Love, Lies, and Murder Read online

  That particular day, June 21, the Levines were told, would be a good opportunity for them to attempt to execute their visitation court order. An operation like the one that occurred would have taken some planning—it wasn’t as if the Levines could have received a spur-of-the-moment telephone call to urge them to hop on a plane and fly to Mexico. For such a plan to have been implemented in the manner that it was, careful planning, observation, and reporting had to have occurred.

  Shortly after their arrival back in Nashville, the Levines had to act fast because their court order, if allowed to stand, only called for a thirty-nine-day visit. They quickly began making plans to obtain permanent custody of Sammy and Tzipi.

  “This was a court order in which we were doing what the court said we had a right to do,” Larry Levine said later.

  In many respects, whether their actions turned out to be legal or illegal, who could blame the Levines? After all, Sammy and Tzipi were the children of their only daughter, now presumed dead—allegedly at the hands of her husband. Would any grandparent want to leave their grandchildren in the custody of the person who was suspected of killing their mother?

  Perry told the local media and anyone else who would listen that the Levines had broken not only Mexican laws but international treaties as well when they came and took Sammy and Tzipi out of school and brought them back to the United States with them. The Levines, Perry said, had utilized high-level relationships in their efforts to win the cooperation of the U.S. State Department and other U.S. diplomatic connections in Mexico, which ultimately created a conspiracy that involved getting him deported, while at the same time removing his children from his custody.

  According to Perry, the visitation order from Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois was in actuality a letter rogatory, or a letter of request, a mechanism that one court or jurisdiction sometimes uses in which to request assistance from another, often a foreign court, in its effort to obtain desired information. According to Perry, such a letter can be used only for two purposes under the auspices of the Inter-American Convention, and that is “to serve notice, summonses, and subpoenas,” or to otherwise collect evidence or information. A letter rogatory, Perry said, cannot be used for the purpose of coercion against people.

  “This is an Illinois order,” Perry said. “It’s like Moscow issuing an order to grab John Doe in Ethiopia.”

  John Brennan Jr., an attorney in Guadalajara, who was consulted about the Mexican Federal Procedures Code, said that a hearing should have been required to determine the legitimacy of the order and whether it complied with Mexican law or not. The hearing, Brennan said, would also be used to allow the parties involved a chance to have their say about the matter. The procedure that is required to be followed, said Brennan, is called homologation, which means to approve, ratify, or otherwise officially confirm the issues stated in the letter. He said that a court official is required to convey the first notice.

  “They can’t do it,” Perry said. “No court can allow another country to arrest or take property. . . . The concept of grandparent visitation does not exist in Mexico.”

  Perry indicated that he would file official complaints, known in Mexico as denuncias, against everyone who was involved in the action that allowed his children to be taken out of Mexico without his consent.

  “I’ll get my children back no matter what it takes,” Perry said. “They will pay the price for kidnapping my kids.”

  Although Perry had initially believed that the Mexican immigration authorities had been involved in getting his children removed from Mexico, further investigation had convinced Perry that they had not, in fact, been involved.

  “Following conversations my lawyers have had with people in immigration,” Perry said, “we have concluded that there was no collusion regarding the removal of my children from Mexico by the immigration department here. Once the immigration department realized my kids were being taken out of school, they rushed my ass back to Ajijic at ninety-five miles an hour.”

  It was possible that the immigration authorities had been duped by part of a much larger “conspiracy” that had been born to have him removed from Mexico, Perry believed.

  “The Levines had influence with Al Gore,” Perry charged. “The State Department and the embassy asked (the Mexican government) to get me deported. Regular people would not get this kind of treatment.”

  Perry had been summoned by the immigration officials, in fact, to respond to a formal complaint alleging that he had been working in areas in which his immigration status did not allow him to work. After discussions the immigration officials had concluded that the complaint had not been proven and that the grounds to deport March did not exist at that time.

  Additional background information about the visitation order showed that an Illinois judge had originally granted the Levines visitation rights with Sammy and Tzipi in December 1996. However, Perry had appealed the ruling; but the Levines’ right to have visitation with their grandchildren was reinstated by a second ruling that had been issued in the early part of 1999.

  Meanwhile, Perry, who didn’t dare risk returning to the States for fear of being arrested on the allegations of embezzlement from his former employer, had managed to obtain privileges to contact his children by telephone.

  “I’ve talked to them on the phone twice so far,” he told a reporter for the Guadalajara Reporter. “My son was crying. He said he wants to go home, where I live. ‘I want to come home, Daddy,’” he quoted his son as saying. “My daughter said, ‘I wanna go home, Daddy.’ They already both speak Spanish. This is home for them.”

  With the thought foremost on his mind that he might lose his children for good, Perry contacted Nashville lawyer John Herbison to help him in his quest to get his children returned to him. Herbison, who practices in criminal, constitutional, and civil rights law, agreed to help him. Born in Nashville in 1955, and admitted to the bar in 1987, Herbison was very familiar with the Levines and all of the controversy surrounding Perry March.

  Herbison, the son of a former preacher, has been hailed in Nashville circles as a defender of free speech. By his own admission, the University of Tennessee Law School graduate likes “tangling with the government,” and taking on difficult or challenging cases. With a reputation as a very good lawyer, Herbison has built much of his legal practice around defending adult businesses in Nashville and has represented clients who were involved in prostitution. Although Herbison once told a reporter that he doesn’t utilize adult businesses himself because he is “not interested in it,” he staunchly believes that people should be allowed to choose their own reading material. He has been known to refer to the city’s vice unit as the “erection suppression” unit.

  “There’s a segment of the population, when it comes to matters of sex and sexuality, that is wound too tight,” Herbison once said. “But there’s a group of otherwise honorable politicians who pander to that crowd.”

  When all was said and done, Herbison seemed like the right match to take on Perry March’s problems.

  A onetime lawyer schooled at Vanderbilt, Perry March had managed to outsmart dozens of police authorities and judges throughout the states of Tennessee, Illinois, and, now, Mexico. Reduced to a somewhat transitory life, Perry had become an exile, with his children, Sammy and Tzipi, in tow. Perry March had found a place of safety in a small community, in Mexico, where he believed that he could still live like an American behind the barred windows of his lavish home, which he shared with his new wife and their “Brady Bunch” family.

  However, as would be seen, that self-imposed “prison” was not good enough for some, namely Lawrence and Carolyn Levine.

  Chapter 16

  During the early part of July 2000, fearing that he would lose his children for good, Perry March announced that he had left his business, Chavez and March, Ltd., “by mutual agreement,” so that he could dedicate more time and energy to finding a solution that would bring his children back to him.

  “
Sam and I have numerous projects, and things are cool between us,” Perry said of his departure from the partnership. “I have to devote my full time and attention to getting my children back.”

  Chavez wished Perry March well, and told him that he hoped he was successful in regaining custody of his children. Chavez released a written statement to the Guadalajara Reporter in which he stated that he and Perry still had a few real estate projects that they were working on together.

  In addition to finding a solution to get his children returned to him, Perry had other problems, among them a community that was quickly turning against him and labeling him as a swindler and a con artist. It was little wonder.

  One of the more outspoken local residents, Esther Solano, a political activist and Mexican citizen, had come out strongly several months earlier against Perry March and C&M Development and the other enterprises he was running with Chavez. Solano, along with U.S. citizen and ex-pat Joel Rasmussen, had taken it upon themselves to expose marauders, like Perry March, who had made it their business to prey on the expatriate community of Ajijic and the Lake Chapala area. Perry March and C&M Development weren’t the only businesses that they had identified to focus on, but C&M and Perry March appeared to be getting the lion’s share of the complaints. Some said that it was not only because he needed additional time to deal with the issue of his children, but also because things had gotten too hot to handle, that Perry had opted to leave most of his business ventures, which he had helped to create.

