Orange County Consumer Fraud Logic

Orange County Consumer Fraud Logic

I say that Orange County employees take part in cheating Orange County tax payers' grieving families.

Cheating anyone does not agree with me. Stealing from other, bullying, and such cause me to help victims. This emotional leaning lead me to law enforcement as an occupation more than once, it also lead me to fist fights as I grew up. I've never believed big kids should be allowed to beat on little kids.

Cheating families victimized by violent death ranks about as low as low gets, net to rape, I suppose. Then when it's done under color of authority with a badge, how much lower can one get?

I argue with "deductive logic." Deductive logic has a long history. Here's one of the better known examples of deductive logic used in a syllogism:

A Syllogism as Deductive Logic

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Numbers 1 and 2 above we call "premises." Number 3 we call a "logical conclusion." I believe that my argument against Orange County Government consumer fraud is just such an argument, a deductively patterned argument. My argument is a valid argument, too. It is not a syllogism. (See premises and conclusions) In my opinion, my argument reflects an intuitively compelling truth.

My Logical Premises

My argument's conclusion makes a claim for its validity by proving its premises. Logic does just that. It proves or disproves its validity by finding conclusions arising from its premises. For example, I argue as follows:

1. Some Orange County residents die violent deaths at home.
2. Some violent deaths are administered to by the Orange County Coroner and Administrator's Departments.
3. Orange County Coroner and Administrator employees direct victims' families to corrupt biohazard cleanup companies.
4. As a result of number 3 above, victim's families do not go to the Orange County Internet in search of honest cleaning companies.

Also, to prove number 4 above, my conclusion, I direct readers to (A) spend a day or two at my side. I wear my telephone every day, 365; (B) make searches on Ask, Bing, Google, and Yahoo!. Select key words like Anaheim blood cleanup, Orange County crime scene cleanup, Orange County biohazard cleanup, and so forth. (C) Then readers will understand what I claim. County employees have a monopoly over death cleanup. Grieving families do not reach the Internet. Therefore, county employees mislead grieving families. Read on for proof of this conclusion.

Sadly, these swindlers cost Orange County's grieving families and insurance companies tens of thousands of dollars every month. Small, self-employed crime scene cleanup companies like mine cannot survive in this government controled market. We live in a command economy when it comes to death cleanup.

Because searches show a high percentage of my web pages rank high on organic web pages, near the top of these pages, my proof stands steady. Because my pages outnumber competitors by two, three, or four times, my proof stands steady.

My Internet pages have always ranked well in Orange County for over 9 years. I have made the same and similar argument elsewhere on the Internet for a number of years now. The only difference today arises from the number of web pages with my telephone number. My ranking numbers go up and down with the Internet's ebb-and-flow. I'm usually well represented, though.

Inductive Logic

Put another way, receiving a telephone call normally relates to probability. There's always some chance, normally, that I will not receive 99.9 % of death cleanup telephone calls in Orange County, California. Of course in this Universe such an outcome seems silly, to say he least. Also, numbers work the opposite way too. In a five year period the probability for receiving less than 1 telephone call per year is grew. This seems very Unlikely in a fraud-free coroner and administration department county.

It seems that our Orange County ruling elite has a problem with probability. It's easier to stick their heads in the sand and allow employees to swindle tax payers grieving from homicide, suicide, and unattended deaths. But, of course, this would be illogical for them to do. They must have a positive reinforcement for their complicity in fraud.

Top

Now, besides my logic based upon my premises, I also have what some logicians call "empirical evidence" to buttress my logically valid argument. This empirical evidence consists of my own experience as a biohazard cleaner living (but not working) in Orange County, California. Examples of this experience include the following:

My Empirical Evidence

• Face to face, verbal confirmation from a competitor who said at least one coroner's employee refers to his biohazard company.
• Telephonic confirmation from a caller claiming employment in the Orange County Sheriff's Department that she expected to receive referrals from our Orange County Sheriff's Department.
• Face to face, verbal confirmation from a decedent's family member that an Orange County Coroner's employee went him to a competing biohazard clearing company.
• Face to face, verbal confirmation from an Orange County homicide victim's mother that an Orange County Administration employee directed her to competing biohazard cleanup companies.
• Written confirmation supplied by the above homicide victim's mother showing Bob Mull's signature. Mr. Mull is an an Orange County Administration Investigator.
• Written and telephonic confirmation from a competing biohazard cleanup company owner that he witnessed an Orange County Investigator directing competing biohazard cleanup companies.
• Written confirmation from the same competing company owner's written letter to the above.
• Over 9 years, numerous telephone calls from callers somehow involved with county employees and intending to start their own "crime scene cleanup company."

Validity applies to deductive arguments like my argument above. Because my premises are correct, my argument is said to be valid, but only for Orange County, California. Now, I can apply my evidence to other counties, in part. In fact, I can apply my evidence to all other counties in our United States, but each of these counties show more or less validity or less validity than others.

Can you guess why?

It's because my number of web pages in prominent places on the Internet changes with each county. This means that I can test other counties for local government fraud in crime scene cleanup when I have an adequate number of dominating web pages. Without an adequate number of web pages for each respective county, my claims about fraud have no validity. So we call this a "critical" number of web pages.

Top

Besides a critical number of web pages in proving what I call "cronyism" in crime scene cleanup, time becomes another important variable (a variable is another part of the overall argument and it may change). For how long do I test my argument? Or, put another way, how do I test my argument? Also, to be scientific, can others test my argument under the same or similar conditions?

I test my crime scene cleanup cronyism argument with a critical number of web pages and over a select period of time? How much time?

Years. I have studied this problem with Orange County fraud for years. Only in the last 2 years have I decided to buckle-down and get the word out. I do this because our United States should not be allowed to turn into a third-world country like Mexico because small groups of death administrators want to bilk families hurt by violent deaths.

I figure that when I have dominating numbers of web sites on a search engine's higher ranking web sites, I should receive at least 1 telephone call somehow related to blood cleanup within one year. When I receive no telephone call and have a critical number of searchable web pages for crime scene cleanup for at least one year, I have a valid argument showing that cronyism exists in the selected county for the selected period of time.

Otherwise, what else explains this absence of calls?

Top

I created this web page to benefit consumers everywhere, including myself. Most importantly, though (for me), I want to help alert Orange County, California residents about crime against victims of homicide, suicide, and unattended death. These crimes against these victims victimize them for a second time. And this second victimization occurs by their very own Orange County Government employees. For these unfortunate few I write and work on these pages.

Of course I do not really expect anyone to use this material or to follow it throughout, but it is my wish that if someone can benefit from efforts here, my time and effort will be more than rewarded. And in fact, I've been rewarded by saving one family from Orange County consumer fraud.

My propositions finding government fraud.

First, let's cleanup what I mean by "proposition." A proposition, much like a statement, may serve as a true or false claim. My argument uses a group of propositions claiming to follow from other propositions, all true. These propositions arise from inferences. By inference I came to realize my hundreds of Orange County Internet pages were not reaching families victimized by homicide, suicide, and unattended death. An argument, logically speaking, follows from true propositions. Within these propositions we find premises and conclusions. (return to premises and conclusions)

Deductive Logics' Purpose

While fighting Orange County's government fraud I use deductive logic. It works by discriminating between valid and invalid arguments. Over centuries people have used powerful techniques just like the ones I use. Without these techniques our county's fraud would continue without exposure. I might say the same about today's Internet. Without my many hundreds of web pages covering Orange County, I could not have invoked logical techniques showing true premises.

Unlike an inductive argument's probability strengths and weaknesses -- its variability, deductive arguments are either/or type arguments. They either have validity or they do not. It does not matter how many times I offer evidence proving the truth of my premises, one correct premises gives my argument its validity. So a deductive argument's conclusion claims to follow from its premises with absolute necessity. Such a necessity does not depend on probabilities.

So validity exists between two or more propositions serving as premises and one of these propositions becomes a valid conclusion. Validity never applies to any single proposition by itself. This must be so because a valid relationship between propositions must exist.

Top

• Why I created this Logic Page
• Clues
• A Syllogism as Deductive Logic
• My Logical Premises
• Inductive Logic
• My Empirical Evidence
• My Propositions finding government fraud.
• Deductive Logics' Purpose

Eddie Evans

Crime Scene Cleanup

Top

Sent to Corrupt Competitor

September 28, 2008, a caller stated an employee in the coroner's office directed him to one of my competitors.

The death occurred in Garden Grove, California. My caller's relative suffered an unattended death and then decomposed. This family had little money, and the death cleanup exceeded their abilities to clean. I remember this date easily because it was my 40th wedding anniversary.

I charged the family one-third what my competitor quoted, which is actually a low price for crony death cleanup companies in Orange County. (return)

Here's a violation of the RICO act, which invokes itself when an assemblage of people gather to pull-off a swindle across state lines. In this case the swindler's attempt crossed California's state line to Michigan's state line. Here's a link to a document given by the swindler, an Orange County Administration employee to a Michigan resident. (RICO act logic)