This file was presented to Governor George Bush Jr., the attorney general of Texas, the press, district attorneys, judges, and others in enforcement in the corrupt government in the state of Texas. President wanna-be Bush, refused and has to date DONE NOTHING as the executive officer of the state of Texas, to bring these people to justice. WHY would the U.S. want this kind of person in any office of government?
Eric Moebius was a Texas attorney, who gathered all the evidence and data. He has been ostracized, disbarred, suffered criminal prosecution at the hands of the conspirators, loss of livelihood and personal fortune attempting to bring these facts forward. To date these murders are still on the books as unsolved, in spite of the evidence Eric Moebius brought to Governor Bush and the other conspirators. This file is available in a Word-6.0 Doc file - ZIPPED at the very bottom of this page and Text files are on the download button.
On Saturday morning, December 6, 1991, many in Austin awakened to the sound of clock radios alive with the news that four young girls had been found murdered in the rear of a Yogurt Shop located in a busy strip mall in affluent West Austin. The Yogurt Shop had also been set on fire, suggesting that accelerants had been brought to the site. Because the murders had occurred after closing time, the time consumed in the completion of the murders suggested that they were not walk in, walk out murders; this fact strongly suggested that the murders were not murders committed by strangers on strangers.
A stranger to the sight would have been naturally concerned about the possibility that four girls from three different families might be missed at home, resulting in a parent or brother or sister coming to the site in search of their child or sibling. Also, strangers to the premises would be more inclined to conduct "abduction rape/murders"-that is, murders in which the victims would have first been moved to a remote location which did not hold the risk of discovery or capture of the murderers. Strangely, these murders actually seemed designed to use the Yogurt Shop as a haven, safe for completion of murders that were premeditated. As such, the Yogurt Shop Murders-conducted after hours over a prolonged period of time and on the site-suggested an inside job, one in which advance preparations had been made to secure the safety of the murderers as well as the death of the girls. All of these facts began to suggest a purpose which left a variety of questions:
Why murder four girls in the rear of a Yogurt Shop?
Why bring accelerants to the site?
Why did the murders of these four girls seem so carefully choreographed? Why wasn't robbery a motive? (After all, how much money does an American ice cream store have in its ‘till?' And if robbery had been the motive, the men conducting the robbery, needing the money, would have fled the premises or site in much shorter time.) In all aspects, then, it appeared that these murders were conducted by men who had come to the site with the specific and sole intent of conducting murder.
But why murder four girls at that specific site? A little over two years later, on January 10, 1994, an announcement was made that the Yogurt Shop Murders had been settled for a shocking sum in excess of $12 million. Until that moment, almost no one had been aware that a lawsuit had been filed. Nor could we have imagined that any Yogurt Shop would carry such an enormous amount of coverage.
Once again, "Why?" became the prevalent question.
Why did the Yogurt Shop, a small volume store with limited hours and a small seating capacity, carry such enormous insurance coverage?
And why did the carriers pay out for murders which under the case law were clearly not compensable? Murder has never been a compensable event; like arson, murder is an intentional act. And yet carriers were paying sums in excess of $12 million dollars.
These questions were personally pertinent to me in January, 1994. When it was announced that the Yogurt Shop case had settled, I learned for the first time that the defense attorneys on the Yogurt Shop case were Austin attorney Roy . Minton and San Antonio attorney Jerry Gibson. Since December 18, 1991, twelve days after the murders of the four girls in the rear of the Yogurt Shop, these two attorneys had played a central and nonstop role in wholly preventing my litigating the fraud and conspiracy case of Mrs. Abelia Garcia, a $13 million claim which Mrs. Garcia and her severely brain-injured son had against her former attorney, Michael A. Wash and Nationwide Insurance Company and its attorney and adjuster, Jonathan Cluck and Jack Parker. The actions of these two attorneys in aiding in the prevention of the litigation of the Garcia case had been nothing short of extraordinary.
By January of 1994, these men, working together, had directed numerous arrest and disbarment attempts against me, with all activity beginning on December 18, 1991, twelve days after the Yogurt Shop Murders took place. Again, serious questions: Why would men with such power over the courts and the State Bar bother to settle a no liability case? Could there be a connection between the Garcia case and the Yogurt Shop case? If so, what was it? At first glance, the two cases, the Yogurt Shop Murders and the Garcia severe brain injury, seemed in no way similar. 1?-year-old Eliza May, 16-year-old Sarah Harbison and 14- and 13-year-old Jennifer Harbison and Amy Ayers had been intentionally murdered on the site of a Yogurt Shop.
Herman Garcia had suffered a severe brain injury while passing through a highway construction zone. The injuries all fell under the category of site specific injuries or injuries that took place on sites covered by General Contractor Liability Policies. Both cases resulted in the creation of wrongful death or catastrophic personal injury claims that were "site specific." But other than that, there seemed to be no connection. A brief discussion of the Garcia case may help in determining whether or not there was a connection between the Garcia case and the Yogurt Shop case.
Herman Garcia was injured in a head on collision in a highway construction zone on March 3, 198?. Herman was removed from the construction zone by air ambulance and flown to Breckenridge Hospital, where he lay in a coma for almost 60 days. Within days of Herman arriving at Breckenridge, a hospital administrator by the name of Jesse McNeil Tubberville demanded that Mrs. Garcia hire Austin attorney Michael A. Wash. As stated by Mrs. Garcia: "At first, no one knew if Herman was going to live. Within days, Herman stabilized, although he remained in a coma. It was then that this administrator called me into her office. She gave me her business card with Michael Wash's name written on it.
I still have the card in my wallet. She told me, 'The other side already has two attorneys, you need one now. Here is a good one.' She handed me her business card with the attorneys name written on the back. Then she demanded that I call the attorney right away. She even told me where a pay phone was down the hall. I did as she told me. What did I know?"
In January, 1991, 11 months before the Yogurt Shop Murders, Mrs. Garcia's attorney Michael Wash fraudulently instructed Mrs. Garcia that her son no longer had a viable claim relating to his severe brain injury. Oddly, at the same meeting, the attorney instructed Mrs. Garcia to sign additional contracts on her grandchildren's derivative claims related to her son's permanent injury. At the moment her attorney instructed Mrs. Garcia that her son no longer had a claim, she believed him. A more experienced individual would have immediately recognized the contradiction. If the attorney was telling Mrs. Garcia the truth about her son's claims, if her son's claims were in fact extinguished, then the grandchildren's derivative claims would likewise be extinguished. Yet at the same moment her attorney took contracts from Mrs. Garcia on the grandchildren's derivative claims, he told her that her son's claims were extinguished.
In February, 1991, one month later, Mrs. Garcia discovered that within days of being told that her son no longer had a claim, her attorney and Nationwide's attorney and adjuster covertly perfected an appeal on her claim, consummated a "settlement" of all her claims, including the children's derivative claims, and then canceled the appeal that had just perfected. Yet this activity took place on claims that Mrs. Garcia had been led to believe were extinguished. Mrs. Garcia was shocked and distressed to learn that her attorney had somehow separated her from her claims and then allowed third parties to make use of her claims, all without her knowledge or permission. Even more distressing, Nationwide and another carrier had issued checks to her former attorney with all moneys going from Nationwide's accounts to third parties unknown to her. Mrs. Garcia, believing that her claims were extinguished, never received a dime.
Mrs. Garcia, distressed, upset and even terrified, came to me in February, 1991. After listening to Mrs. Garcia, I agreed to bring suit on Mrs. Garcia's behalf, naming Nationwide, Nationwide's attorney and adjuster, and Mrs. Garcia's former attorney as defendants. What I had difficulty understanding is how anyone could have represented a woman and then fraudulently advised her that she no longer had a claim, only to subsequently conduct a covert settlement, complete with the movement of substantial moneys from the insurance company's accounts to the accounts of third parties, with all the money flowing through Mrs. Garcia's son and grandchildren's claims.
In effect, after Mrs. Garcia's son was injured on the site or premises of a construction zone, and after Mrs. Garcia's attorney brought suit ostensibly on her behalf, Mrs. Garcia was fraudulently separated from her claims. Mrs. Garcia's logical assumption was that only she could make use of those claims. However, she discovered she was wrong: Her claims were used post separation by third parties to transfer moneys from the insurance company's reserve account to her attorney's trust account. In short, all moneys that moved from one account to the other moved through her claims unreported--and tax free!
It was also difficult for me to understand how third parties were able to launder or move funds from one account to another through Mrs. Garcia's claims, all without her knowledge or permission. Because the account to account transfer was accomplished through the covert and unauthorized use of Mrs. Garcia's personal injury claims, the account to account transfer was a non-taxable transfer. This one aspect--the fact that the account to account transfer was non-taxable and done through the agency of an attorney-- is unique to personal injury and wrongful death claims and makes such transfers ideal for money laundering. Yet the lingering question remained: How was it possible that a person's personal injury claims could be used without that person's knowledge? Of even greater concern was the key question which reaches into the heart of this situation:
Is it possible to intentionally injure or murder an individual or individuals on a specific site with the motive being the creation and pirating of a wrongful death claim or personal injury claim in order to launder money?
If so, more questions surface: Was this a common phenomena or a chance event? Were the carriers allowing third parties to launder moneys on board the carrier before the site specific murder? After the injury, was money being laundered from the reserve accounts of insurance carriers who were acting as "host" carriers, with all money flowing through the pirated catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death claims? All of these questions were central to Mrs. Garcia's lawsuit and my inquiries; I assumed her lawsuit would be able to answer these questions.
By January, 1994, when it was announced that the Yogurt Shop cases had been settled, I had spent three years going through four separate courts in my efforts to get Mrs. Garcia's case to trial. Due to the highly unusual intervention of Jerry Gibson and Roy Q. Minton, the defense lawyers on the Yogurt Shop case, I was never permitted to try Mrs. Garcia's case or, for that matter, to even conduct discovery. Mrs. Garcia was repeatedly denied the right to depose Nationwide's lawyer. At one point, I was told by Mr. Gibson that I would never get the deposition of Nationwide's lawyer. His control over the courts was such that he could predict that every judge would deny me the right to depose the people that took Mrs. Garcia's money. At the same time these denials were taking place, it was possible to conduct a broad scale campaign of extortion, preemptive disbarments and attempted arrests against me. In short, the controls were so complete that Mrs. Garcia was never permitted to ask her questions.
The degree of absolute control and criminal hegemony that lawyers exercised over the state and federal courts and the Texas State Bar as I attempted to litigate Mrs. Garcia's case created an even more persistent question. Unlike Mrs. Garcia's case, where the civil and criminal liabilities of the defendants were undeniable, the Yogurt Shop case was a no liability case. Lawyers obviously possessed the absolute ability to wholly prevent the litigation of a strong liability case in any court, state or federal. They could also repeatedly subject the lawyer on the Garcia case to a barrage of disbarments and attempted arrests. So why did they "settle" a no liability case like the Yogurt Shop Murders, a case that could have been dispensed with by summary judgment in their clients' favor?
Between December, 1991, and January, 1994 (the month in which news of the settlement of the Yogurt Shop case was released to the press), I was prevented from taking the depositions of either of the Nationwide defendants. Nor was I ever permitted to file interrogatories and requests for production on either party. This was a remarkable achievement for my antagonists, considering the fact that in the intervening three years, I had gone through two state courts and two federal courts seeking to do just that. At one point, less than three months after the girls were murdered, Jonathan Cluck, the attorney for Nationwide, told me that "all hell will break loose" if I was ever permitted to take his deposition. By January, 1994, I had served over 18 separate notices to depose Jonathan Cluck, Nationwide's lawyer. Each and every judge denied me the depositions of these parties. The judges would either provide questionable reasons, refuse to give reasons or issue orders that no discovery could be conducted; instead, they denied me all discovery and assessed enormous sanctions against me. At the same time, Mr. Minton and Mr. Gibson subjected me to nonstop "preemptive" disbarments and attempted arrest activity, even going so far as to unsuccessfully try my wife for fraud on the grounds that she had helped me evade arrest.
The power to induce illegal activity through the courts was nothing short of amazing, and the purpose was always the same: Quit representing Mrs. Garcia! The evening before my wife was tried for fraud by Gibson's firm, I was instructed by Jerry Gibson's associate, an attorney by the name of David Benjamin, that if I quit representing Mrs. Garcia, my wife wouldn't be tried for fraud. Days prior to a fourth attempt to disbar me as "mentally impaired," Minton gave my wife a check for $7,000 and advised us to leave the state. Through it all, the demand continued: Quit representing Mrs. Garcia! Other attorneys who offered to help with Mrs. Garcia's case would likewise receive admonishments not to represent Mrs. Garcia, including death threats. One witness, a Dr. Keith Bell, received late night calls in which he and his wife were warned to leave the Garcia case alone or "you'll be dead meat."
As a result, news of the settlement of the Yogurt Shop case, and these men's connection to that case, came as a double surprise. Why would these men settle any case, let alone a no liability claim? I was repeatedly ordered disbarred, with the disbarment orders being remarkably well timed to coincide with the "judgments" issued by various district judges, judgments produced by proceedings in which trials and all discovery were openly denied. Since Jonathan Clucks warning to me that "all hell will break loose", no depositions were taken. Not one witness ever sat in a courtroom and testified. Yet the disbarments, attempted arrests and sanctions accelerated.
Clearly, the timing of the disbarments was designed to prevent appeals of the "judgments" issued by U.S. District Judges PRADO and NOWLIN. Judge PRADO and Judge NOWLIN went so far as to conduct additional efforts to prevent appeals of their judgments by demanding that I gain admission to the Western District of Texas before any motion for new trial could be filed. Weeks before the order was issued, Judge Nowlin personally wrote the Western District and instructed them to deny me admission, creating an impossible situation.
Each and every time a disbarment panel met, I was ordered disbarred immediately. If I timely filed a jury demand as to the disbarment notice, I would receive a letter from the State Bar's General Counsel angrily instructing me that I had no right to a jury trial. The Bar would then pull the disbarment order, citing "insufficient evidence." Within days, orders were issued by a court, demanding my arrest, causing me to flee from my home to other states until my wife could get the warrant pulled. When I escaped the arrests, the disbarments would return and proceed at a pace of one a month, with all disbarments being initiated by Mrs. Garcia's former attorney and a female acquaintance of a presiding county judge.
At each and every disbarment hearing, pleadings prepared and filed by me in the Garcia suit were presented as evidence of my "mental impairment," pleadings that alleged the fraud of Nationwide against my client. Questions, questions: Why was it so important that the Garcia case not be tried? Why was it so important that there be no discovery? What did Jonathan Cluck mean when he said: "If you get my deposition, all hell will break loose!"
Because this activity began 12 days after the Yogurt Shop Murders, and because the activity was conducted by Roy Minton and Jerry Gibson, the chief attorneys on the Yogurt Shop case, another persistent question arose in January, 1994. Was there a connection between the Garcia case and the Yogurt Shop case? Had Wash, Cluck and Parker agreed to provide some services related to the Yogurt Shop case in return for a promise to be free of all criminal and civil prosecution in the Garcia case? Why did Gibson and Minton settle the Yogurt Shop case, a no liability case, for "at least" $12 million. And again, why did a Yogurt Shop have "at least" $12 million in coverage?
An additional concern arose. Immediately after the December 6, 1991 murders, and before the first hearing on the Garcia case on December 18,1991, we located $72,000 worth of cars that had been purchased for employees of Michael Wash. Two of the three automobiles had been purchased at a car dealership in San Antonio, the same car dealership where Nationwide bought its fleet cars. In one of the purchase files, we located a check from a Merrill Lynch Cash Management Account which belonged to Michael Wash. Subsequent events have led us to the conclusion that moneys from the Yogurt Shop Murders may have been run through this account. We also believe that our knowledge of the identity of this account may have contributed in large part to the decision by every judge to deny Mrs. Garcia discovery. It may also explain the great number of attempted arrests that I experienced.
