailabe to raise graduation rates; out the directives of EPISD 17, To eeduce the tenth grade LEP population t 49 or less students in the PSD high schools, defendants, unnamed co-conspirators and others devised methods 10 erificially eliminate Studenis {fom appearing inthe annual PEIMS snapshot as a tenth grade member of the LEP Subgroup; which efforts would make it appear to the DOE and the TEA thatthe tenth grade did rot have a LEP subgroup forthe purposes of AYP and NCLB accountability; 18, To reduce the tenth grade LEP population to 49 or less students in the PSD high schools, defendants and unnamed co-conspirators, though intimidation and discouragement, caused student to withdraw fom schoo! or fil to enroll in School by conducting unwarranted residency checks and through threats and coercion 19, Defendans and othe o-conspiatrs, inching deter IN ea tpn to reduce or elimina the Afican-American subgroup at cetsn schools to make it appear to the DOE that no African American subgroup eisted on any EPISD PSD campus 20, In order to assure meeting sccountabilty standards, defendant instracted & Campus Director to administer the TAKS M (Modified) test to stagents who were not designated as Special Education students to assure passing scores. In furtherance of the schene to defraud the United States and to obtain money and property by material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises both by affirmative acts and by deol concesnent of mater het, detente defendants, on February 73,2011, April 26, 2011, and on other dstes within five years ofthe date ofthis indictment, seat nd caused tobe sent and delivered by commer interstate caer, Federal Express testing materials from Towa City, Iowa to El Paso, Texas, which testing rmaterils contained false and fraudulent information regarding the tue grade level of LEP students enrolled at he EFISD, and transnited and caused the transmission by wire, in interstate 4" Case 31 6-07-0NE82KO Anement aA 5 Page 12. of 17 and foreign commerce, of writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, including EPISD campus ratings ftom the TEA in Austin, Texas DOE in Washington, D.C, all in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Seetions 1349 and 1341. COUNT THREE (18 USC. 1341 & 2) (Mail Fraud and Aiding and Abetting Mail Fraud) “The Grand Jury reslleges and incorporates the Introduction and Overt Acts alleged in Count One, and the Scheme and Arie to Defraud alleged in Count Two ofthis Indictment as ie fully set out herein, Beginning on or aout February 1, 2006 and continuing to and inluding September 30, 2013, inthe Western Distict of Texas, the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants, 2s principals and siding and abetting each other, did knowingly attempt to devise and devise 2 scheme and artifice to defraud the United Sites Department of Education, the TEA and the EPISD and did knowingly attempt to devise and devise scheme end artic to knowingly obtain money and propery by means of material ise and fraudulent pretenses, representations sd promises both by affirmative acts and by deceitfil concsalment of materi facts; thats the defendants provided and caused to be provided maternlly false, Ssttious and sraudulent information tothe TEA and the DOE regarding the grade classification, academic performance, and demographic make-up of EPISD students in onder to mislead the DOE and the TEA concerning the manner in which the educational needs of the students were being met at EPISD in order to make the EPISD campuses in the Priority School Division (PSD) appear to meet NCLB accountability status by artificially inflating the EPISD state and federal secountailty e Case 3:16-6r-00603-KE Dacument 24 Filed 04/20/56 Page 13 of 17 (GEREN scourge E050 enpoes os sh ‘conduct and intimidated aad Uweatened EPISD employees who did not follow the defendants’ direction regarding the improper administration of education and NCLB criteria, and for the purpose of exceuting and attempting 10 execute the scheme and srifice to defaud and the scheme and arifee to obin money and propeny by means of material alse and fraudulent pretenses, represenatons und promises, both by affirmative sets and by deceit concealment of tnaeril fats, on February 23, 2011, Apel 26,2011 and on oer dates within five years ofthe date ofthis indictment, sex and cused to be sent end delivered by commercial interstate aries, Federal Expres, testing materials fom towa City, lowa to El Paso, Texas, which testing materials contained fale and fraudulent information regarding the true grade level of LEP studensenrlled a the EPSD, all in violation of Tile 18, United Stses Code, Sections 1341and 2 COUNT FOUR (18 USC §§ 1513(6) & 371) (Conspiracy to Retalate Against s Witness) ‘The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates the Introduction and Overt Acts alleged in ‘Count One, and the Scheme and Ailice fo Detraud alleged in Count wo ofthis Indictment as if fully set out herein Beginning on or about the Spring semester of the 2010-2011 EPISD school year and continuing to and including September of 2013, inthe Wester District of Texas and elsewhere, the defendants, NANCY LOVE (6), b Case 2:16 or 00698 KC Document 34. Filed 04/2 conspired with each other and with others known and unknown othe grand jury to retaliate and to take harmful ection aginst person for providing truthful information io a iw enforcement officer resting tothe commission of Federal offense in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Section 1513(6; thai, the defendant, in retaliation forthe fact that ceriin employees, ofthe EPISD, Teacher A and Teacher B, hed provided and were providing thf information to agents ofthe Federal Buesu of Investigation, federal law enforcement officers, concerning the commission of setsin federal crimes, the defendants conspired to terminate and preven the employment of Teacher A and Teacher B at Austin High School end fo harm their personal end professional reputations by Wicker, deceit and lies, and Overt Acts in furtherance ofthe consptacy, and to effet the objets thereof, atleast one of the conspirators heten committed one or more ofthe following overt acs, mang ahers, in the Westem Distt of Texas, and elsewhere: 1. In or about the Spring semester of 2012, Austin High School Counselors collected approximately 156 pre-registration forms from 8! grade, middle school students for the 2012-2013 “AS” Css. 2 Onor about August 28, 2012, Teacher A and Teacher B provided information tothe FBI ‘onceming conduc! occuring st Austin High School related to 2 FBI federal criminal investigation. 3. On or about Jamary 2013, che deena nsrcied employees of Austin High shoot “fudge”atudent tendancemumber in eran Austin High School Courses o make it appear othe EPISD Needs Assessment Commie that Austin had “tro projected student enrollment in the classes tobe taught by Teacher and Teacher 4. On or about Samay 2013, he defendant, A te 0 counssors a ‘Astin High School to curt enolinen in Teacher A's elses because Teacher A was “the tries forthe FB against Dr, Tames.” 5, On or about Fetnary 25,2013, the defend old PSD Hasan Resources investi ht he had ven Austin ip Seoor Couselo dice 9 “ Case 2:16-¢r-00€03 KE Document 34 Filed 04/20/26 remove students from thelist for Teacher A’s classes pursuant to a directive from Needs “Assessment that postions at Austin High School had o be cut 6 Ot as 9,203, ed I i 8 oi High Sehool Comparative Report for inclusion in the Austin Tigh School Needs eee te wich nded ha hes den nee n acc pt Smaart 7. On of about August 16, 2013, defendant, NANCY LOVE, falsely reporied to EPISD police that a recent Austin High School graduate wanted to speak with the police to discuss pressing cririnal charges against Teacher B 8 Onorabout Augest19, 2013, dtendar ii» is oce at Austin High School, intacted a recent Aust High School graduate that he had researched the criminal statues of limitations on a 2017 insiden conceming Teacher B and that since the latte was two years, it had not run yet 9. On or stout Asp 19,200,

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi