Robbing Russia Blind
by Eric Moebius
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
ROBBING RUSSIA BLIND: INTERNATIONAL EMBEZZLEMENT and MONEY LAUNDERING WITH UNITED STATES INSURANCE CONTINGENCY RESERVES
The following is personal opinion of the anonymous writer. (Shit!)
Synopsis: A contingency reserve account is money set aside against a potential claim. Suppose someones spouse is killed in an automobile accident. The accident was the fault of the driver of the other automobile. The guilty drivers automobile liability insurance company is required to set aside enough money to pay the maximum potential amount the claim might cost. In this example, it is one million dollars.
In a separation scheme, the survivng spouse receives little or nothing. In this example, the surviving spouse received $100,000 as a settlement from the insurance company. The remaining $900,000 is required to be returned to the profit account of the insurance company. Instead, it became the property of attorneys, insurance adjusters and executives involved.
In the embezzlement situations that this writer is aware of, the original one million dollars did not come from the insurnace company. Instead, it is electronically transferred into the contingency reserve account from another source. This source is from foreign embezzlement. In the example, the $900,000 would distributed to all of the parties involved in the scheme.
Embezzled money from anywhere in the world can be electronically transferred into mutual insurance company contingency reserve accounts. The reserve accounts are used to launder the stolen money.
In a planned staged accident or murder, the surviving spouse would be a participant in the scheme. He would receive the $100,000, as well as other compensation, such as life insurance proceeds for the deceased spouse. The surviving spouse would also enjoy Godfather status in the money laundering operation. This is the reward for sacrificing a loved one to the cause.
This article is intended an urgent plea for further research by conspiracy and 9/11 investigators! This scheme is providing billions toward the creation of a United Police States. The perpetrators of this scheme of staged murders and fatal accidents are connected to covert operations. This writer can trace one perpetrator's clandestine activities to 1945, in the area that became East Germany. The perpetrators travel outside the United States, and have world wide contacts.
United States health, property and casualty mutual insurance companies are using contingency reserves to launder money from world wide sources, particularly Moscow. The financial distress of this former Cold War adversary is strategic for US military ambitions in Central Asia. Per the Roman, Nazi and Stalinist precedents, seeking total world domination requires the creation of a domestic police state. The perpetrators of the money laundering scheme enjoy a comfortable relationship with USA law enforcement, corporations and government.
Eric Moebius, a former Texas Assistant Attorney General, has a 207 page report published on the web at David Icke Magazine. "A REPORT ON THE YOGURT SHOP MURDERS (Racketeering and Money Laundering Through Site Specific Death Claims). " It can be located using Yahoo! keywords "Yogurt Shop Murders".
Here is an excerpt from a radio interview with Eric Moebius:
- Unlike conventional insurance companies, mutual insurance companies have
policy-holders but no public stockholders. Therefore, mutual insurance
companies are not subject to the rules, oversight, or investigations of the
US Securities and Exchange Commission.
- When an injured party files a claim against a mutual insurance company, the
amount of money that might be paid on the claim is removed from the insurance
company's profit account and placed in their "reserve account" until the claim
is settled. At any given time, a reserve account can contain millions of
dollars. If the money is paid to the claimant, it is deducted from the reserve
account as an untaxed business expense. If the claim is denied, the money is
taken from the reserve account and restored to the profit account.
- At the end of the year, mutual insurance companies pays taxes on whatever
money is left in their profit accounts, and return the balance to their policy
holders in the form of reduced premiums or cash rebates. Although a particular
company may have generated millions of dollars in profits, those profits are
not generally available to the company's owners and executives. Being denied
easy access to millions of dollars in profits can make some owners and
executives jealous, frustrated, and greedy.
- Money paid out for insurance claims is reported as legitimate business
deductions by insurance companies to State and federal taxing authorities.
However, because money won in court is not taxable -- there is also no tax
reporting requirement for the recipient of those funds.
A criminal opportunity is created because insurance money paid out is reported
but insurance money received is not reported, and because there is minimum
public oversight for mutual insurance companies.
Mr. Moebius alleges that coalitions of lawyers, judges, and mutual insurance
company executives have devised a scheme to extort enormous sums of money from
the insurance company "reserve funds" by 1) finding -- or causing --
catastrophic accidents (often involving the deaths of children); 2)
"separating" the plaintiffs from their legitimate claim against the mutual
insurance company,; and 3) secretly processing the claim and dividing the
proceeds among the conspirators without paying one dime to the legitimate
plaintiff.
The "genius" of this reserve fraud scheme is that just one or two catastrophic
accidents per year are enough to extort tens of millions of dollars that
should legally go to the IRS as taxes and the policy-holders as rebates.
Further, if enough money is extorted, the insurance company may be able to
report a loss for the year and justify raising its insurance premiums and
thereby generating an even larger sum of money to be extorted in the next
year.
Since Mr. Moebius started making these allegations, the State Bar of Texas has
reportedly tried to disbar him twelve times. Failing to disbar him, a judge
has recently "enjoined" him from practicing law (he's still licensed, but
can't practice law without being jailed for contempt). He has been fined
$175,000 -- nine times more than any other attorney he can find -- for
attempting to expose his allegations. Various elements of the Texas government
have repeatedly tried to arrest Mr. Moebius and he is in fear for his life --
especially if he is jailed."
(End of excerpt)
Mr. Moebius was eventually disbarred for "mental incompetence," although there was no such history. This writer doubts that Eric Moebius is still alive. The writer may not live either, as a result of publishing this article. I'll be in good company.
Mr. Moebius did not observe the full extent of the money laundering operation. In the situations this writer is familiar with, the separation schemes appear to be an attempt to display power. It may have been an attempt to coerce the Hispanic citizens of Texas to cooperate in the scheme.
Mutual insurance companies are regulated by State Insurance Commissions. The state Insurance Commissioners are primarily concerned the solvency of insurance companies, with a secondary concern of payment of claims. No outside agency or accounting firm audits the internal financial activities of the mutual insurance company.
The source of the contingency reserve money does not have to come from the insurance companies, only appear to be. With the US dollar as a medium, embezzled money can electronically transferred into the contingency reserve account from anywhere on the planet.
(Information about the Brice Foods Scandal is available using Brice Foods Scandal on Yahoo!)
The Yogurt Shop Murders case provides a prima facia case of the illegal electronic transfer of embezzled funds to pay a liability claim. The workmans compensation carrier was required to pay one million, Brice Foods was required to pay ten million, and the shopping center owners were required to pay one million dollars to the families of the four murdered girls.
The claim settlement was an extraordinary 12 million dollars for the families of the Yogurt Shop Murders victims! 20 million dollars disappeared from the investors assets of Brice Foods, the Yogurt Shop holding company. The 20 million dollars was never recovered.
By all appearances, the money was electronically transferred from the Brice Foods asset accounts to the claim accounts; with a tidy 8 million left over for expenses. Therefore, embezzled funds can be transferred into insurance contingency reserve accounts, without the embezzler being caught! The stolen money cannot be traced back to its rightful owners, but it now appears to come from a legitimate source.
This is a documented example. After this writer failed to participate in a staged accident, a perpetrator exclaimed, That money is gone, now!
By other money laundering methods, some of the laundered money then finds its way back to the original source. A Russian embezzler may be satisfied with 10% of the money sent to the USA. The money laundering system provided him with the means to transfer the funds, without fear of being caught.
This writer observed, several years ago, that there were several offices of United States mutual insurance companies and/or their consortiums in Moscow. The US insurance industry was ostensibly helping the former USSR to "recover from the ravages of communism." The information about these insurance offices is now obscured, possibly as a result of the writers preliminary investigation being observed.
This writer has seen varying references, from $300 billion to $12 trillion, of money that disappeared from the Russian economy after the fall of the USSR. Without a sophisticated capitalist accounting system in place, the former communist power has been vulnerable to massive electronic embezzlement.
The perpetrators want the contingency reserve accounts to remain open for extended periods of time. This implies that several times the stated amount of the account can be moved through it.
This is a plea for further research. Insurance industry insiders can securely post to Totse.com
This writer has observed that the perpetrators of this scheme are particularly uncomfortable at the mention of the Oklahoma City bombing. Like North Austin (where the Yogurt Shop Murders took place), Oklahoma City is connected to the Dallas/Forth Worth metroplex.
Authors note: Secret criminal networks across the law abiding social spectrum have an historical precedent. The Thuggee cult of India lasted 2000 years, with estimates as high as 40,000 victims per year. Travelers were deceived, ritual murdered and robbed by members of the cult. This cult activity was integrated into the banking industry, law enforcement and government. As in the Yogurt Shop case, collusion by family members must have been involved.
This embezzlement/money laundering activity is now covered by the new U.N. Convention against Corruption.
Property and casualty insurance companies were excluded from the money laundering provisions of the Patriot Act, because their money laundering function has been protected by the United States authorities.
The Bar, Insurance Fraud and Murder
By Erik Moebius
Editor's Note: This next article is an amalgam of comments made on a radio
program (the "Christian-Patriot Connection", KPBC-770 AM, Dallas, Texas in
which I and Michael Ellis interviewed attorneys Erik Moebius, David Parker,
and Nick Milum) and a 207-page article written by Erik Moebius. The complete
text of the radio interview and Mr. Moebius' article can be read or downloaded
from the "News" sub-section from the AntiShyster Internet webb site located at
"www.antishyster.com". Although I've edited and reorganized this article, Mr.
Moebius is the principal source of virtually all of the comments and is
therefore credited as its author.
Erik Moebius has been a lawyer for fifteen years and served for five years as
a Texas Assistant Attorney General. The man is credible; his story is too
fantastic to be fictional. Although I believe his allegations are essentially
true, I don't know them to be precisely accurate. Therefore, this article is
presented only to provide the reader with an opportunity to consider Mr.
Moebius' extraordinary public allegations. However, as another journalist
pointed out, if just 10% of Mr. Moebius' allegations are true, they deserve a
very serious investigation. In fact, if all of his allegations are true, they
will cause a fire storm of public anger, investigation, criminal indictments,
and perhaps a massive reform of the courts and insurance industry.
Mr. Moebius' allegations are complex. Read them anyway -- they are important.
I guarantee this article offers some unimaginably chilling insights imaginable
into the underbelly of our legal system and the insurance business.
- Unlike conventional insurance companies, mutual insurance companies have
policy-holders but no public stockholders. Therefore, mutual insurance
companies are not subject to the rules, oversight, or investigations of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
- When an injured party files a claim against a mutual insurance company, the
amount of money that might be paid on the claim is removed from the insurance
company's profit account and placed in their "reserve account" until the claim
is settled. At any given time, a reserve account can contain millions of
dollars. If the money is paid to the claimant, it is deducted from the reserve
account as an untaxed business expense. If the claim is denied, the money is
taken from the reserve account and restored to the profit account.
- At the end of the year, mutual insurance companies pay taxes on whatever
money is left in their profit accounts, and returns the balance to their policy
holders in the form of reduced premiums or cash rebates. Although a particular
company may have generated millions of dollars in profits, those profits are
not generally available to the company's owners and executives. Being denied
easy access to millions of dollars in profits can make some owners and
executives jealous, frustrated, and greedy.
- Money paid out for insurance claims is reported as legitimate business
deductions by insurance companies to State and federal taxing authorities.
However, because money won in court is not taxable -- there is also no tax
reporting requirement for the recipient of those funds.
A criminal opportunity is created because insurance money paid out is reported
but insurance money received is not reported, and because there is minimum
public oversight for mutual insurance companies.
Mr. Moebius alleges that coalitions of lawyers, judges, and mutual insurance
company executives have devised a scheme to extort enormous sums of money from
the insurance company "reserve funds" by 1) finding -- or causing --
catastrophic accidents (often involving the deaths of children); 2)
"separating" the plaintiffs from their legitimate claim against the mutual
insurance company,; and 3) secretly processing the claim and dividing the
proceeds among the conspirators without paying one dime to the legitimate
plaintiff.
The "genius" of this reserve fraud scheme is that just one or two catastrophic
accidents per year are enough to extort tens of millions of dollars that
should legally go to the IRS as taxes and the policy-holders as rebates.
Further, if enough money is extorted, the insurance company may be able to
report a loss for the year and justify raising its insurance premiums and
thereby generating an even larger sum of money to be extorted in the next
year.
Since Mr. Moebius started making these allegations, the State Bar of Texas has
reportedly tried to disbar him twelve times. Failing to disbar him, a judge
has recently "enjoined" him from practicing law (he's still licensed, but
can't practice law without being jailed for contempt). He has been fined
$175,000 -- nine times more than any other attorney he can find -- for
attempting to expose his allegations. Various elements of the Texas government
have repeatedly tried to arrest Mr. Moebius and he is in fear for his life --
especially if he is jailed.
As attorney David Parker said, "Erik Moebius is an unusual lawyer in the sense
that he encountered corruption in the legal process and wanted to do something
about it. It's important to remember that Erik was a normal lawyer before all
this happened. He had worked for five years as a Texas assistant attorney
general as a litigator for the highway department. He has a wife and a family.
He thought he was doing a good job in the judicial system and actually thought
that when you stumble upon corruption, you're going to get a medal for
exposing it. Instead you get a heel on the back of your neck and quite a few
problems after that "
[Note: The majority of this article was written or spoken by Erik Moebius.
Additional comments from attorneys David Parker and Nick Milum, or Michael
Ellis and Alfred Adask are identified by their names.]
