The Death of Wayne Millard

[Snoofo]

I guess I would see this more for the personal satisfaction or some other benefit. Mainly because I haven't been able to understand how someone would still be able to get at the money.

It may be access to money or assets obtained Iillegally. Thats where my mind goes first. I wouldnt say they could get at things he legally owns like a house or condo, but maybe yhings that were stored there or elsewhere.
An uncomplicated example is X is holding $500,000 to be paid to DM from an illegal transaction. Or X holds $500k worth of drugs or car parts he was to sell for DM. With DM in jail X gains. Could be more $ could be less. If DM tells, his illegal operations are subject to exposure (But nothing next to a murder 1 charge!).

The possibilities are endless but I cant think of a legal scenario that works.

 

[Blomquist]

This absolutely sounds the most realistic to me, too, and has formed the basis of my consideration from the beginning. It also raises some essential questions, imo, with important sleuthing potential. The trouble so far has been that exploring other possibilities that could help explain this bizarrely constructed crime quick garners accusations that one is in league with a cold blooded murderer, imo. In an effort to again get beyond that, imo, is it worth considering that in the short days and months following WM's sudden death there was, and still remains, an enormous amount of relatively untethered money floating free, debt loaded though it may be? Let us say then, just for the saying, IMO, that it's possible that some one closely associated person or persons is well positioned to make moves on the cash but not if DM is dead, only if he is securely out of touch and out of the way as permanently as possible. Thoughts?

A trustee ??? Most monied businesses have trustees or a board of trustees. These people would have access to funds as and when needed according to the details of the trust if the provision for them to have power to pay out is written into the trust. The estate trust may well have had trustees also. Trust Law is a very interesting thing. It also pervades into the area of law/court system......and can be a very cloak and dagger type of thing if in the wrong hands as it were.... JMO

 

[Blomquist]

We also must not forget Private Trusts !!!! Holdings !!!! If they are Private they are Private. That means no-one will have access except those named on the or in the Trust. Not even a court can venture into a Private Trust for that violates the purpose and foundation of the PRIVATE trust. Like I said before... Trust Law is VERY interesting..... kind of like 'who holds the key to the Kingdom' type of interesting.

 

[Blomquist]

taken from Wikipedia (link at bottom)

Common purposes for trusts include:

1. Privacy. Trusts may be created purely for privacy. The terms of a will are public and the terms of a trust are not. In some families, this alone makes the use of trusts ideal.

2. Spendthrift protection. Trusts may be used to protect beneficiaries (for example, one's children) against their own inability to handle money. These are especially attractive for spendthrifts. Courts may generally recognize spendthrift clauses against trust beneficiaries and their creditors, but not against creditors of a settlor.[citation needed]

3. Wills and Estate Planning. Trusts frequently appear in wills (indeed, technically, the administration of every deceased's estate is a form of trust). Conventional wills typically leave assets to the deceased's spouse (if any), and then to the children equally. If the children are under 18, or under some other age mentioned in the will (21 and 25 are common), a trust must come into existence until the contingency age is reached. The executor of the will is (usually) the trustee, and the children are the beneficiaries. The trustee will have powers to assist the beneficiaries during their minority.[13]


4. Charities. In some common law jurisdictions all charities must take the form of trusts. In others, corporations may be charities also. In most jurisdictions, charities are tightly regulated for the public benefit (in England, for example, by the Charity Commission).

5. Unit trusts. The trust has proved to be such a flexible concept that it has proved capable of working as an investment vehicle: the unit trust.

6. Pension plans. Pension plans are typically set up as a trust, with the employer as settlor, and the employees and their dependents as beneficiaries.

7. Remuneration trusts. Trusts for the benefit of directors and employees or companies or their families or dependents. This form of trust was developed by Paul Baxendale-Walker and has since gained widespread use.[14]

Corporate structures. Complex business arrangements, most often in the finance and insurance sectors, sometimes use trusts among various other entities (e.g., corporations) in their structure.

Asset protection. Trusts may allow beneficiaries to protect assets from creditors as the trust may be bankruptcy remote. For example, a discretionary trust, of which the settlor may be the protector and a beneficiary, but not the trustee and not the sole beneficiary. In such an arrangement the settlor may be in a position to benefit from the trust assets, without owning them, and therefore in theory protected from creditors. In addition, the trust may attempt to preserve anonymity with a completely unconnected name (e.g., "The Teddy Bear Trust"). These strategies are ethically and legally controversial.

