Found Deceased TX - Michael Chambers, 70, Hunt County, 10 March 2017 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bringing this forward because this is my understanding of the need for the declaration of death. His pension payments would change unless he opted for them not to change. Since he is missing, he could not make this decision and his family could not either without the declaration. Why do people still find this suspicious?

Here is a portion of the quote you brought forward from Pmerle00:
DFD pension board sent out a letter to members just prior to Papaw's disappearance requesting a confirmation that the payments should maintain as they had been - OR if they didn't respond, then it would go to semi-annual payments. The DROP fund payments stopped the same month Papaw went missing, so action had to be taken RIGHT AWAY so BC could continue to receive the funds that Papaw contributed to the DROP monthly instead of going to semi-annual.

This response is just my opinion. From what I have read, I think PaPaw. Is extremely organized and not one to let things lag; especially something as important as a letter from the DFD pension board. If he is anything like my Dad at that age, he would have completed the form, signed it, and taken it to the post office the next day. Now, let's say he didn't. We have been told by Pmerle00 that they were financially ok. It is getting close to the six month mark for a deposit. So, BC isn't too far away from a deposit. I have no idea of their finances and it certainly isn't any of my business, but I think it would be hard to make the decision to get a death certificate. It makes it "too real". I realize BC has been off work and sustained an injury. Believe me, I understand what it is like to have medical bills pile up, even with good health coverage. So, maybe that was a deciding factor to get the certificate. I think the timeline in getting the certificate was surprising; it just seemed so soon. Initially the feeling was that we were giving up on PaPaw's return. This is just my opinion.
 
Why was the Sheriff involved in going with BC to do the death certificate, isn't that a conflict of interest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Why was the Sheriff involved in going with BC to do the death certificate, isn't that a conflict of interest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would think the sheriff has to sign off on it because Mr. Chambers did not die by natural causes. He actually went missing and there is an open investigation. But it does make wonder why the sheriff would sign off on the death certificate, but it is my understanding HC has not classified this as a criminal case.
 
Why was the Sheriff involved in going with BC to do the death certificate, isn't that a conflict of interest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My thoughts exactly. Even if his signature and input were needed legally because he is the office holder of the Sheriff, I would think he would have his Chief Deputy or the Chief of Police stand in since he is a self-proclaimed "close friend ". That would have shut down the exact type of speculation that we have at hand.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
I see that MC and BC were members of the Texas Most Wanted Car Club, they have a Facebook page, I wonder if they have been questioned about his disappearance, they could have valuable information, especially about people he dealt with financially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I tried to google more info about the drop fund. I couldn't find what I was looking for, but I'll look more tonight or ask a Dallas police officer. I just wanted to see if I could verify the info VI has been told. Typically when I get letters in the mail about insurance, pension, etc, they say if I want things to remain the same, I don't have to do anything. If I want to make changes, then I have to fill out a form and mail it back. If MC was already getting monthly payments it seems like they would remain that way unless a form were filled out to change it. I know Dallas doesn't really want to pay the money out, so maybe they did it differently. Just tying to make sure for VI. She may already know for certain.
Not sure if this means anything, but the deadline according to dpfd was Feb 28 2017 https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/2017 Plan Changes/FAQs RetireesBenAPs ever in DROP final.pdf
 
I see that MC and BC were members of the Texas Most Wanted Car Club, they have a Facebook page, I wonder if they have been questioned about his disappearance, they could have valuable information, especially about people he dealt with financially.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VI said they have all been questioned.
 
Thats how I read it too and the deadline was in Feb meaning they probably had several months prior to that to decide
So if I'm reading correctly, you DID have to request the semiannual payment in February, otherwise the payments would remain the same.
 
I think VI is being as transparent as she can with the information she knows and has been told. I think some things don't make sense because it may not be the truth (and I'm not saying VI is the one being untruthful). Time will tell...

I agree. I think our VI is absolutely telling us what she has been told/led to believe. I believe our VI has a very good heart and truly wants to help find her Papaw.
 
I agree. I think our VI is absolutely telling us what she has been told/led to believe. I believe our VI has a very good heart and truly wants to help find her Papaw.
I agree too. But what if she is being fed wrong or incorrect information? I'd rather have no information than to have bad information.
 
I agree too. But what if she is being fed wrong or incorrect information? I'd rather have no information than to have bad information.

Well, I think there is no way (for now) to know if she has been misled or not. And really the VI is the only way we are getting any information.

I have teenage boys, and I have a saying I use with them - 'Trust and verify'. I will take them at their word, but I also listen to my gut and if I think there is something not quiet right, I verify what they said. I will do the same with any information that we are given, if I can verify it.
 
That is true, but it seems to me the pension board states something totally different on their website I am not saying our VI is not being truthful... just that the information she provided as to the reason for the death certificate does not match up with what the pension board states
Well, I think there is no way (for now) to know if she has been misled or not. And really the VI is the only way we are getting any information.

I have teenage boys, and I have a saying I use with them - 'Trust and verify'. I will take them at their word, but I also listen to my gut and if I think there is something not quiet right, I verify what they said. I will do the same with any information that we are given, if I can verify it.
 
