Friday, September 4

Joshua M. Culver, an Indiana man who allegedly set about forging Chief Justice Roberts’ signature on a fake Supreme Court order, has been indicted in the US Department of Justice‘s Northern District of Indiana on five federal counts, according to court records reported by UPI.

The indictment charges Culver with four counts of falsely impersonating an officer of the United States and one count of forging the signature of a judge and a court seal, according to The Hill. Culver was taken into custody in Colorado and was expected to appear before a judge for a detention hearing.

The Charges: Forging Chief Justice Roberts and Beyond

The alleged conduct spans several months and multiple fabricated identities. Last September, Culver purportedly forged Chief Justice John Roberts’ signature and affixed a counterfeited court seal to an order directed at a Grant County, Indiana court, instructing it to drop theft charges against him.

On separate occasions that same month, Culver allegedly identified himself as a National Security Agency agent on at least two occasions, reportedly in attempts to obtain information about a family member.

In January, the conduct escalated. Culver allegedly approached a Lake County, Indiana judge while claiming to be a ‘Special Master enforcing orders of the United States Supreme Court,’ seeking the dismissal of criminal cases and judgments against him, according to The Hill. FindLaw’s Courtside blog reports that Culver also allegedly pressured employees of the Lake County Superior Court into altering vital records during the same impersonation.

On 2 February, Culver is alleged to have sent a letter purportedly from the Director of Tailored Access Operations (TAO), demanding under ‘federal directive’ that a pending criminal case be dismissed and all warrants quashed on the basis that he was a ‘federal asset.’

What Is Tailored Access Operations?

Culver’s indictment refers to TAO as a ‘purported intelligence agency,’ but the unit is real. Tailored Access Operations was a cyber-intelligence-gathering unit of the NSA, reportedly established around 1997 and headquartered at Fort Meade, Maryland. Around 2017, following the agency’s ‘NSA21’ restructuring under Director Mike Rogers, it was reorganised and renamed Computer Network Operations within the NSA’s Directorate of Operations. The indictment’s description of it as ‘purported’ may reflect the allegation that Culver falsely presented himself as its director, rather than any doubt about the unit’s existence.

The breadth of Culver’s alleged scheme sets this case apart from routine fraud. Each fabricated identity, NSA agent, Supreme Court Special Master, and TAO director, was deployed in service of the same underlying purpose: persuading courts and officials to dismiss criminal proceedings against him.

Courts and law enforcement agencies receive fraudulent documents with some regularity, but the alleged use of a forged order bearing the name of the Chief Justice of the United States to influence a state criminal proceeding is the kind of conduct that brings federal prosecutorial attention quickly. Forging the signature of a federal judge engages federal criminal law, taking the matter well beyond what any state court could address alone.

Culver’s case was first reported by Bloomberg News. The docket entries in the Northern District of Indiana reflect the filing of the purported Chief Justice order as an exhibit.

Subject to any further proceedings, Culver faces the prospect of a detention hearing before the federal court in Indiana following his arrest in Colorado. The outcome of that hearing will determine whether he remains in custody pending trial, and the government’s approach to that application is likely to reflect the range and persistence of the alleged impersonations across multiple courts and officials.

Share.
Law News | Indiana Man Faces Federal Charges for Forging Chief Justice Roberts’ Signature

Catherine Sadler practised law for fourteen years before she started writing about it. She trained at a City firm, qualified into commercial litigation, and spent the bulk of her career at a mid-sized practice handling regulatory disputes, professional negligence, and the kind of cases that are dull to describe and expensive to lose. She writes about court judgments, regulatory enforcement, legal reform, and the cases that set precedent without making the evening news. She can read a judgment and explain what it actually means for the people who were not in the courtroom. Catherine lives in Oxfordshire. She reads the Law Gazette out of habit and considers the phrase 'access to justice' to be doing a lot of unsupported work.

Comments are closed.