You will notice that the following information titled 'Private Trust' focuses only on the Public Trust....there is a reason for that......privacy.

Private and public trusts. A private trust has one or more particular individuals as its beneficiary. By contrast, a public trust (also called a charitable trust) has some charitable end as its beneficiary. In order to qualify as a charitable trust, the trust must have as its object certain purposes such as alleviating poverty, providing education, carrying out some religious purpose, etc. The permissible objects are generally set out in legislation, but objects not explicitly set out may also be an object of a charitable trust, by analogy. Charitable trusts are entitled to special treatment under the law of trusts and also the law of taxation.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law"]Trust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Snoofo]

Funny the Trusts should come up because recently I was thinking about whether EG Wildlife fund may have been set up like a trust?

In any case, thanks for all that information. Based on my own experiences with trusts, they can be convoluted and quite private.

The question I have, though, is how is it this person, "X" can do anything differently with the trust if DM is in jail? If the were both trustees, X would not become the sole trustee once DM is incarcerated. If they were both beneficiaries, the same thing. If X is the settlor as described above, he could do what he wants with the trust's money but he can do that without having arranged a murder to frame and detain DM. I'm thinking I'm missing something here but I just can't see how incarceration changes anything. Right now the only person "legally" benefiting financially is his mother and I don't believe in a million years she would have anything to do with her only son getting life imprisonment for the murder of an innocent family man.

Another thing, if I am missing something and a Trust was at the core of all this, then this X would have to be sophisticated in business particularly Trusts, or very well-guided in Law.

 

[Archangel7]

A trust set up on illegal assets? That would implicate the grantor, trustee and the beneficiary not to mention the asset itself wouldn't it?

By definition isn't a trust structured to not benefit the originator/grantor or the trustee but only the beneficiary?

I suspect any impropriety in a trust would get the courts involved not to mention CRA.

I don't see it, but then again I don't know if they have a trust and recent transferring of property from the beneficiary would seem questionable tax wise if they do.

JMO

 

[Snoofo]

No the illegal assets chatter was mine before the Trusts came up. I dont think Blomquist put Trusts and illegal assets together.

I just dont see how the Trust would fit in, way too complicated and while the parties can remain private it seems to me too much of a stretch. Unless it wasnt a real Trust... (dont ask me where I'm going with that, as it just crossed my mind...probably nowhere!).

 

[Archangel7]

No the illegal assets chatter was mine before the Trusts came up. I dont think Blomquist put Trusts and illegal assets together.

I just dont see how the Trust would fit in, way too complicated and while the parties can remain private it seems to me too much of a stretch. Unless it wasnt a real Trust... (dont ask me where I'm going with that, as it just crossed my mind...probably nowhere!).

I guess one could buy trust assets with criminal money somehow and move assets through to the beneficiary and maybe have some kind of "kickback" scheme set up. I've got to think about that for awhile, but may be doable.
MOO

 

[Blomquist]

Funny the Trusts should come up because recently I was thinking about whether EG Wildlife fund may have been set up like a trust?

In any case, thanks for all that information. Based on my own experiences with trusts, they can be convoluted and quite private.

The question I have, though, is how is it this person, "X" can do anything differently with the trust if DM is in jail? If the were both trustees, X would not become the sole trustee once DM is incarcerated. If they were both beneficiaries, the same thing. If X is the settlor as described above, he could do what he wants with the trust's money but he can do that without having arranged a murder to frame and detain DM. I'm thinking I'm missing something here but I just can't see how incarceration changes anything. Right now the only person "legally" benefiting financially is his mother and I don't believe in a million years she would have anything to do with her only son getting life imprisonment for the murder of an innocent family man.

Another thing, if I am missing something and a Trust was at the core of all this, then this X would have to be sophisticated in business particularly Trusts, or very well-guided in Law.

I think it was quite possible that the Elizabeth Glass Fund was a private trust.
It would make sense. DM would not be a trustee.... IMO he would be a beneficiary or one of the beneficiaries. A trustee is not an executor from what can tell, therefore he would not be the trustee (in fact I don't think its even possible) of his own trust. This would not make sense.IMO

So IMO person X or persons would be the trustee(s). They would be the ones who would know the actual contents of the trust and how it was to be executed (interesting word). Therefore if said persons actually could spend the monies if certain situations were favourable to the trust, then they could in fact spend it as per stipulations within the trust. For example...lets say the Trust was set up by CM and DM was the beneficiary as per the skipping a generation type trust. A trustee (s) would have been appointed (could have been anyone, bank manager, lawyer, accountant etc etc) Trust may have said that the trustee must always work to the benefit of MillardAir, DM, Both etc etc But it could also have a /section/ clause/codecil etc that gave trustee(s) power to act on their own in certain situations.

Maybe this is one of those situations.... its hard to know without trust information. The beneficiary will not have a right to know either...which is interesting. Because of the nature of a trust the right to full disclosure of it to a beneficiary is not necessary or required. So basically the trustee needs to be 'trust worthy' :innocent:

Like I said a trustee can be anyone who the settlor/grantor has deemed (rightly or wrongly) to be trustworthy. (examples above)

Such a big topic and requires a lot of research to fully grasp all types of trust. (sadly I am no expert, merely somewhat learned) But I would expect a large company/corp/holdings like MillardAir to have at least one trust on board. JMO/IMO/MOO

 

[Blomquist]

A trust set up on illegal assets? That would implicate the grantor, trustee and the beneficiary not to mention the asset itself wouldn't it?

By definition isn't a trust structured to not benefit the originator/grantor or the trustee but only the beneficiary?

I suspect any impropriety in a trust would get the courts involved not to mention CRA.

I don't see it, but then again I don't know if they have a trust and recent transferring of property from the beneficiary would seem questionable tax wise if they do.

JMO

A trustee cannot be a beneficiary. A grantor/settlor can only be a beneficiary if there are two or more beneficiaries I believe. I do not believe the courts can access a fully private trust. IMO

 

[Blomquist]

A trust set up on illegal assets? That would implicate the grantor, trustee and the beneficiary not to mention the asset itself wouldn't it?

By definition isn't a trust structured to not benefit the originator/grantor or the trustee but only the beneficiary?

I suspect any impropriety in a trust would get the courts involved not to mention CRA.

I don't see it, but then again I don't know if they have a trust and recent transferring of property from the beneficiary would seem questionable tax wise if they do.

JMO

My opinion is based on the theory of a 'mastermind' ..... maybe we are not thinking along the same lines. A lot of money is at stake here......the question is...who stands to benefit ???

 

[Blomquist]

A trust set up on illegal assets? That would implicate the grantor, trustee and the beneficiary not to mention the asset itself wouldn't it? I don't believe so... maybe the trustee only IMO depending on the wording of the trust.

By definition isn't a trust structured to not benefit the originator/grantor or the trustee but only the beneficiary?

A grantor/settlor can only be a beneficiary if there are two or more beneficiaries. A trustee cannot be a beneficiary as far as I can tell, BUT they can spend if provision allows in the trust. The problem here is that a beneficiary does not have the right to full disclosure of a trust due to the nature of a trust. So if only one trustee, then he has the key to the kingdom....if more than one then they may work in concert....does this make sense ? MOO based on research.

I suspect any impropriety in a trust would get the courts involved not to mention CRA. I don't believe they can access private trusts. IMO

I don't see it, but then again I don't know if they have a trust and recent transferring of property from the beneficiary would seem questionable tax wise if they do. I don't believe its the recently transferred property that is in trust...JMO

JMO

my responses in red...

 

[Blomquist]

I am thinking a certain amount of money was inherited by WM and he put all his eggs in one basket - the hangar project. If anything, with several properties to his name, maybe DM was the only one left with money (he could sell one property for income to last him a long while). Regardless of whether DM's earnings were legal or not (house-flipping, when done right, is legal; the possible laundering of money is not), he was active in making some sort of income. If WM was for years not functioning (we don't know this but it has been suggested by Anne B via her investigations), then defeated the alcoholism and built this hangar, which is paying rent, employing people, purchasing expensive equipment, but not making income, then isn't it right that ONE of the Millards cares about the contracts and timing of forthcoming income? This is a wild guess but perhaps things were going as planned but WM fell off the wagon sometime last year. At what point did he refer to this as "Dellen's project", maybe this wasn't always the case, just the case once it was determined WM may not be fit to see it through? Perhaps DM was afraid that after this huge investment of his dad's, he is the one left holding the bag and the debt for a project he may not have been fully supportive of from the start. Maybe DM was at the point of having to start selling off his own investments to pay for a mismanaged dream of his father's?
Perhaps there were arguments with DM that ultimately led WM to kill himself? that feeling of having failed someone? maybe more about his alcoholism than the money for all we know?
This is a stretch but Maybe WM found out he was ill and dying and decided he didn't want to put his only son in the position of having to endure his suffering?

All possibilities.

Yes, it is also possible that DM killed his father, but I don't think he would or could IMO. It's also possible if the bigger picture involves OC and a debt or a promise broken involving the hangar, then he was killed by OC and this would not surprise me at all. We shouldn't expect that dealings with OC, if any, were only DM's, as WM seems to have been a rebel himself who may not have adhered to rules.

I hope the speculation is allowed on this thread as I can only imagine we will get nothing but speculation on a death of WM thread.

All guesses/hypothetical situations in this post are my own!

Maybe the bigger question is " What is to be considered as OC ?" To me ....anyone or group of people that sets out/conspires to obtain benefit for themselves by way of any means necessary to achieve that goal without any respect or consideration for anyone they ruin, murder, frame or rob etc in the process.

 

[Archangel7]

I think it was quite possible that the Elizabeth Glass Fund was a private trust.
It would make sense. DM would not be a trustee.... IMO he would be a beneficiary or one of the beneficiaries. A trustee is not an executor from what can tell, therefore he would not be the trustee (in fact I don't think its even possible) of his own trust. This would not make sense.IMO

So IMO person X or persons would be the trustee(s). They would be the ones who would know the actual contents of the trust and how it was to be executed (interesting word). Therefore if said persons actually could spend the monies if certain situations were favourable to the trust, then they could in fact spend it as per stipulations within the trust. For example...lets say the Trust was set up by CM and DM was the beneficiary as per the skipping a generation type trust. A trustee (s) would have been appointed (could have been anyone, bank manager, lawyer, accountant etc etc) Trust may have said that the trustee must always work to the benefit of MillardAir, DM, Both etc etc But it could also have a /section/ clause/codecil etc that gave trustee(s) power to act on their own in certain situations.

Maybe this is one of those situations.... its hard to know without trust information. The beneficiary will not have a right to know either...which is interesting. Because of the nature of a trust the right to full disclosure of it to a beneficiary is not necessary or required. So basically the trustee needs to be 'trust worthy' :innocent:

Like I said a trustee can be anyone who the settlor/grantor has deemed (rightly or wrongly) to be trustworthy. (examples above)

Such a big topic and requires a lot of research to fully grasp all types of trust. (sadly I am no expert, merely somewhat learned) But I would expect a large company/corp/holdings like MillardAir to have at least one trust on board. JMO/IMO/MOO

I think I understand where you are going however wouldn't the right to full disclosure be to protect the ID of the beneficiary from the the institute(bank) if a lawyer was trustee? Not to keep the beneficiary from knowing the workings of the trust or trustee?
After all the bank or whomever has to know the ID of the beneficiary in order to insure the deposit received from the trustee, unless a lawyer is the trustee then he can use whatever code he wishes for beneficiary ID but that ID/code still has to be traceable to the beneficiary.

Anyway regardless, how does murdering TB and stealing vehicles tie in to any of the above?
JMO

 

[Carli]

We also must not forget Private Trusts !!!! Holdings !!!! If they are Private they are Private. That means no-one will have access except those named on the or in the Trust. Not even a court can venture into a Private Trust for that violates the purpose and foundation of the PRIVATE trust. Like I said before... Trust Law is VERY interesting..... kind of like 'who holds the key to the Kingdom' type of interesting.

Absolutely, Blomquist. There are many trust structures, but private trusts and closely held corporations can work together hand in glove, usually for completely legal purposes. For instance, in its bare bones simplest form with no third party involvement, let's say my private company doesn't have enough available cash or credit to purchase an asset, but I can afford to buy the property in my own name. So I create a private trust and purchase it, chalking the price up to a loan repayable to me by my company also naming the beneficiary my company who has the sole use and "benefit" of it including entering into contracts in its name, taking profits from it and paying taxes on profits it generates, etc. In this way my company can grow, aquire street creds and credit worthiness when actually, the owner of its principal asset and its primary creditor is just me. The only proviso is that, theoretically, the true owner, me, (the trustee) is not supposed to be doing any work whatsoever on behalf of the company. There would be little doubt about that if the trustee is kicked back in the cooler for an indeterminate length of time. Because the company is only the beneficiary, a creditor cannot force its sale. In privately held corporations (i.e. no shareholders that are arm's length) this is a very common way to hold assets and distribute cash under the corporate umbrella. There are also private family trusts that are set up similarly. Sorry if all this is beyond the province of this site but suffice it to say, there are many ways to legally allocate cash within a closely held corporation's trust structures. Of course, these can become very sophisticated arrangements in which there can also be private trusts within trusts and with privately held corporate subsidiaries as beneficiaries so that it becomes all but impossible to track back through the layers to determine, with any certainty, exactly who truly owns what and where the income is going. For all it's issues and problems, millardair has been a sophisticated corporate enterprise for generations and DM has also assembled significant real estate holdings on his own. I have very little doubt that a rat or two in the cupboard could cause very significant damage, imo.

 

[Blomquist]

I think I understand where you are going however wouldn't the right to full disclosure be to protect the ID of the beneficiary from the the institute(bank) if a lawyer was trustee?

No not IMO, it's the nature of the beast (the trust). If Aunt Mary was trustee of The Mary Poppins Trust then Aunt Mary would be the one going to the bank. She wouldn't need to mention Jane or Michael Banks IMO.

Not to keep the beneficiary from knowing the workings of the trust or trustee? The beneficiary is not required to know, a trust is based on trust. IF a grantor or trustee wishes to share the details I guess they can...but not necessary as far as I can tell. Maybe in this case WM was a co trustee ??? But sadly he is not here to tell us !!!

After all the bank or whomever has to know the ID of the beneficiary in order to insure the deposit received from the trustee, unless a lawyer is the trustee then he can use whatever code he wishes for beneficiary ID but that ID/code still has to be traceable to the beneficiary. No the bank doesn't need to know anything, a bank need not be used. A trustee opens an account in the name of the trust with themselves as the signatory as far as I can tell.

The trustee is the link to the beneficiary. A trust is set up that way. Without a trustee there is no 'trust'. A lawyer can be a beneficiary but so can Grandma or Aunt Mary. Nothing about trust law says that a bank even has to be used, (but most companies would use a bank or similar these days)
It is highly likely that an offshore account would be the preferred choice. Jersey, Guernsey, Cayman Islands etc etc IMO

Anyway regardless, how does murdering TB and stealing vehicles tie in to any of the above?

Well we do not know that stealing vehicles was anything to do with the Millard Family at this point. We know that many circumstantial things have been literally placed on their doorstep. We know that the family has amassed a huge fortune over several decades, and we can assume that said fortune is being 'taken care of' by someone or by a few people.

IMO WM would have been made a trustee of a trust (or two or three) for DM. WM is no more !!!..so quite possibly a remaining trustee or two or three have been left with 'trust' duties. I am not going to suggest that said trustees are linked to the murder....but since we are talking about OC being involved we can suggest that OC would be going to the ones with the 'keys to the kingdom' if they happened to know who they were. I am simply following on from the alluding to OC. Posters have said that murder is often for love or money.....and there is a lot of money here !!!! JMO IMO MOO
JMO

my responses in red

 

[Carli]

We also must not forget Private Trusts !!!! Holdings !!!! If they are Private they are Private. That means no-one will have access except those named on the or in the Trust. Not even a court can venture into a Private Trust for that violates the purpose and foundation of the PRIVATE trust. Like I said before... Trust Law is VERY interesting..... kind of like 'who holds the key to the Kingdom' type of interesting.

Absolutely, Blomquist. There are many trust structures, but private trusts and closely held corporations can work together hand in glove, usually for completely legal purposes. For instance, in its bare bones simplest form with no third party involvement, let's say my private company doesn't have enough available cash or credit to purchase an asset, but I can afford to buy the property in my own name. So I create a private trust and purchase it, chalking the price up to a loan repayable to me by my company also naming the beneficiary my company who has the sole use and "benefit" of it including entering into contracts in its name, taking profits from it and paying taxes on profits it generates, etc and distributing said profits to the shareholders, in this case, me. (My company may also have other non-arms length shareholders, of course.) The only proviso is that, theoretically, the true owner, who is also me, (the trustee) is not supposed to be doing any work whatsoever on behalf of the company. There would be little doubt about that if the trustee is kicked back in the cooler for an indeterminate length of time. Because the company is only the beneficiary, a creditor cannot force its sale. In privately held corporations (i.e. no shareholders that are arm's length) this is a very common way to hold assets and distribute cash under the corporate umbrella. There are also private family trusts that are set up similarly. Sorry if all this is beyond the province of this site but suffice it to say, there are many ways to legally allocate cash within a closely held corporation's trust structures. Importantly, there can also be private trusts within trusts and with privately held corporate subsidiaries as beneficiaries so that it becomes all but impossible to track back through the layers to determine, with any certainty, exactly where the money went. For all it's issues and problems, millardair has been a sophisticated corporate enterprise for generations and DM has also assembled significant real estate holdings on his own. I have very little doubt that a rat or two in the cupboard could cause very significant damage, imo. With millions of dollars in play since the sudden death of WM barely six months ago, putting extreme chicanery to rest by closely examining DM's business structures would, imo, be the first avenue of investigation in trying to understand this crime, imo, MOO.

 

[Blomquist]

Absolutely, Blomquist. There are many trust structures, but private trusts and closely held corporations can work together hand in glove, usually for completely legal purposes. For instance, in its bare bones simplest form with no third party involvement, let's say my private company doesn't have enough available cash or credit to purchase an asset, but I can afford to buy the property in my own name. So I create a private trust and purchase it, chalking the price up to a loan repayable to me by my company also naming the beneficiary my company who has the sole use and "benefit" of it including entering into contracts in its name, taking profits from it and paying taxes on profits it generates, etc. In this way my company can grow, aquire street creds and credit worthiness when actually, the owner of its principal asset and its primary creditor is just me. The only proviso is that, theoretically, the true owner, me, (the trustee) is not supposed to be doing any work whatsoever on behalf of the company. There would be little doubt about that if the trustee is kicked back in the cooler for an indeterminate length of time. Because the company is only the beneficiary, a creditor cannot force its sale. In privately held corporations (i.e. no shareholders that are arm's length) this is a very common way to hold assets and distribute cash under the corporate umbrella. There are also private family trusts that are set up similarly. Sorry if all this is beyond the province of this site but suffice it to say, there are many ways to legally allocate cash within a closely held corporation's trust structures. Of course, these can become very sophisticated arrangements in which there can also be private trusts within trusts and with privately held corporate subsidiaries as beneficiaries so that it becomes all but impossible to track back through the layers to determine, with any certainty, exactly who truly owns what and where the income is going. For all it's issues and problems, millardair has been a sophisticated corporate enterprise for generations and DM has also assembled significant real estate holdings on his own. I have very little doubt that a rat or two in the cupboard could cause very significant damage, imo.

Yes exactly... and the trusts within the trusts can lead back to the box under the bed as it were. Now who knows where to find the box ? and the paper trail to find it ?

 

[Carli]

Yes exactly... and the trusts within the trusts can lead back to the box under the bed as it were. Now who knows where to find the box ? and the paper trail to find it ?

Not nearly as sexy as thrill kills and dog bisquit consumption as a predictor of future murderous assaults but it's far closer to the core of the matter I'll bet. It still begs some important questions, however, specifically, who actually carried out this horrific crime - is that person or persons in custody - and was this victim or his community randomly targeted pursuant to a faux truck acquisition ploy or was there still some other game afoot?

 

[Archangel7]

Still not sure I can make a trust fit into the current theft and murder.

Even when I try to make Millardair (MRO) a front company to launder money thru a bank, financial investment firm, trust or even a lawyer, I can't make truck theft and TB murder work. Who is going to benefit? If DM was the beneficiary of any trust, he will still continue to be, jail or not. Killing Tim wouldn't change that, just risks the money in a wrongful death civil suit.

JMO