AFFIDAVIT OF ANNE MARIE GARMON….THIS IS HOW THE CORRUPTION CONTINUES AT THE NCDOI

0
531

First, I want to introduce you to the ongoing lies and the outright perjury that is going on with my Federal case against, Anne Marie Garmon, George Wayne Goodwin, Shane Guyant, Rebecca Shigley, Angela Ford, Robert Lisson, to name a few, with the North Carolina Department of Insurance. I bring all of these statements forward so that you the average citizen will know of the outright lies that are being dealt with on a daily basis from the North Carolina Department of Insurance and the Attorney Generals Office.

I must admit up front that I personally do not deal with lies very well. The current people in play on all of these matters do not know what is, and or is not the truth anymore, but I want your opinion. Of which brings me to these articles. These are the people that you and I are paying for their manipulations of our law. To them, it appears that it is a matter of how many lies that they can tell, and how many lies can they get caught on. Damn what a way to operate our government on.

I next present the AFFIDAVIT OF ANNE MARIE GARMON from my Federal Lawsuit. You can make up your own mind on weather or not she is lying. Make sure that you read chapter 11 especially. Also notice that Daniel Snipes Johnson and M. Denise Stanford have not signed these affidavits as well. I believe that since I put charges on them with the NC. BAR, that they are trying to distance themselves from the lies that these other people are telling. So that I can only find perjury on Anne Marie Garmon. And NOT, subrogation as well on the attorney’s at the Department Of Justice.

Now Comes ANNE MARIE GARMON, (named in this suit as “Anne M. Garmon”) being first duly sworn, and deposes and says:

  1. In my official capacity I was formally an Investigator in the Criminal Investigations Divisions (CID) of the North Carolina Department of Insurance.
  2. The Department of Insurance’s Criminal Investigations division is responsible for conducting criminal investigations of insurance related crimes. The Department of Insurance’s Criminal Investigative Division works with District Attorneys throughout the State to prosecute these criminal offenses.
  3. The Criminal Investigators within the CID, including myself when I worked there, are sworn law enforcement officers who have the proper certifications and training to make arrests. The Criminal Investigators within the CID, including myself when I worked there, carry firearms and handcuffs. CID Criminal Investigators are experienced law enforcement officers who use judgement, in consultation with prosecuting attorney’s to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to reach the legal standard of probable cause to bring a criminal charge. CID Criminal Investigators are expected to conduct their investigations independently with a minimal day to day supervision.
  4. Criminal Investigators in CID are sworn state law enforcement officers who are authorized to carry firearms, make arrests, conduct searches, work in an undercover capacity and testify in criminal cases in court. Criminal Investigators in CID are required to be certified as law enforcement officers by the N.C. Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission. Certification as a law enforcement officer requires successful completion of the Basic Law Enforcement Training course. In addition, each Criminal Investigator is required to complete twenty-four hours of mandated training annually as required by the N.C. Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission. To the best of my knowledge, an applicant for a Criminal Investigators position in CID will not be hired unless he or she has five years of law enforcement criminal investigative experience must come from working in the capacity of a Detective, Special Agent, or Criminal Investigator with a local. state or federal law enforcement agency. An applicant or a Criminal Investigator position in CID must also have a collage Bachelor’s Degree. I met these experience and education requirements when I was hired as a Criminal Investigator in CID.
  5. In the Limited Scope Interrogatories sent by Plaintiff, I was asked in the first interrogatory: “1. Did you participate, in any way, either directly or indirectly, in a criminal investigation, arrest, or prosecution of Ronald Leonard Pierce?” My answer was: “YES”. My interrogatory answer was, and is accurate.
  6. In the Limited Scope Interrogatories sent by Plaintiff, I was asked in subpart (a) of the first interrogatory: “a) If so, describe in detail your role and what you did in furtherance of that role. Attach any and all emails, notes, correspondence, memoranda, recordings, or other documents related to your role”. My answer was: “I was formerly employed in the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) of the Department of Insurance which handles criminal investigations and prosecutions. I interviewed a number of homeowners who did not get the roof repairs promised to them by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s companies. I meet with the District Attorney’s Office regarding these cases. I applied for a search warrant to obtain bank records and I provided an affidavit to the magistrate to obtain the warrants involved in this case. As to documents, since I am no longer an employee of the Department of Insurance, I have only been able to locate unsigned copies of the warrants against Plaintiff Pierce. These warrant drafts are not being produced since certified copies of the actual warrants have been supplied during the course of this lawsuit”. My interrogatory answer was, and is, accurate.
  7. In the Limited Scope Interrogatories, I was asked in interrogatory 2 the following: “2. Are you aware of any individual who is not a named defendant who participated in the criminal investigation, arrest, or prosecution of Ronald Leonard Pierce?” My answer was: Yes. My interrogatory answer was, and is, accurate.
  8. In the Limited Scope Interrogatories sent by Plaintiff, I was asked in subpart (a) of the interrogatory number 2: “a) If so, please identify that individual and provide current contact information for them.” My answer was: “Mr. Ben Tesh, a former CID employee, participated in the investigation of Plaintiff Pierce to the limited extent that he was my direct supervisor when I was conducting the criminal investigation. Upon information and belief, Mr. Tesh’s address is 2017 Lambert Drive, Asheboro, NC. 27205. Members of the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Officer participated in the prosecution of the criminal charges.” My interrogatory answer was, and is, accurate.
  9. The Pierce criminal investigation was assigned to me by CID. No DOI employee outside CID had any control over which CID Criminal Investigator received this assignment. No one in Agent Services Division or Consumer Services Division had control over my investigation activities regarding Plaintiff Pierce.
  10. Assistant Attorney General Denise Stanford did not participate in my criminal investigation regarding Plaintiff Pierce. I did not consult with Ms. Stanford for legal advise regarding my criminal investigation of Plaintiff or any other criminal investigation. The attorney’s from whom I sought legal advice with respect to my criminal investigations were state and federal prosecutors. Ms. Stanford was never needed as a fact witness for the criminal cases brought against Plaintiff. There was never any desire, plan or need on the part of CID or myself to call Ms. Stanford as a fact witness in any trial that resulted from my criminal investigation of Plaintiff.
  11. Contrary to the interpretation stated by Plaintiff in his Sanctions Motion, CID Director Shane Guyant did not, in my opinion, personally participate in my criminal investigation of Plaintiff Pierce. That is why I did not list Shane in my response to Limited Scope Interrogatory 2(a) about others who participated in the criminal investigation or criminal prosecution. I interviewed attorney Jim Wood as part of my investigation. In his Sanctions Motion, plaintiff cites an email from Shane regarding a phone call from attorney Jim Wood as “proof” that Shane participated in my criminal investigation. The fact that Shane’s presence during the interview did not make him a participant in my criminal investigation of Plaintiff.  SIGNED ANNE MARIE GARMON     26 September 2016

Since I guess that I am the only one that can look up the definition of “PARTICIPATE” I will post it here…….Take Part In…Engage In…..Get Involved In…..Share In….Play a Part/Role In….Have A Hand In…Be Associated With……So PEOPLE please tell me in your opinion WHO IS LYING HERE UNDER OATH.    But, Please have faith in the people running our Department of Insurance?

 

OK lets start of with some real questions here.

  1. Ms. Garmon…..How is it possible to have your superior, DIRECTOR of CID, Shane Guyant, present at a meeting with Attorney Jim Woods here in Charlotte. Shane Guyant. Who by the way lives in Raleigh, and gets an email and a phone call between Jim Woods and himself prior to this sit down meeting.  Also, who set up this meeting, you or Shane Guyant?  You do realize that it is a three hour drive from Raleigh. And you want and Shane Guyant wants us to believe that he was not personally involved into the criminal investigation of ME?
  2. How can Shane Guyant not be involved into this investigation?
  3. Did Shane Guyant ask Attorney Jim Woods any questions while he was there at this meeting or investigation? Or did he just sit there and act and play stupid while you did all of the talking? REALLY? You want the world to believe that line of crap?
  4. In accordance with the Interrogatories you were asked if you were going to produce any information on your investigation of Pierce? Where is your personal computer from the time of your investigation? Why was it not produced?
  5. Who lying to whom here ANNE MARIE GARMON?
  6. This is called perjury ANNE MARIE GARMON…..NCGS 14-209
  7. It is also perjury for Shane Guyant for not disclosing properly on the Interrogatories.
  8. Who at the State and Federal levels have you spoke to about these charges. You have not to this day disclosed as to whom you are involved with at the District Attorney’s Office. I want to depose them!!!!!

In conclusion to these statements you have lied to every citizen of North Carolina, you and Shane Guyant. I will have you up on Perjury Charges and have your right to bear arms and be involved into another criminal investigation removed.

LEAVE A REPLY