All of these factors caused one key concern to dominate my thinking: Was the money paid out on the Yogurt Shop Murders, this vast sum in excess of $12 million, was this money really insurance company money? Or had the money come into the carriers from somewhere else? Had the money been laundered into the insurance companies in the months prior to the site specific murders? Was the money laundered in to the insurance companies with the intent that it be "murdered out" or paid out through the death claims created on the site of the Yogurt Shop?
I continued with my representation of Mrs. Garcia as well as my representation of the League of United Latin American Citizens after January, 1994. In the event I lost my law license to the constant disbarment activity being generated by these lawyers, I took on the guardianship of my severely brain injured client. With or without a license, I would be able to continue to represent Mrs. Garcia and her brain injured son. By this time, LULAC had picked up on what appeared to be a statewide pattern of "reserve fraud"-- that is, severe injury cases including murder and arson in which people were being intentionally injured, murdered or burned on preselected premises with the intent of creating personal injury claims. After the injury or murder of the individuals on preselected premises, the claimants were often "separated" from their claims by attorney fraud or court action, much like Mrs. Garcia had been. Notably, their claims were left open and susceptible to covert settlements, like the covert settlement Mrs. Garcia experienced. In other words, the plaintiffs would be artificially and fraudulently forced into a ''loss" but the defendants would not gain an outright win. Nor would the defendants complain about the denial of an outright win, even when an outright win was a mandatory legal consequence of the court's ruling against the plaintiff. The fact that a defendant would refuse to seek an all out win even when it was his right, suggested that other motives were dominating the proceedings.
Additional questions invaded my thinking: Why where the murderers so careful to murder the people on a certain site? Why were the murders so site specific?
The Diana Havner case, the 198? site specific murder of the mother of Kelly and Shelly Havner which took place at an E-Z Mart in Sulphur Springs, Texas, was just one example. Diana's murder was a graphic example of a site specific murder in which the creation of the death claim seemed to be the motive for the murder. Because the Havner case is both an example of someone intentionally setting up an employee to be murdered "on site" as well as the controlling case which determines the presence or absence of liability in the Yogurt Shop, there is a great deal of merit in discussing Diana's murder.
Before discussing the Havner case at greater length, it should be noted that the money laundering benefits derived from murdering individuals on specific sites arise from the amount of money that the subsequently occurring death claim can move, compared to the simple life insurance approach, or any other money laundering scheme. With site or "premises" coverage, a great many additional elements come into play, including gross negligence, pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity and loss of consortium. If the bodies are set on fire, as they may have been in the Yogurt Shop murders, fire damages are also excited. As a result, site specific murders can actually move as much or more than $20 million through just one death claim. Life insurance coverage, by comparison, is limited to the policy limits which must be announced before the murder.
Site coverage actually conceals the intent to move enormous sums of money through the death claim. Unlike life insurance, the "payouts" through the site based death claims are expansive and determined by the victim's age and the amount of suffering the victim undergoes prior to death. Conducting the murder in a normal negligence zone, such as a convenience store, is both "site specific" and perpetrator non-specific, further assisting in concealing the motive for the murder and as well as concealing the identity of the murderer. Because all payouts on and through personal injury claims are tax free, these payouts present a one sided, non-taxable event which further enhances the covert movement of the money. If the claim's true owner is "separated" from the claim after the injury and third parties there after access the "pirated" claim to channel money through the claim (as happened in Mrs. Garcia's case) the claim's true owner will have no knowledge of the post separation money laundering transaction. This is true even though payouts on the claim are attributed to the claim's true owner, as they were in Mrs. Garcia's case.
Thus, the murdered individual's wrongful death claim can be subjected to unauthorized use by third parties. The checks or drafts will be issued in the name of the claim's true owners, but without the true owner's knowledge or permission as in Mrs. Garcia's case. This use of both the claim and the name of the injured party enhances the covert movement of the money and protects the identity of the murderers and money launderers.
Why did Mrs. Garcia's attorney Michael Wash return to Mrs. Garcia with some of the checks but not all of them? Mr. Wash requested that Mrs. Garcia sign $80,000 worth of checks made out to Mrs. Garcia as guardian of Herman Garcia, and two checks for $10,000 made out to Herman's brother Joel a man who was also injured in the collision. The missing checks were in payment for the derivative claims of the minor Garcia children and are believed to be for sums in excess of $20 million.
