-Caveat Lector-
>From the AntiShyster website:
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 website 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 AttorneyGeneral. 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.
According to Mr. Moebius, "reserve fraud" depends on several elements:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 "
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 officce 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.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
