See 49 U.S.C. § 1113(a)(4). Other statutes prohibit false testimony under oath (18 U.S.C. § 1621), obstruction through destruction or falsification of evidence (18 U.S.C. § 1519), and false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). The grand jury has not alleged any such conduct or charges here, but they are available as recourse in the proper circumstances.

The statutes states: Whoever--(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1621. Case 2:12-cv-02078-MMB Document 170 Filed 06/03/13 Page 9 of 11 10 John Doe 16 lied under oath in a judicial proceeding.

See, e.g., Waglow Decl., ¶ 11 & Case 1:14-cv-03676-AT Document 92 Filed 09/02/16 Page 16 of 23 12 Ex. J at HUD0001235; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1621. No plausible reading of the Section 8 statute, regulations, or HUD Handbook requires a landlord or HUD to hold a due process hearing to permit a family member to challenge other family members’ compliance with their affirmative obligations, including the requirement to tell the truth.

Rather, perjury on any material fact strikes at the core of the judicial function and warrants a dismissal of one’s right to participate at all in the truth seeking process. If one can be punished for perjury with up to five years imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, it should not seem out of place that a civil action might be dismissed for the same conduct. Arnold v. Cnty.

However, none of those federal criminal statutes provide a private right of action.”); Piorkowski v. Parziale, 2003 WL 21037353, at * 8 (D.Conn. May 7, 2003) (holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1621 and 1623 do not provide a civil cause of action); Traveler v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2007 WL 1830807, at * 2 (N.D. Ind. June 22, 2007) (holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 and 1623 are criminal statutes which do not provide a civil right of action for damages); Isbell v. Stewart & Stevenson, Ltd., 9 F. Supp. 2d Case 1:10-cv-03800-JBW-JO Document 23 Filed 11/22/10 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 455 DB1/66066767.1 16 731, 734 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (finding that there is no basis under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 and 1623 for any private right of action). There is, therefore, not private right of action for Plaintiffs’ Counts four through six, and the Counts must be dismissed.

54 5 USC § 552a(i)(3). 55 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 (perjury) & 1823 (false declaration before grand jury or court). 56 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (punishing one who, “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact [or] makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation”).

at 660. Here, leading experts in the field, such as former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, have publically stated that criminal charges were justified for Defendant Clinton’s wrongful acts.7 Former Associate Attorney General Rudy Giuliani spoke of “16 crimes he believes the evidence suggests [Defendant Clinton] is already guilty of,” including: (1)  18 U.S.C. § 201 – Bribery (2)  18 U.S.C. § 208 – Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest (3)  18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy (4)  18 U.S.C. § 1001 – False Statements (5)  18 U.S.C. § 1341 - Frauds and Swindles (6)  18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Fraud by Wire (7)  18 U.S.C. § 1349 – Attempt and Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud) (8)  18 U.S.C. § 1505 – Obstruction of Justice (9)  18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Destruction (Alteration or Falsification) of Records in Federal Investigations or/and Bankruptcy (10)   18 U.S.C. § 1621 – Perjury (11)   18 U.S.C. § 1905 – Disclosure of Confidential Information (12)   18 U.S.C. § 1924 – Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material 7 Michael Mukasey, Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge is Justified, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 21, 2016, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158 Case 1:16-cv-01606-ABJ Document 30 Filed 11/18/16 Page 5 of 10 6 (13)   18 U.S.C. § 2071 – Concealment (Removal or Mutilation) of Government Records (14)   18 U.S.C. § 7201 – Attempt to Evade or Defendant a Tax (Use of Clinton Foundation Funds for Personal or Political Purposes) (15)   18 U.S.C. § 7212 – Attempts to Interfere with Administration of Internal Revenue Laws8 Importantly, James Comey, current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, publically stated that Defendant Clinton was “extremely careless in their handling of very sens

Section 1621 provides that “[n]o . . . forfeiture of property accruing under customs laws shall be instituted unless such suit or action is commenced within five years after the time when the alleged offense was discovered.” 18 U.S.C. § 1621. As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, the five-year limitations period begins to run on the date of the “alleged offense,” which “clearly means the alleged offense that gives rise to the civil forfeiture action.”

Indeed, as a suspended lawyer seeking readmission, she undoubtedly wanted to show that she could be attentive for prolonged periods in court. Anyone so anxious to serve on a jury that she would misrepresent who she is, and risk criminal prosecution by doing so, see 18 U.S.c. § 1621, cannot be considered impartial. Someone who commits fraud to get on a jury cannot evaluate the credibility ofwitnesses, much less sit in judgment ofothers who are accused of fraud.

Thereafter, on at least October 18, 2010, and likely on October 20, 2010, as the Court previously found, Hecker committed perjury, a federal felony, thus violating a standard condition of release that he violate no federal, state or local law. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621-23 (perjury statutes). There is no question courts have authority to revoke a defendant’s release when the defendant violates his release order, even an order entered following a guilty plea.