Abelia Garcia
"Reserve fraud" first came to my attention and that of the League of United
Latin American Citizens (LULAC) -- Texas through the case of Mrs. Abelia
Garcia of Seguin, Texas. In 1987, Mrs. Garcia's son was airlifted to
Brackenridge Hospital in Austin, Texas with massive brain injuries following a
head-on collision in a highway reconstruction zone. Because her son had
suffered catastrophic injuries, he had a "catastrophic claim " against the
insurance company which would probably win a massive, multi-million dollar
insurance settlement. Within days of her son's arrival, Brackenridge Hospital
Administrator Jesse McNeil Tubberville illegally referred Mrs. Garcia to
Austin attorney Michael Wash. Four years later, in January of 1991, Mrs.
Garcia hired me, complaining that her former attorney told her that she no
longer had a viable appeal related to her son's $2.4 million brain injury
claim. I discovered that Mrs. Garcia had been subjected to what is now called
a "separation scheme" in which an attorney fraudulently tells the plaintiff
that she no longer has a claim. Believing her appeal has been lost, the
plaintiff is "separated" from what is still a valid claim. Unfortunately, the
only thing of value that the plaintiff brings into the courtroom is his or her
personal injury claim. When you look at the plaintiff, his injury and his
claim, it's only the claim that produces the value. We all know that you can't
separate the plaintiff from his injury but what we didn't know was that the
courts can separate a plaintiff from his claim. So it's the claims they're
stealing with these separation schemes. Just four days after Abelia Garcia's
previous attorney told her she no longer had an appeal, Nationwide Mutual, its
attorney and her former attorney secretly filed an appeal on Mrs. Garcia's
claim, and then filed documents evidencing a "settlement" of her claim. Ten
days later, Nationwide Mutual, with full knowledge of the separation scheme,
transferred enormous sums of money out of the mutual's reserve accounts into
the accounts of the participating attorneys and defense firms.
We now know that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company shows that it has paid
Mrs. Garcia over $90,000. Despite the discovery of the fraudulent transaction,
to this day Mrs. Garcia has never received a dime of her monies. Actually, we
think it may be worse than that. If you have a normal "adversarial"
relationship with an insurance company, you want to get as much money as you
can and the insurance company wants to pay as little as possible. But suppose
you've got a claim that's worth $2.4 million, but you've been "separated" from
your claim. If the insurance company has an "extra" $10 million in their
reserve fund, they can launder it through your claim -- they can agree to pay
a $10 million "settlement" on your $2.4 million claim and since you won't get
a dime, they will keep it all for themselves.
In the Abelia Garcia case, we found a check to a cash management account that
was used to buy three cars for three witnesses right before a hearing. We
actually captured checks -- we have in our possession, checks from Nationwide
Insurance Company that were issued some ten days after she was separated from
her claim. Ten days after she was told she no longer had an appeal! The level
of evidence here is very, very high.
Separation Schemes
The central component of all separation schemes is the absolute need to
maintain the "appealability" of the pirated claim. Therefore, the separation
scheme has two components: 1) "pirating" ("separating" the plaintiff from his
claim); and 2) maintaining the appealability of the claim. The primary device
used by the courts to maintain appealability is the intentional use of
reversible error by the trial court judge -- error that obviously denies the
plaintiff a fair trial and thereby creates a guaranteed basis for appeal.
Although the trial court judge rules against the plaintiff, the plaintiff's
later appeal must still have absolute merit for the mutual insurance company
to be able to launder reserve funds. The mutuals don't want to win an absolute
victory at the trial court level since that victory would terminate the claim
and force the money allocated to the claim from their reserve account, back
into their profits account where it would go to the IRS or to the
policyholders as rebates. However, if the mutuals can download the reserve
money through a pirated claim, instead of paying taxes to the government and
rebates to the policyholders, the insurance executives, owners and scheme
participants can keep the money for themselves. So the mutuals want
"catastrophic claims" which have been "separated" from the plaintiffs and
which can be secretly "settled" for enormous sums of money. Once we recognized
the elements of reserve fraud in the Garcia case, we began to recognize
similar elements in other cases.
Over time, we realized that the mutual insurance carriers seemed to be the
main culprits in the reserve fraud transactions. We then realized that the
mutuals have no stockholders and aren't publicly traded companies. As such,
the mutuals don't fall under the 1932 and 1933 SEC codes. And remember,
neither the plaintiff nor his lawyer reports the receipt of personal injury
compensation. Compensation for damages arising from a personal injury is not a
taxable event. So the absence of reciprocal reporting requirements, makes it
extremely easy for the mutuals to convert the pirated catastrophic injury
claims into enormous money laundering devices. In fact, if the insurance
company claims a $10 million payout on a pirated $2 million claim, who's to
stop them? Who is there to check up on them?
To our dismay, we observed the same illegal scheme in the area of the
intentional tort, including a four-dwelling arson and what appears to be the
intentional killing of five-year old Andreas Hernandez. Both the arson and the
death of this child have caused us to focus with a great deal of concern on
the Yogurt Shop Killings, a multiple mutilation and murder of four children
that took place in Austin, Texas on December 6 of 1991.
Arson
This four-dwelling arson where this land developer Eli Garza set these fires
-- it was just deadset arson. I brought the lawsuit, got into court and I get
this wild ruling: Judge Jean Meurer from Austin, said I couldn't put on any
evidence of motive. Even my clients thought this was crazy. They said wait a
minute, that jury's not going to understand why this guy burned down our
houses. What are we doing in court? Why are we not allowed to tell this jury
why this guy set our fires? So this judge and I went head-to-head for 7, 8
days. I told her, I want to tell this jury why this guy set these fires.
Besides that, if I don t tell them, you're going to direct a verdict against
me at the end of the trial. You're in effect enjoining me. I might be standing
in this courtroom, but I'm not conducting a trial. At the end of the trial,
Judge Meurer did in fact direct a verdict against my clients for failing to
put on evidence of motive! (Now that's reversible error that'll keep the claim alive.) And they were grinning ear-to-ear when they did it. Now, remember, I've been around for a long time but I'm wondering what is going on here?
And here's the kicker -- I got a great appeal! Right? Obviously you have a
right to put on evidence of motive.
Well, the Judge and the defendant's law firm had put my twelve clients through
$40,000 worth of depositions. So Judge Murer said, if you want to appeal my
judgment, you'll have to come up with $40,000 cost bond.
Those are what we call "impossible commands". The plaintiffs couldn't afford
the bonds. If you can do the impossible then you can have your rights. But
your rights shouldn't lie behind an impossible command. However, through a
kind of miracle, I managed to recuse Judge Meurer. Once I did, the reserve
scheme failed since we could appeal without the cost bond and therefore
weren't "separated" from the claim.
Three days later Roy Minton (the attorney who represented the arsonist, Eli
Garza) issued a threat to my wife (who worked at the Minton firm) that I'm
going to be disbarred if I continue with my complaints of judicial misconduct.
That's when all my problems started because suddenly Roy Minton was facing
arson liabilities.
Outside Support
Members of the LULAC-Texas board of directors and I believe that mutual
insurance companies are going to extraordinary lengths to assume liabilities
for the catastrophic injuries, even where contract defenses are available that
would exclude insurance company's liability. For example, as Mr. Gil Gamez of
LULAC District VII noted:
"The four dwelling Eli Garza fire had two eyewitnesses who gained entrance to
the Garza dwelling within minutes of the fires being set and within minutes of
Mr. Garza leaving the dwelling. Recorded statements were taken from each
individual the day after the fires, with each witness reporting that upon
gaining entrance, the Garza dwelling still had a cool, relatively smoke free
interior. Yet each witness also saw as many as four separate points of origin,
with all the fires being floor-to-ceiling fires."
"Multiple points of origin and the presence of floor-to-ceiling or `full
bloom' fires is a compelling sign of arson. Therefore, on the day after the
fire, Aetna had what is termed a `reasonable suspicion' of arson. Like all
insurance contracts, Aetna's contract also excluded coverage for arson.
Therefore, within one day after the fire, Aetna was obligated to issue a
`reservation of rights' letter notifying Garza that Aetna had no contractual
obligation to pay for the arson-related damages. The Clark, Thomas law firm
had the same obligation. With that one letter, the insurance carrier would
have been completely off the hook."
"Yet in this case, both the carrier and the law firm steadfastly refused to
issue a `reservation of rights' letter. Even when Mr. Moebius ultimately
alleged and then plead arson, Aetna deviated from all industry standards and
continued with its coverage." "The only conclusions that can be drawn from
Aetna's unusual conduct is that Aetna anticipated the reserve fraud separation scheme at trial; that Aetna wanted the twelve catastrophic loss claims generated by the arson to be used post-separation as money-laundering devices.
All you have to do is look at the at trial conduct of the trial judge and the
defense counsel and see whether or not they ran a separation scheme with the
reversible error necessary to preserve the claim as a laundering device. If
so, at the time the fires were set, the arsonist must have envisioned the
at-trial fraud and the separation scheme." LULAC-Texas has also complained
that reserve fraud schemes are taking place in both the Texas state and
federal courts. On September 16, 1995, LULAC wrote a sixteen page letter to
U.S. Attorney Janet Reno detailing the manner in which the schemes are
conducted and requested that a special prosecutor be selected and that a team
of Department of Justice attorneys come to Texas to investigate.
LULAC has also filed a grievance with the Texas State Bar on December 13,
1994, complaining that the State Bar was actively concealing and conducting a
large scale barratry or referral scheme at Brackenridge Hospital, a State and
County Hospital in Austin, Texas. LULAC complained that the illegal, organized
hospital referral scheme was designed to fraudulently induce the injured
working poor to hire attorneys who would subsequently separate them from their
claims pursuant to the reserve fraud schemes. Included with LULAC's grievance
to the State Bar is a copy of the February, 1992 deposition of Brackenridge
Hospital Administrator Jesse McNeil Tubberville. In that deposition, Mrs.
Tubberville confirmed that seven Austin attorneys and law firms were receiving illegal referrals of air ambulance patients from the State and County hospital on a rotating basis. Significantly, Bill Whitehurst, a former Texas State Bar President and Mac Kidd, a former partner of Mr. Whitehurst and now a Third Court of Appeals justice, were among those named by the Brackenridge
administrator has having received the illegal referrals.
The Empire Strikes Back
On the same day that LULAC filed its grievance, the Texas State Bar filed its
disbarment lawsuit against me. Notably, at the time the State Bar filed its
suit seeking my disbarment, I was LULAC's chief attorney and advisor in the
area of reserve fraud. As such, the facts suggest that my disbarment was
politically motivated and designed by the State Bar to prevent an inquiry into
the Brackenridge barratry scheme and its relation to the conduct of reserve
fraud in the courts of Texas.
I had just managed to disrupt the in-court separation scheme being conducted
by Judge Meurer and Dan Ballard of the Clark, Thomas firm. Three days later,
Roy Minton told my wife that he, Judge Lowry, and Judge Meurer intended to
have me disbarred as mentally impaired unless I quit with the appeal. Roy sees
himself as a leader in this reserve fraud. And, to a great extent, he is.
Judge Cofer, Judge Meurer, Judge Cooper, all the reserve fraud judges, follow Minton's orders.
My disbarment lawsuit was very unusual in that it was initiated by a threat
from Roy Minton in relation to the four-dwelling arson case, and the
grievances were filed by a judge's mistress, Dotty Bell Matthews . . . a woman
who had never seen me, who was never my client, but filed to have me disbarred
on the grounds of mental impairment, threat of being a peril to my clients . .
. . The November, 1995 disbarment trial was conducted before State Bar Judge
M. Kent Sims of Wheeler County and State Bar attorney Mike McKetta (who also
worked with Mr. Minton on the high profile "F.M. Property case"). At the
trial. Mr. McKetta requested that 150 items of evidence and witnesses be
excluded, including any reference to the four-dwelling arson trial and my
association with LULAC. Judge Sims also placed a guard at the door of the
courtroom, a peculiar security device that at times resulted in excluding my
wife and a great many other people from the trial.
Despite these unusual precautions, the jury found my complaints of judicial
corruption and reserve fraud were not frivolous and not filed with the intent
of harming third parties. The State Bar immediately requested that Judge Sims
throw out the jury verdict and issue a finding that my complaints of judicial
corruption were frivolous. Judge Sims granted Mr. McKetta's request and found
that Mr. McKetta was entitled to $175,000 in attorney's fees for his work in
disbarring me. If all this sounds weird, you need to realize that since Roy
Minton threatened me with disbarment, I have either gone through these
harrowing disbarment trials, or even more harrowing, three arrest attempts,
where they send the police door-to-door and -- you know, some of the lawyers
talk about getting closer to God. I have a feeling that when you are fighting
evil, whether you are religious or not, God comes to you. We've had -- like
Eilene Flume, or David Parker -- we call them "angels" -- people do show up
and it's happened time and time again. David Parker: "We were here all the
time."
Political Disbarments
David Parker: "We have two types of disbarments here. First, we have
disbarments of lawyers who resist the reserve fraud schemes. But who brings
the charges? Judge or state bar?"
Nick Milum: "Anybody. It's usually somebody who's in the business. Who's in
the state bar."
Not your clients?
Nick Milum: "No. For example, I was taking the deposition of attorney Roy
Minton in the Erik Moebius case. I was representing LULAC and it was amazing,
we got some major information out of the old boy. But then he got up and he
says `the deposition's over now. I quit. I'm going home.' "That's highly
unusual -- and on our way out of the deposition Minton looks over at the state bar lawyer, Mike McKetta, he says `Mike, I want you to get rid of Milum. Get rid of him now.' I was kind of amused by that. I didn't think nothing of it, you know. Three days later I get a letter from the State Bar of Texas saying `Hey, we're suing you, Nick.' They've sued me three times. I beat them all three times."
David Parker: "The second use of disbarments is to limit access to the courts.
When Nick Milum started running for judge, and when Eilene Flume and when
Carolyne Barnes started making noise about running for judge -- Wham! -- they
get hit with disbarment activity.
"Strangely enough, with lawyers, we don't have precedent. One lawyer can be
disbarred, another one can have all charges dismissed for the same conduct.
There's nothing to stop that and it happens on a regular basis. "Moreover,
State Bar procedures have been modified substantially so judges in a
disbarment proceeding may be selected by the State Bar itself or the Supreme
Court. The people suing you are picking the judge.
"What's worse is that even after selecting the judge they can also hire a big
law firm to prosecute a sole practitioner so you may have three or four major
litigators after you under the name of the State Bar. They have enormous
resources to use against you. You can imagine a sole practitioner trying to
represent his clients while defending himself against the Bar."
Andreas Hernandez
We've seen a case handled by attorney Don Kilpatrick. Don was a sole
practitioner -- yes, he's also been disbarred -- we think this is an epidemic.
Don represented a mother whose five year old son, Andreas Hernandez, was
playing in a vacant lot in San Antonio. A construction company truck dropped
off a laborer across the street. According to the eye witness, the truck
peeled out, came across the street, backed up through the vacant lot past the
small child all the way to the end of the lot. He then put the truck in first
gear and peeled out and slammed the boy into the ground, crushing his skull.
When I was an Assistant Attorney General with the Highway Department, we
looked at accidents and talked about the "geometrics". Did the truck deviate
off the roadway a little bit? Well, in the Andreas Hernandez case, it's hard
not to conclude it was an intentional rundown. Which means we're talking about
reserve fraud and "intentionally-induced catastrophic injury". Murder.
The law says you have a right to know about insurance coverage. Don brought
the lawsuit and filed interrogatories to ask about insurance coverage. The
construction company and the insurance company both lied. They both told him
there was no insurance coverage.
Because I was formerly with the Attorney General's office, I've done a lot of
public works contracts so I knew there must be insurance coverage because the
construction company's contract would mandate it (usually $500,000). Don found
the contractual provision and saw that they had to have $500,000 in coverage
so he started digging into the file and found the big surprise -- $19.3
million in insurance coverage. (He also found that three weeks before the
death occurred there was a letter from the contractor to the insurance agent
who, by the way, happened to live next door to each other, asking him to make
sure the coverage extended to the trucks as they were taking the workers to
and from the site. Apparently, they were "locking down" coverage.) We'd never
seen this before. You normally have a geometric relationship between what we
call your "primary insurance coverage"and then your "umbrella coverage". If
you have $500,000 in primary insurance, your usual ratio is between three and
six, so you might have as much as $3 million in umbrella coverage. With the
$19.3 million policy, we saw for the first time what we now call a "hidden
towering umbrella policy".
After the truck hit the boy, the driver's only explanation was that he was mad
at a laborer for slapping his sister. It didn't make sense. But what also
doesn't make sense is why does this pickup truck have $20 million worth of
coverage on it? And why did the contractor and the insurance company both deny
there was any coverage?
We suspect the truck may have been intentionally over-insured in anticipation
of causing a catastrophic accident that could be used to launder $20 million
out of the mutual insurance company's reserve fund.
Official Resistance
Alfred Adask: "I've heard that the insurance companies' overall financial
structure is not easily accessible to the public."
Nick Milum: "We tried to get a hold of it and they didn't hand it out, I can
tell you that. In fact, when we tried to get hold of it, some people from
Texas Attorney General Dan Morales' office rolled in and prevented us from
getting the closing files from a number of cases." Reserve fraud is well
entrenched in both the state and federal courts in Texas, and has been
assisted by compromising various prosecutorial authorities, including Travis
County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. We believe neutralizing prosecutorial
authorities has created a risk-free legal environment and caused attorneys
such as Roy Minton, to engage in more dramatic and devastating conduct in
order to create catastrophic claims to be used in the reserve fraud, money
laundering transactions. Roy Minton's reserve fraud schemes are leading the
way. Everyone else is content to pick up the naturally-occurring catastrophic
injury at Brackenridge hospital. You know, the Mexican laborer, what these
people might consider to be the claims of the "throw away" people. But Roy is
way different. Roy's schemes involve burning down four luxury, cliff-side
condos in broad daylight. Further, Roy Minton and the Plunkett, Gibson & Allen firm were the primary attorneys on the Yogurt Shop Case where four young girls were mutilated and murdered.
Yogurt Shop Murders
On December 6, 1991 there were four children in a yogurt shop in Austin,
Texas. Two sixteen year olds and two fourteen year olds. At closing time,
approximately 10:30 something happened . . . at about midnight the fire trucks
were called to the scene because there was a fire in the back of the shop.
What they saw when they came in was the four hung, mutilated bodies of these
four children. And the children had been sodomized. What we're concerned about
with the Yogurt Shops is -- the information is that the claim settled for $12
million. Why would a yogurt shop have $12 million worth of coverage? You
normally would have half a million. You're talking about slip-and-fall
liability out there or maybe food poisoning.
We first thought that these murders were your typical walk-in/walk-out
murders. But even then there's always a concern on the part of the robbers to
get in and get out quickly to avoid detection. But my wife worked at the
Minton firm at that time and she told me that the children had been mutilated.
When we discovered that the information about the children being mutilated was
not released to the public -- it was a very gruesome scene and they were hung,
then burned and water was poured on the floor -- we have a very staged murder
here. How did the killers know they had enough time to do all that? Your first
thought is -- is this an inside job? How did someone know that they would have
an hour to mutilate these children? You'd expect a brother, a sister, somebody
who's responsible -- you've got girls from three different families here -- to
pick them up after work. And, a robber who is a stranger to the scene wouldn't
know what the travel arrangements were.
It turns out that a stepfather of two of the children had arranged for all the
children to be transported in the oldest daughter's car and that they were
going to go out somewhere together. That would create unaccountability. But
we're very concerned that this involves reserve fraud . . . .
S&L II?
If anyone thinks these reserve fraud transactions are a once in a while event,
they are tragically mistaken. Reserve fraud is an industry and it has taken a
firm grip in both the state and federal courts. The amount of capital flowing
through these reserve fraud schemes may soon dwarf the capital that
disappeared through the S&L crisis. Reserve fraud creates a huge and spiraling
demand for pirated catastrophic injury claims and explains why the Texas State
Bar is so well organized at the state and county hospitals where it is
illegally picking up referrals of severely injured patients. Tragically, the
Bar's intent is to subsequently defraud the illegally referred plaintiffs by
separating them from their claims in order to free those claims up for the
reserve fraud transactions. But add to this tragedy the fact that there is an
enormous body of evidence that conclusively demonstrates that this almost
insatiable demand for the catastrophic claim has resulted in the use of
intentionally induced catastrophic claims; intentional injuries and murders
conducted through the use of over-insured vehicles or on overinsured premises.
As a result, we are seeing multiple arsons and multiple murders.
Next Step?
Michael Ellis: "What is the next step?"
We're meeting with state representatives. We're meeting with chiefs of police
to inform them about the hidden motive.
David Parker: "We need public support. We need people actually getting out
there and contacting us to say we're behind you. We need people in the
courtrooms when we go in there to observe the proceedings. We need people
making demands about the state bar. We need people asking questions with their
state legislators asking for investigations and hearings.
Michael Ellis:
"Praise God for your work. God bless you in this. We would like to join forces
with the sole practitioners. Perhaps the time has come to form an association
between laymen and sole practitioners to expose this type of corruption. The
people out here in the public are sometimes ignorant and awkward but believe
me, our heart's in the right place and we'll support you as best we can."
Editor's Note: No one denies that a number of children were killed under
suspicious circumstances. Whether Mr. Moebius' allegations are correct
concerning the cause of these deaths remains to be seen. But if he's right,
the consequences of his allegations are: 1) innocent victims of catastrophic
accidents are being robbed of millions (perhaps billions) of dollars through
mutual insurance reserve fraud schemes; 2) based on that robbery, everyone's
insurance premiums may be much higher than legitimate, free market liabilities
justify; and 3) in order to facilitate those robberies, children are being
murdered. It doesn't get much worse than that. But curiously, rather than
investigate Mr. Moebius' allegations and the childrens' deaths, the State Bar
and judicial system have instead questioned his mental stability and sought to
have him disbarred and silenced. None of us wants to live in a world where
lawyers, judges, and insurance executives conspire to rob the accident victims
and kill children. In the end, I think all Mr. Moebius wants is a thorough
public investigation of his allegations. If he's wrong, even he will be deeply
relieved. However, faced with the undeniable deaths of several children, it is
inconceivable that any government agency would refuse to investigate
allegations that tried to explain those deaths -- unless that government
agency intended to conceal the cause of those deaths. So long as the Bar and
judicial system seek to muzzle Mr. Moebius, I am compelled to believe his
allegations are substantially correct.
Further Action: If anyone has further information to support (or refute) these "separation" and "reserve fraud" allegations -- or if you or someone you know
has been obviously defrauded in a "catastrophic injury" case -- give us a call
at the AntiShyster office or leave a message on our EMail at www.antishyster.com.
Likewise, anyone interested in forming a layman/lawyer association for the
purpose of restoring justice and accountability to our courts, contact the
AntiShyster by mail, phone or Email, or write to attorney David Parker at
P.O.B. 1615, Rockwall, Texas 75087.
|