Bringing this forward for the new folks! Welcome to anyone who has not introduced themselves but is following along! All insights and ideas are appreciated. [emoji846][emoji1366]


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*

Thanks SavetheQueen,

I'm not new but have been reading along silently for quite a long time now. Took a while to catch up. Even though I AM up to speed now, I still don't understand this! This is the most bizarre and confusing case I've followed.

I haven't commented because I don't even know what to say. So much of it makes no sense. I'm really sorry I've not been of any help.

Big thanks to all who are working so hard to help figure this out. Can't tell you how much I appreciate all your posts. So many well stated questions and conclusions.

They really help me to get a grip on what is known so far, but it still feels like I'm trying to ride a bicycle on ice.

It's so sad too. PaPaw seems like such a wonderful guy! When I watched that latest news video, and heard his voice, laughing with his grandson, tears welled up in my eyes.

The way that LE have handled this too, (or rather, NOT) makes me hurt for all those who love him.

They didn't use Luminol to check for blood? How much effort did they take? His scent was trailed fifty feet into a wooded area, and then nothing more? What?

I don't understand the legal issues. However, I'm not an attorney and I don't want to say something when I don't know what I'm talking about. Never seen anything like this though.

So many aspects of this case I question...

I am very thankful for the VI; She has been a huge help, and my heart truly goes out to her.

I pray every day PaPaw will be returned safely. Until then I will continue to come here and offer my support and gratitude to all of you for the hard work you are doing...
 
Thats really great advice.... verify what they are being told!
I have been out of town for a few days so I missed all the drama, but from what I can piece together, I agree. There are some hard questions that need to be asked and I have so much respect for the daughters allowing those questions to be asked.

In any case when I see family members not wanting to answer hard questions or not wanting to be transparent I see red flags. I definitely see that there are some splintering in the family. I am sure the stress of it is taking a toll but I think its more than just stress. Hopefully those who are not being included in all the legal meetings, etc are verifying what they are being told and not just trusting what others are telling them.
 
I am bringing Pmerle00's post forward for reference (RBBM):

I explained it as it was explained to me and from a couple of things I looked up. I'm definitely not an attorney.

I am sure I'll catch hell for explaining this in more detail, because it's really nobody's business but ours, but... From what I have been told, this is what was required by the pension board to make specific decisions in a timely manner so Papaw's pension and DROP fund would continue on a monthly basis. DFD pension board sent out a letter to members just prior to Papaw's disappearance requesting a confirmation that the payments should maintain as they had been - OR if they didn't respond, then it would go to semi-annual payments. The DROP fund payments stopped the same month Papaw went missing, so action had to be taken RIGHT AWAY so BC could continue to receive the funds that Papaw contributed to the DROP monthly instead of going to semi-annual.

(I think) I found answers to some of your questions, Jim_M (Answers in italicized red).

I am hardly done researching, and I have zero expertise in this area, so I may be completely wrong. However, not only the DROP issue, but the the entire subject of retirement benefits (i.e., DROP and PaPaw's traditional pension benefit) may have played a significant role in his disappearance - its timing in particular. I may not be able to fully explain my reasoning in this post, but I will give it a try (all BBM):

-RSBM for focus-

Was Michael aware of this DFD pension board letter? If so, was he contemplating sending back confirmation? If not, when was the confirmation letter due back to the pension board?

Or, perhaps this DFD pension board letter came after Michael disappeared? In which case, they had very little time to respond if the DROP payments stopped at the end of March. Again, what was the amount of time given for confirmation to be returned?

"MINIMUM ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION:
>A Distributee may elect to receive a Minimum Annual Distribution from his or her DROP account.
The Minimum Annual Distributions works as follows:

>2017: $30,000 is the maximum to be distributed per Distributee as a Minimum Annual Distribution in 2017. The distributee will receive either $3,000 per month (March - December) as an ACH, or if a rollover is selected the money will be distributed semi-annually with $12,000 distributed on June 30th and $18,000 distributed on December 29th.
To be eligible for the maximum in 2017, a completed request form must be received by DPFP by close-of-business February 28, 2017.
>Requests received after February 28, 2017 will be eligible to receive $3,000 per month for all months remaining after the month the completed request was received. The rollover/semi-annual option is not available for requests received after February 28, 2017.


>March 10th: Second letter mailed to DROP account holders that have not responded indicating their desire to participate in either the Minimum Annual Distribution or any potential Pro-rata distribution share.

