ILNews

Identity thief forged Indiana federal judge's signature

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


A convicted identity thief from Indiana with at least four aliases pleaded guilty earlier this week in a Montana federal court on charges that he not only impersonated a military officer and stole multiple identities, but also that he forged court documents last year and signed the name of U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton from the Southern District of Indiana.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana announced Tuesday that Jeremy Clark-Erskine, a 36-year-old resident of both that state and Indiana, pleaded guilty to four counts: forging a U.S. judge’s signature, false presentation of a Social Security number with the intent to deceive, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, and aggravated identify theft.

Charging documents and a criminal complaint detail a scheme that appears to have come to light in late August or early September 2009, when Clark-Erskine entered a military base in Montana and tried to obtain a military identification card, ballistic plates, and other Army equipment. He was wearing an Army combat uniform with captain’s rank and Special Forces and other high-ranking badges, and gave the name of Angus Jocko Ferguson. He also gave a false Social Security number and told military personnel that he’d been released from active duty earlier that month and was reassigned to the 19th Special Forces Group in Draper, Utah.

An affidavit supporting the criminal complaint says that Clark-Erskine showed false military orders and documents, and requested an access card by the end of the day. An investigation showed that he’d applied for a Montana driver’s license earlier that month under the name of Ferguson, providing a Tennessee birth certificate and Illinois driver’s license under the name of Michael B. Lafferty II. The Indianapolis FBI Field Office helped in the investigation and found that the man had also gone by the names of Jeremiah Ui’Neill and Finn Jeremiah Keenan in recent months.

The real Michael Lafferty told investigators that Clark-Erskine had stayed with him earlier in the year under the name of Finn Jeremiah Keenan, and that he had ultimately learned that someone was using his bank account information to make purchases and write fraudulent checks. Documents and records tied all the false identities together, and fingerprints showed his true identity as Clark-Erskine.

Though he has aliases, state and federal dockets show that Clark-Erskine is no stranger to Indiana’s court system. The Indiana Department of Correction lists him as being first convicted and sentenced in November for three felony forgery charges, and also sentenced for felony theft in March 2009. But in June, he escaped from jail and a Marion County Sheriff’s warrant for his arrest went out in his name. Five federal habeas or related claims appear in both of Indiana’s federal courts sine 2003, the most recent being a case dismissed in March 2009 by Judge Hamilton, then serving as chief judge for the Southern District.

A grand jury indictment that originally listed 13 counts says that when the federal investigators searched the car he was driving – reported stolen out of Chicago – they found inside phony documents, including two fraudulent court records dated Aug. 4, 2009 – an “Entry” and “Judgment” which would allow him to obtain a new Social Security number. Both had the forged signature of Judge Hamilton, false case numbers, and what appeared to be a seal from the Southern District of Indiana, according to court documents.

That vehicle was ultimately discovered in January in California, where Clark-Erskine was arrested.

While it’s only one charge against him, the penalty for forging a federal judge’s signature according to Title 18 U.S.C. § 505 is five years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, and three years supervised release. Clark-Erskine faces a total of 10 years in prison for the four charges, as well as a mandatory two-year imprisonment for aggravated identity theft. Sentencing is set for July 21 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT