spandangly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2020
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 2,355
Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #30
- Thread starter Patch Tuesday
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
nhmemorymaker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 56,562
yes... as I have referred--living on the edge, all the time. Do you know when the Nissan Rogue popped into the picture. Why would she give up the Infinity, and when/how to the Rogue?
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 29,561
- Reaction score
- 46,639
Hey Everyone,
Tonight on Websleuths YouTube LIVE we are going to take your calls. We want you to answer this question:
"HAVE YOUR INSTINCTS OR YOUR INTUITION EVER SAVED YOU, WARNED YOU ABOUT SOMETHING, OR MADE YOU THINK SOMETHING WAS WRONG?" Tell us your stories TONIGHT.
Plus we will talk about the latest in True Crime, coronavirus and more!
CLICK HERE TO JOIN US AT 10:00 PM EASTERN TONIGHT ON YOUTUBE!
Tonight on Websleuths YouTube LIVE we are going to take your calls. We want you to answer this question:
"HAVE YOUR INSTINCTS OR YOUR INTUITION EVER SAVED YOU, WARNED YOU ABOUT SOMETHING, OR MADE YOU THINK SOMETHING WAS WRONG?" Tell us your stories TONIGHT.
Plus we will talk about the latest in True Crime, coronavirus and more!
CLICK HERE TO JOIN US AT 10:00 PM EASTERN TONIGHT ON YOUTUBE!
I heard it as maybe if the bail bondsmen did that it might work, if the kids are out there, not that it has actually happened.
MOO
VeryVeritas
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 2,899
Good question. I'm guessing CV stopped making payments when the bullets turned his chest into liquid.
Owutatangledweb
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,039
- Reaction score
- 7,885
Maybe the truck was what Alex and Charles started fighting about? Charles definitely owned an F-150. Lori stated so in one of the two recently released body cams at the police station.
Amazing work! Thank you!!
VeryVeritas
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 2,899
Great work! CV had quite a huge nut to crack. Its possible on the Jeep that CV bought it in TX, but didnt register it in AZ. CV is paying for 3 vehicles, and $4k /mo rent and LVD embezzles the business funds. Unless CV was evading taxes too, he sure had quite an income. Its possible he did break the law and did business where he wasnt licensed. For this crew It seems money burned right through their fingers... but if they did hide assets: maybe bags of cash, gold coins, other peoples names, aliases, etc. Not paying taxes, stiffing creditors, grifting, drifting, murders, life insurance, divorce loot, etc where did it all go?
Your Quint discovery is remarkable. I have to go with that. But what is the CP part of CPQUINT? Is CV's middle initial "P"? I suppose that was an icebreaker that made it easier to sell annuities.
Was the business entity disclosed? Sole proprietorship, LLC, subchapter S or C Corp?
mickey2942
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 14,768
- Reaction score
- 140,900
I bet that all of the fancy cars were leased, and paid for by the business. Thus, all gas, maintenance done on cars, is paid for by a business credit card, and all deductible.
Zero assets. Interesting.
Zero assets. Interesting.
DI_Isokawa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2020
- Messages
- 609
- Reaction score
- 5,570
I think the "CP" was just "license plate talk" for "Captain." I never found anything about the business entity and I searched every combination I could think of. I don't think anything formal existed.
DI_Isokawa
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2020
- Messages
- 609
- Reaction score
- 5,570
Zero assets that I could find. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A forensic accountant with warrants may come to a completely different conclusion.
VeryVeritas
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 2,899
Interesting... What are the consequences of pretending to be a business entity like a Corp, and then never establishing one, no assets in the business and every penny sucked out, hidden or spent? The first that comes to mind is the bank account must have a taxpayer id number. If its a corp, they usually want to see a list of officers and articles of incorporation. But as a sole proprietorship, just an SSN. Even if they used CV's SSN, the company spends all revenue, has no profit, therefore pays no taxes.
Small biz owner here. Just because a company (S,SP,Corp) spends all revenue doesn't mean they pay no taxes and certainly doesn't mean they didn't realize a taxable profit.. Businesses pay taxes on revenue, whether they spend it, invest it, or stuff it under a mattress. Expenditures lower liability but there are a lot of restrictions.
VeryVeritas
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 2,899
Do you mean, they could identify misappropriations of funds? Which may not be visible assets? Just literally spending it all isnt an asset protection strategy that I have ever heard of. Figuring in LVD's TX bankruptcy... either she had a serious spending problem or was hiding assets all along. If someone told me they were paying $4,000 mo rent, and leasing 3 cars, I would be asking how does that make sense. If you get sued, nothing to take. No profits = no taxes, until audit finds improprieties. LVD seemed to burn through a lot of $, but she apparently has nothing tangible to show for it. Other than the high cash burn of rent and leases what was she doing with all of the money?
VeryVeritas
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 2,899
If you follow the rules... So far there are a lot of rule breakers in this case.
Its my understanding that AMZN pays no federal taxes. But they arent a small biz.
VeryVeritas
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,250
- Reaction score
- 2,899
The reason I ask about the biz entity, isnt about tax avoidance. Its that the $35k that LVD took violates different laws if she took it from a corporate acct. Vs. A joint personal acct with her husband.
indicolite22
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Messages
- 10,343
- Reaction score
- 86,414
Lori told police on the day Charles was killed (July 11) that they had been staying in their Chandler house for about three weeks. From the police bodycam it looked like the house was unfurnished, apart from Lori's bedroom.
indicolite22
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Messages
- 10,343
- Reaction score
- 86,414
Someone else mentioned here recently that complaining to the moderators over there did work. I'm not sure if it was the same FB group since I haven't joined any.
Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,768
- Reaction score
- 135,354
I reviewed what was said by the state and the judge at her last bail hearing. I'm presuming defendant's "new facts" have to materially alter something asserted in here:
The first part is a synopsis of what the prosecutor said including most of his words, the second part is the judge's actual words:
States arguments:
First addressing counsel’s comments – how we got here – and why the bail was set at what it’s at – case didn’t start as criminal case, started as report of two missing children who are still missing, when Rexburg PD responds they are given verifiably false information by the defendant, so they obtained warrants to search and at that point the defendant is gone, they say it’s a planned move, however they clearly left very quickly as soon as they were contacted by LE, the vast majority of their belongings were still in the apartment, investigation continued, child protection act was filed, order was given for defendant to produce the children which she did not do. Addressing issue that she informed LE she would turn herself in, it’s hard to trust someone to turn themselves in on a warrant when a simple welfare check caused that person to leave.
Now addressing Rule 46 – (ten) factors to be considered in setting bail -
1. Defendant’s employment status and history, and financial condition:
Not presently employed so she’s not at risk of losing employment.
Financials - Defendant’s new husband received a substantial sum of life insurance proceeds from death of his wife last October. Obviously those funds provide them with ability to relocate quickly and stay away from Idaho, which we believe they’ve already done.
2. Nature and extent of defendant’s family relationships:
Defendant’s only family here is her new husband. At a bail reduction hearing in Hawaii very recently her attorney represented to court that her husband lived in Hawaii, not in Idaho.
3. Defendant’s past and present residences:
We understand the defendant does have a house here, however the fact of what was represented to Hawaii that they lived in Hawaii shows they consider their ties not in Idaho but in Hawaii.
Past residences – last year is more concerning – since summer defendant has lived in Arizona, Idaho and Hawaii, and frankly circumstances under which she left Arizona soon after killing of her estranged husband by her brother, and the circumstances in which she left Idaho the same night Rexburg police did welfare check, give state serious concern she is a flight risk.
4. Defendant’s character and reputation:
since summer clear and alarming pattern in defendant’s life, three active investigations of suspicious deaths that she is related to – we’re not saying she’s been charged in those and not saying court should treat her as such, however she is related to each of those deaths and it is alarming to the state. Also – defendant tried to mislead Rexburg LE, she tried to convince a family friend to tell LE she had the children, and defendant has history of defying court orders in child protection case associated with this case she refused to produce her children as ordered. In 2009 child custody case in Travis County Texas she was found guilty of seven different counts of civil contempt.
5. Persons who agree to assist the defendant in attending court at proper time:
that’s pretty much limited to her new husband and due to fact that he and defendant left abruptly before we don’t have assurance from that.
6. Nature of current charge and mitigating and aggravating factors that may bear upon likelihood of conviction and possible penalty:
Idaho code 18-401 felony for anyone having a child under 18 dependent upon him/her for care, education or support who deserts such child in any manner whatever, with intent to abandon. It’s broad because it deals in protecting children. Aggravating factors –
Defendant established residence in Madison County ID with two minor children – those children ended up being reported as missing and defendant left the state without them. – defendant defied a court order to produce the children – one of them is only 7 and has special needs which require medication and medical attention. Both received social security benefits and defendant continued collecting into her own account after last known sightings and continuing into Hawaii. Case law related to desertion of minor child ID code 19-302 this court has jurisdiction over acts of desertion here in Madison and Hawaii. Most aggravating factor – heartbreaking and reason for media attention, the children are still missing. Defendant has not only misled LE in efforts to find children but she has refused to aid in any attempts to find children even before charges were filed. ID code 18-403 and 18-405 – and case law – proving abandonment/desertion is prima facia evidence that the desertion was wilful.