Since Mrs. Garcia was never permitted to depose Nationwide's attorney or adjuster, a direct answer is not available. However, if we assume that the attorneys involved took their "cut" out of the $20 million plus checks and that the other members to the conspiracy instructed the attorney to take all of the $90,000 presented to Mrs. Garcia, there would be an absence of mutual compromise as he would be the sole taker of the $90,000. This could mean that the other members to the conspiracy could double cross and blackmail Wash with charges of forgery for signing the checks. Wash may have decided that he had a better chance with intimidating Mrs. Garcia into believing that the checks were expense checks. The plan failed when Mrs. Garcia became enraged and hired me to bring suit against Wash and the Nationwide defendants. However, my litigation threatened the integrity of the entire scheme as I was pursuing laundered money as well as threatening to uncover the identity of the money launderers. Access to Wash's Cash Management Account would not only reveal their identity, it might likewise result in their imprisonment and the loss of the moneys they held.
In short, pursuing Mrs. Garcia's claims against Wash, Cluck and Parker threatened to unravel the entire money laundering empire. Because money laundering systems are well funded, an enormous amount of corruption, "bought" decrees and arrest orders were conducted to prevent my litigation of Mrs. Garcia's claim. This factor underscores the danger of the arrest attempts. Incidentally, I have always assumed (with Texas justice) that arrest would result in my own death in one way or another.
SITE SPECIFIC MURDER
AND GROSS PREMEDITATION
If the site specific murder is a money laundering transaction, the murder that takes place will show definite and unusual signs of "gross premeditation" and planning. The presence of gross premeditation and planning is a natural consequence of the desire to insure the overall success of the money laundering scheme. As a result, the entire murder will be a staged and well planned event. Every element will be provided and will be the product of planning. This factor is emphasized because it is essential to understanding how to comprehend and investigate the site specific murders.
The provided and planned elements include the site, the presence of site security for the murderer, the isolation of the victims on the site prior to their murder and the presence of cover motive for the murder or murders. The murderers and the money that is paid through the death claims would also be provided by the money launderers.
Money laundering is always concealed by an illusion in that it always appears to be some other activity which conceals the true money laundering. The creation of this illusion naturally requires elaborate "staging", which by its very nature demands gross premeditation. As such, expanding money laundering to site specific murder, which compared to other money laundering schemes is a high volume loader which can help move major sums of money.
The success of any money laundering scheme is underscored by the absence of "trace back," the most feared and hated element of the scheme participants. Trace back not only imperils the scheme and the scheme participants, it threatens discovery of the vast sums of currency held by the money launderers. Because money laundering is always conducted through the artifice of conspiracy or partnership in crime, the potential for a great many currency traders being involved in each site specific murder scheme is extremely high. Obviously, trace back must be avoided at all costs.
Avoiding trace back means providing stringent security for the murder and the murderer. This may explain why the murderers felt so secure at the site of the Yogurt Shop. If the murderer or murderers are caught, trace back occurs and the money launderers' identities come to light. If the scheme is a high volume, repetitious scheme, which these site specific schemes certainly are, trace back through one scheme imperils the entire infrastructure used to conduct the multiple and repeating site murder or premises murder schemes. Conducting discovery into one scheme, such as the scheme conducted against Mrs. Garcia, imperils the entire infrastructure. As a result, scheme participating courts and judges who understand that money laundering is being conducted, will deny all efforts to conduct discovery into the scheme. At the same time, the judges will coordinate disbarment and arrest efforts with the State Bar in order to prevent an appeal of their illicit "judgments" .
As long as the money laundering motive remains hidden, the judicial conduct will appear to be capricious and arbitrary, with no visible purpose other than the destruction of the attorney and the defeat of the case. But once the practitioner understands the presence of money laundering, the judge's conduct in denying all discovery and all trials will be clearly seen as being conducted pursuant to the judge's desire to preserve the money laundering scheme and infrastructure. Once a judicial official "sells out," he or she will be called upon again and again to assist in other "reserve fraud" schemes and to assist in maintaining the secrecy and integrity of the money laundering infrastructure.