-RSBM for focus-
Source:
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Ag...dum PowerPoint based on 1-12 motion FINAL.pdf

<Additional Thoughts (my personal observations and opinions only; all BBM>
1. "A written communication was mailed to all members with a DROP account on 1/23 discussing these changes. In this mailing, Retirees with a DROP account have been provided with a DROP Distribution Election form in which the election for the minimum annual distribution and/or the potential pro-rata distributions are included."
https://www.dpfp.org/DROP Policy.html
1) The distribution election form can be viewed here (I believe this is what our VI is referring to): https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Forms/DROP Distribution Election Form 2017.pdf

2) Also, "Any distributees who do not timely submit a DROP withdrawal election form by February 28, 2017, will be notified a second time of this Addendum by March 31, 2017. This second notification will only be for notification purposes for future DROP distributions, not for inclusion in the distribution contemplated to be made on or around March 31, 2017."
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Policy/DROP POLICY ADDENDUM (1_12_17) FINAL.pdf

3) I believe it is reasonable to assume that the first notification would have been delivered by the end of January, so 4 weeks before the Feb. 28th due date, or about 6 weeks before PaPaw's March 10th disappearance. I don't know if he ever saw the letter, or BC found it in their mailbox and talked to him about it. I cannot confirm since her FB page has been locked down, but IIRC, she was off from work the entire month of Feb. If either one of them was aware of the letter, it seems like they would have plenty of time to discuss its content and return the distribution election form, IMO.

4) I have yet to find anything indicating that if they did not respond, then the DROP payments would go from monthly to semi-annual. In fact, the form states,
"Deadlines for Minimum Annual Distributions request are as follows:
>2017 monthly distributions – End of month prior to month of initial distribution
>2017 semi-annual distributions – February 28, 2017"
According to our VI, they had not submitted the request at the time of PaPaw's disappearance, let alone the Feb. 28th deadline. So at that point, they were already ineligible to receive payments semi-annually.

5) It is only because the Feb. 28th deadline was missed that BC did not receive a DROP fund payment in March. Otherwise, the payments would have continued without interruption.

2. "You will be taxed on a payment from DPFP if you do not roll it over. If you are under age 59½ and do not do a rollover, you will also have to pay a 10% additional income tax on early distributions (unless an exception applies)."
https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Forms/DROP Distribution Election Form 2017.pdf

3. "Mandatory DROP Distribution – Federal Required Minimum Distribution:
Federal law requires that you must begin to receive pension payments directly, including distribution from the DROP account, in the year in which you attain age 70½ or leave Active Service ....
-SBM for space-
In addition, the Board’s DROP policy requires DROP Pensioners and Spouse Beneficiaries to withdraw all funds from DROP in annual distributions over a prescribed period. The Required Annual Distribution (RAD) generally must begin in the year the DROP Pensioner or Spouse Beneficiary attains age 70½.
-SBM for space-
DROP Pensioners or Spouse Beneficiaries are required to take distributions from their DROP account in substantially equal amounts each year that will result in the total distribution of the DROP account before the tenth anniversary of the date that the distributions began. Specifically in the year the distributions begin, the DROP pensioner or DROP Spouse Beneficiary shall receive at least one-tenth of the Participant’s DROP account balance as of the beginning of that calendar year."
PaPaw would have turned 70½ on May 27th of this year.
https://www.familytreenow.com/searc...=Chambers&rid=0sn&smck=CCzP52cCRQVtPu9w6BcAfw
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V8C1-79N

Additional info here: https://www.dpfp.org/images/PDFs/Policy/DROP Policy Addendum Amendment 6-8-17.pdf

As for the traditional pension ... I think I will have to come back in the morning ....
 
Personally, I don't think the classic car being sold has any relevance to MC going missing at all, nor do I question any reasons for selling it. I was completely satisfied with our VI's comments on the matter and respect what she said when she said the reasons for selling were private and it was basically a family decision. That put it to rest for me, as well as her detailed explanations on the entire letters testamentary issue. As with most cases, when there's little to no new information or leads, things tend to get rehashed a lot. I know that's human nature, but I'd give anything to be able to help the family think outside the box.
In my own mind, I've narrowed down my theories to this: Someone showed up, perhaps before MC returned home from WalMart, possibly planning to steal tools from his shop to sell. That's a pretty common crime. Perhaps that person knew MC had left his home and knew MC's wife wasn't home, either. One problem with that is it seems the shop wasn't broken into, and I presume MC made sure it was locked when he went to WalMart. Perhaps MC surprised this person when he arrived home. Regardless if the scenario was something like that, it looks to me as if MC actually GAVE whoever showed up the cash in his wallet- no other fingerprints.... Yes, it could have been someone he knew well, and also there could have been an argument of some type. The person could have injured MC without really intending to, panicked and told him he'd take MC to the hospital. If so, they never made it there. Just some thoughts I've had lately.
 
Personally, the fact that his disappearance coincides with whole DROP situation has nagged at me for quite some time. Coincidence? Or not? Only time will tell at this point.


*All statements are of my own opinion unless otherwise specified.*
 
I can fully understand why some might feel this way, Save. From everything I've read and seen, I simply see MC and BC as being very much in love, after several decades, and both pretty darn content with their lives and enjoying and being close to their family. My perspective is that BC has been totally devastated, yet still with a strong Christian faith and family that keeps her going. I think she had no idea at all how to manage things that needed to be managed, financially and otherwise, without the advice and help of her family and attorneys. I always, always remain open to anything and my thoughts are quite subject to change :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
241
Guests online
2,283
Total visitors
2,524

Forum statistics

Threads
599,659
Messages
18,097,866
Members
230,897
Latest member
sarahburhouse
Back
Top