In regards to sentence if convicted and we believe she will be, could face up to 30 years in prison which is certainly motive to flee.
7. Defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, and, if defendant has previously been released pending a trial or hearing, whether defendant appeared as required:
Not aware of prior criminal record but as discussed she does have history of defying court orders.
8. Facts indicating possibility of violations of law if defendant is released without restrictions:
past behavior is best predictor of future behavior. She’s already disobeyed this court’s order and so we have no reason to believe that if she were released she wouldn’t continue in unlawful behavior.
9. Any other facts tending to indicate defendant has strong ties to community and is not likely to flee the jurisdiction:
at this point with her two children missing the defendant’s only local tie is her husband who as of a couple of weeks ago she claimed he lived in Hawaii.
10. Reasonable conditions/restrictions – should defendant be able to make bail:
restricted to living in Madison or Fremont County ID, wear a GPS location device, if she has a passport to surrender it to court.
Conclusion – defendant has established through her own behavior that she cannot be trusted to obey a court order or to appear at future court hearings. Bail should be confirmed where it is, we have no confidence that she will stay in the area and appear for future hearings should she be released.
Judge's remarks:
The court has listened carefully to the argument of both the state and the defense. The court has reviewed in detail and in full Rule 46 of the Idaho Criminal Rules. The court has also reviewed the Idaho Bail Act, Title 19 Chapter 29, specifically under 19-2904 it designates that the court may release a person on his own recognizance or set an amount of bail and may impose any conditions of release. In making these determinations the court shall consider the following objectives:
1. Ensuring the appearance of the defendant.
2. Ensuring the integrity of the court process including the right of the defendant to bail as constitutionally provided.
3. Ensuring the protection of victims and witnesses.
4. Ensuring public safety.
The court has taken all four of those factors into consideration as well as all ten factors under subsection c, under the Idaho Criminal Rules 46. And based upon the argument that I’ve heard here today, the court is going to reduce bail. I’m going to reduce bail to the amount of $1 million. I recognise all of the factors that have been looked at here, one specific thing that the court notes in setting such a high bail amount is that there is a pending court order and to my knowledge there has been nothing set forth regarding obedience to that court order, pertaining to lining the court out with information on where the two children are at the Department of Health and Welfare or at the Rexburg Police Department. So with that bail will be set at $1 million. If bail is posted…
The first part is a synopsis of what the prosecutor said including most of his words, the second part is the judge's actual words:
States arguments:
First addressing counsel’s comments – how we got here – and why the bail was set at what it’s at – case didn’t start as criminal case, started as report of two missing children who are still missing, when Rexburg PD responds they are given verifiably false information by the defendant, so they obtained warrants to search and at that point the defendant is gone, they say it’s a planned move, however they clearly left very quickly as soon as they were contacted by LE, the vast majority of their belongings were still in the apartment, investigation continued, child protection act was filed, order was given for defendant to produce the children which she did not do. Addressing issue that she informed LE she would turn herself in, it’s hard to trust someone to turn themselves in on a warrant when a simple welfare check caused that person to leave.
Now addressing Rule 46 – (ten) factors to be considered in setting bail -
1. Defendant’s employment status and history, and financial condition:
Not presently employed so she’s not at risk of losing employment.
Financials - Defendant’s new husband received a substantial sum of life insurance proceeds from death of his wife last October. Obviously those funds provide them with ability to relocate quickly and stay away from Idaho, which we believe they’ve already done.
2. Nature and extent of defendant’s family relationships:
Defendant’s only family here is her new husband. At a bail reduction hearing in Hawaii very recently her attorney represented to court that her husband lived in Hawaii, not in Idaho.
3. Defendant’s past and present residences:
We understand the defendant does have a house here, however the fact of what was represented to Hawaii that they lived in Hawaii shows they consider their ties not in Idaho but in Hawaii.
Past residences – last year is more concerning – since summer defendant has lived in Arizona, Idaho and Hawaii, and frankly circumstances under which she left Arizona soon after killing of her estranged husband by her brother, and the circumstances in which she left Idaho the same night Rexburg police did welfare check, give state serious concern she is a flight risk.
4. Defendant’s character and reputation:
since summer clear and alarming pattern in defendant’s life, three active investigations of suspicious deaths that she is related to – we’re not saying she’s been charged in those and not saying court should treat her as such, however she is related to each of those deaths and it is alarming to the state. Also – defendant tried to mislead Rexburg LE, she tried to convince a family friend to tell LE she had the children, and defendant has history of defying court orders in child protection case associated with this case she refused to produce her children as ordered. In 2009 child custody case in Travis County Texas she was found guilty of seven different counts of civil contempt.
5. Persons who agree to assist the defendant in attending court at proper time:
that’s pretty much limited to her new husband and due to fact that he and defendant left abruptly before we don’t have assurance from that.
6. Nature of current charge and mitigating and aggravating factors that may bear upon likelihood of conviction and possible penalty:
Idaho code 18-401 felony for anyone having a child under 18 dependent upon him/her for care, education or support who deserts such child in any manner whatever, with intent to abandon. It’s broad because it deals in protecting children. Aggravating factors –
Defendant established residence in Madison County ID with two minor children – those children ended up being reported as missing and defendant left the state without them. – defendant defied a court order to produce the children – one of them is only 7 and has special needs which require medication and medical attention. Both received social security benefits and defendant continued collecting into her own account after last known sightings and continuing into Hawaii. Case law related to desertion of minor child ID code 19-302 this court has jurisdiction over acts of desertion here in Madison and Hawaii. Most aggravating factor – heartbreaking and reason for media attention, the children are still missing. Defendant has not only misled LE in efforts to find children but she has refused to aid in any attempts to find children even before charges were filed. ID code 18-403 and 18-405 – and case law – proving abandonment/desertion is prima facia evidence that the desertion was wilful.
In regards to sentence if convicted and we believe she will be, could face up to 30 years in prison which is certainly motive to flee.
7. Defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, and, if defendant has previously been released pending a trial or hearing, whether defendant appeared as required:
Not aware of prior criminal record but as discussed she does have history of defying court orders.
8. Facts indicating possibility of violations of law if defendant is released without restrictions:
past behavior is best predictor of future behavior. She’s already disobeyed this court’s order and so we have no reason to believe that if she were released she wouldn’t continue in unlawful behavior.
9. Any other facts tending to indicate defendant has strong ties to community and is not likely to flee the jurisdiction:
at this point with her two children missing the defendant’s only local tie is her husband who as of a couple of weeks ago she claimed he lived in Hawaii.
10. Reasonable conditions/restrictions – should defendant be able to make bail:
restricted to living in Madison or Fremont County ID, wear a GPS location device, if she has a passport to surrender it to court.
Conclusion – defendant has established through her own behavior that she cannot be trusted to obey a court order or to appear at future court hearings. Bail should be confirmed where it is, we have no confidence that she will stay in the area and appear for future hearings should she be released.
Judge's remarks:
The court has listened carefully to the argument of both the state and the defense. The court has reviewed in detail and in full Rule 46 of the Idaho Criminal Rules. The court has also reviewed the Idaho Bail Act, Title 19 Chapter 29, specifically under 19-2904 it designates that the court may release a person on his own recognizance or set an amount of bail and may impose any conditions of release. In making these determinations the court shall consider the following objectives:
1. Ensuring the appearance of the defendant.
2. Ensuring the integrity of the court process including the right of the defendant to bail as constitutionally provided.
3. Ensuring the protection of victims and witnesses.
4. Ensuring public safety.
The court has taken all four of those factors into consideration as well as all ten factors under subsection c, under the Idaho Criminal Rules 46. And based upon the argument that I’ve heard here today, the court is going to reduce bail. I’m going to reduce bail to the amount of $1 million. I recognise all of the factors that have been looked at here, one specific thing that the court notes in setting such a high bail amount is that there is a pending court order and to my knowledge there has been nothing set forth regarding obedience to that court order, pertaining to lining the court out with information on where the two children are at the Department of Health and Welfare or at the Rexburg Police Department. So with that bail will be set at $1 million. If bail is posted…
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,891
- Reaction score
- 8,643
Amazing work, DI Isokawa. You rock! (in case nobody has told you that today).
I spent some time looking up the house here in the Austin area because I was curious how much they payed for it (300K range, now closer to $1M). There were 2 contractor liens filed within the first year (attached). It looked like they had refied within the first year and then it was foreclosed on but then many folks were in 2008. Anyways, it looked like a shell game to me. So much financial juggling.
Website screenshots for R.I.T.E. Planning are attached. It was short-lived; the only archived captures are from 2018-2019. FWIW
Attachments
- Status