Since money laundering is conducted in order to infiltrate vast sums of drug and bank fraud currency into the central banking system in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act and the Money Laundering Suppression Act, these schemes constitute direct attacks on a U.S. government installation that being the United States Central Banking System. Once a judge becomes compromised through his participation in a money laundering scheme, he becomes part of the system, with little or no choice when approached to conduct additional schemes. As a result, the system will become strengthened over time as it gathers more and more compromised officials.
THE SITE SPECIFIC MURDER OF
In 198?, E-Z Mart purchased an existing store in Sulphur Springs, Texas. The store, previously operated under another name, had been in place for seven years. Throughout those years, the store's security system had been served by a silent alarm system, costing $8 a month. Site security was augmented by the presence of a telephone. In the period before the purchase of the store by E-Z Mart, the store had never suffered a robbery, although two false alarms had been triggered. Each false alarm resulted in a police response in less than l0 seconds.
Within days of purchasing the store, the silent alarm system was removed, and the phone was altered so that out-going calls could not be made. Large signs were put in place over the windows. Check cashing was added, increasing the amount of money on the premises. At the same time, the drop safes were removed. Thus, while security for the murder and murderer was greatly increased, a murder of any employee on the site could be credited to the motive of robbery.
Four months after buying the store, a period of time that may have been used to conduct the temporary placement of money inside the participating "host" carriers (called "lag time"), Diana Havner was raped, murdered and abducted. Once she was murdered, her death claim on the specific site had been created. Because she had two children, additional derivative claims were likewise produced, creating a total of three personal injury, site specific death claims.
If a family member has agreed prior to the murder to allow the death claims' ability to serve as a tax free money conduit to be shared and used by and for the money launderers as well as for conveying money to the "participating" family member or members, no separation scheme will be necessary, since no trial will be necessary. The process of allowing the death claims to be used for both money laundering and for conveying payment to the scheme participating parents is called "co-hosting". If the murder based scheme is exclusive of a family member's participation in the murder, as occurred in the Havner case, the family will be subjected to a "separation scheme", with all subsequent movement of money through the claim being covert and unauthorized.
This is what occurred in Mrs. Garcia's case. Post separation, her claims were used for the benefit of third parties to launder moneys out of the "host" carrier's reserve accounts, through the pirated catastrophic personal injury claim and into the accounts of the participating, money laundering attorneys.
In cases of family participation in the murder, the investigator should look to see what efforts, if any, were made by the attorneys and carriers setting up the claim to contact the participating parent or parents well in advance of the murders. An apparent pattern has evolved in which site specific murders which take place in residence's also have satellite commercial sites connected to an occupant of the residence, such as a store or contracting firm. The investigator should conduct a meticulous search of all phone records of both parties to determine if pre-murder contact was made with attorneys or insurance company officials.
Was Diana set up to be murdered by someone within the company that employed her? The removal of the phone and silent alarm system suggests that she was. The question can be resolved if a court conducted separation scheme evolves, a factor which is discussed below.
While reading this somewhat sobering discussion, the reader might well ponder why the Yogurt Shop Murders paid in excess of $12 million. It can be presumed that if a separation scheme occurred in the Havner case, a case in which the family members were not participating, the case law will be such that even with these startling liability facts, the claimants were not permitted to recover. This same case law applies to the Yogurt Shop case, which legitimately raises the question: Why did the Yogurt Shop case settle?
At trial, six experts testified that Diana's death was foreseeable and that the removal of the silent alarm system and phone enhanced that foreseeability. The jury returned with a verdict finding liability and accessing $4 million in damages. For the moment, E-Z Mart lost and Diana's family had exclusive use of their claims. Diana's survivors had won.
All Content © HiddenMysteries - TGS (1998-2012) Please send bug reports to Information .
All Rights Reserved HiddenMysteries.com Internet Store ~ HiddenMysteries Information Central
Texas National Press ~ TGS Publishers Dealers Site
Please send bug reports to Information .