Can this possibly get any weirder?

Howard P.

It took about 5 minutes to find these guys on Facebook, or at least two men with their names from Kentucky. One lists himself as having gone to the Mccreary Central High School, the other has a current workplace visible to the public.

One would think that a couple alleged long term identity thieves would be a bit better at hiding.

I'll go make more popcorn.

I can caution that in at least two short-term "temporary" jobs I've had--Census Bureau cartographer/enumerator, and election judge--I have run into FAR too many instances of potentially confusing naming of children after elders.

Just for the record, I'm Alexander D. Mitchell IV, son of Alexander D. Mitchell III. I had an uncle who was a "Jr." to my mother's father. So I have experience living this.

The situations I refer to were far more extreme. I have seen, firsthand, situations where the same household had (I'm making up examples now) a Buford THOMAS Justice, a Buford TYRONE Justice, a Buford TEDDY Justice, and so forth. I once found one household with three generations with the same name in one house.......

I know nothing about the circumstances of this case, but I can simply point out that "same name" scenario may have more prosaic explanations than fraud.......

I agree with ADM4 - my speculation about the different middle names could be nothing at all.

What does seem to be factual is: (1) the NPS awarded a project that included asbestos removal to a contractor in a state (Wyoming) that does not have any registration or licensure program for asbestos removal and (2) the contractor gave the asbestos removal work to two out-of-state individuals whose home state asbestos licenses had expired seven years earlier.

Thanks Kelly, Sheriff Gleason says it well. Lots of questions involved here such as over and above the claimed fraud on the asbestos removal how much of the $ 800K did the NPS pay to Rimmasch/Wasatch for the cars restoration, what condition is the car now in etc.

My layman's guess is that the upcoming trial will be limited to the fraudulent claim surrounding just the asbestos issue and that all the other issues will get dealt with separately???

Much more to come eventually. Ross Rowland

Item 1 is not at all unusual or inappropriate. They're hiring a general contractor for the entire project. They expect you will hire qualified subcontractors for the specialized work. I do not have an electricians license nor am I registered surveyor. It's common for my projects to include both. I've had projects with over a dozen subs for various work items, many of which our company either isn't licensed to do (electrical, plumbing, survey, hazmat) or isn't equipped to do (welding, dirtwork, underground, drain fields). Nobody expects the prime to be able to self perform every last item on a big project.

Item 2 is a problem. At best, it's failure to do "due diligence". Both on the part of the contractor and the NPS. Why the NPS would allow any asbestos work to begin without verifying the subcontractor is properly licensed is a bit of a mystery. I have never done any work for the NPS, but I work for public agencies all the time. They all have a version of the "Request to sublet" form that you need approved before starting work. Does the subcontractor have the proper licenses, qualifications and certification etc.? This can be anything from the simple "Do they have a business license for the city?" to far more complex requirements.

The NPS knew there was asbestos involved. At some point the Project Manager should have been saying "Who's doing that work, how it's being done, etc?" and requesting the records of proper disposal of the hazardous materials. So, lots of blame to share on that one.

That's much easier said that done. TV would have you think there's this nationwide grid of information shared by every public agency. "Hey, pull up the fingerprints of those guys that robbed the bank back in 1992... Clickety, click... Here you go Chief!"

The reality is far different, especially for smaller agencies and in some states. They could be in the county slammer someplace for stealing a six pack, who knows.

But... the phones being disconnected and them totally vanishing does seem a bit weird. It sounded like they were all set to testify and now they vanish?

Checks the top of the page, did I log into "Criminal Minds TV Show Fanfic page" by mistake? What's next? Finding them stuffed in a boiler somewhere?

Yes, fraudulent asbestos abatement, especially on a federal project, is a HUGE deal. It makes them look really bad, at the very least incompetent. Somebody should have been managing the project and making sure everything was on the up and up. There's two explanations for why they didn't. 1) The project manager didn't do his job. 2) The contractor provided fraudulent documentation. Determining which was is very important to them, and obviously the answer of "fraud" is the one they want.

This is also much easier to prove than fraudulent invoicing. Invoicing seems cut and dry, but it can often be a matter of opinion. Who determines how much of the work is complete and what amount is owed? "You billed for 80%? It's not even close!" "Sure it is, the materials make up the majority. Most stuff is done, we just need to bolt it together and paint it!" Plenty of room for a grey area. Asbestos abatement?

"Are you licensed" is much easier to prove. That said, even then the outcome may surprise you. 2020 changed a lot of stuff. He may be able to prove that he did in fact submit his renewal info etc and it wasn't processed in a timely manner or properly. That's why we have trials.

As for the tank car accident? While certainly tragic, again it's much harder to prove intent. Industrial accidents happen. A lot. Even at places that try their best to work safely. You'd have to prove lack of training or disregard for safety etc. Again, not cut and dried in most cases.

I'm reminded of the time I was told that--after several sealed bags of removed asbestos from a steam locomotive project vanished with no explanation (and they were thorough enough to call every last volunteer of the railroad, including a guy whose only transportation was a bicycle and another with no car who was in a nursing home, to confirm none of them did anything with them), the director of operations went to the EPA office to ask what to do next in the circumstances.
I was told by another officer that the bureaucrat wordlessly handed the director an official EPA "Loss Of Asbestos" form to be filled out............

My lawyer neighbor just called! Apparently the government sought, and was granted "material witness warrants" to allow law enforcement probably the U.S. Marshalls the ability to go place the witnesses into custody so they can testify in trial. The warrants are "private" but here is the image from the Court docket.

This is getting interesting!

Do you have any idea why there are three material witness warrants while only two witnesses are missing?

Also, if the witnesses were already in police custody somewhere, would the material witness warrants allow them to be turned over to the US Marshalls?

My lawyer-neighbor tells me that this allows the individuals to be arrested to be placed into custody in order to testify at trial. If local law enforcement picks them up then they can be turned over to the marshals. She told me this is rare and unusual but used if a witness refuses to cooperate or tries to disappear.

That isn't 3 warrants, it's 3 actions. they asked the court, the court said yes, and then the court issued the warrant. The documents actually say "warrant" which implies it's just 1?

Could this have become personal? Maybe Mr. Rimmasch wrote some letters to the prosecutors or someone else as well? What a mess!

Thank you, I see that now - the 1st document was the Motion to issue a warrant, 2nd document was the Order granting the motion, and the 3rd document is the issued Warrant.