  There were others in the community who assisted Solano and Rasmussen in their efforts, and together they collected documentation and built files, often sending copies of their information and testimonials to both Mexican and U.S. agencies with letters demanding that the various officials take action against the offenders that were ripping off the community. Solano went so far as to write letters to two successive Mexican presidents, demanding that they take action to protect the citizens from con artists and schemers, like Perry March. Some of the citizens began referring to Perry as a sociopath, and they advocated that Mexican officials should deport him.

  Perry’s father, Arthur, remained unflappable and lived in denial that any of the allegations being made against his son could be true. Instead, Arthur began telling his friends and anyone who would listen to him that Perry’s problems were all being caused by his in-laws, the Levines. But word of mouth against Perry in Ajijic was strong, and so were the posts that citizens were putting on the Internet. At one point posters of Perry March began appearing all over the community, and were tacked on telephone poles.

  The posters in question had been made up like a typical “Wanted Poster,” but the ones being distributed were called “Un-Wanted” posters and depicted a grainy photo of Perry March at the top. In the photo that was being used, Perry sported a goatee and a mustache, and still had plenty of hair on top of his head. The verbiage that was used in the anonymous poster was brutal:

  “How to Sexually Harass on the Jobsite, Steal from the Company You Work For, Defraud Your Clients, Kill Your Spouse and Hide the Body, Escape to Another Country, Pay Off Officials to Protect You, Marry Another Man’s Wife and Take His Children (uses them as his shields), Open Several Scam Businesses, Rob the Elderly, Accuse and Threaten Those Who Attempt to Expose You, Live in a Large House with Swimming Pool without Paying Rent, Run Up Large Phone Bills and Don’t Pay Them Either, Enjoy the Services of Maids and Gardeners, Gain Fame and Notoriety, Lie, Lie, and Lie Some More and. . . . Get Away With It All.

  “Read the true story of this confirmed sociopath and his vile exploits. It’s all there on the Internet and more. Check out these U.S. News services: www.tennesseean.com & www.nashvillescene.com. Soon to be a book. Perry “El Perrito” March and his team of con men are trying to transform this Mexican resort town, he’s threatened to kill people, pays off the local authorities, perpetrates investment and land fraud, takes money from retirees, and has been disbarred as a lawyer in the U.S. His pistol packing windbag cohort father and he call themselves doctors (doctors of chaos and sham for sure), and the outrage continues to this day. Do you ‘know’ them? If either has wronged you or approached you with a money scam please inform the FBI.”

  Of course none of the allegations in the anonymous “Un-Wanted” poster had been proven, but they nonetheless infuriated Perry and his father and were quite an embarrassment to Perry and his family in such a small community, where nearly everyone knows each other. But because no one knew who was responsible for tacking these posters up all over town, there was little that Perry could do except rip them down whenever he ran across one. And if anyone did know who was putting up the posters, it wasn’t likely that they would give up the information.

  Perry certainly made enemies wherever he went, and Mexico had not been an exception. Many of those who accused him of wrongdoing and running scams remained on the sidelines, silent, while others fought their battles in the name of seeing justice done. One person who came forward, however, had had enough and decided to take legal action against him for allegedly defrauding her out of more than $200,000. Gayle Cancienne, a woman in her mid-fifties, hired a legal adviser, Henri Loridans, to help her in her civil complaint against Perry.

  When Gayle had first moved to Ajijic, life was great for her. During her first few years there, she would awake whenever she wanted, stroll along the narrow streets and stop at one of the several sidewalk cafés when the mood struck, and partake in one of her favorite pastimes—playing bridge—with several of the new friends that she had made. She was happy and contented—until she met Perry March. After that fateful day, however, her world was turned upside down.

  According to information that Loridans provided to the news media, Perry was involved in the sales of Gayle’s properties in the United States. He had set up corporations, holding companies, in Delaware, and in the country of Belize, to manage the properties she had owned, two of which were in New Orleans, her hometown, and the other in Kansas City, Missouri.

  Initially, Gayle had expressed an interest in selling her properties and then depositing the proceeds into a Mexican bank, and would use the interest earned to pay her day-to-day living expenses. Several expatriates had made similar decisions and were living quite well as a result. However, enter Perry March, and Gayle’s plans took a sudden departure along a different route—right into Perry’s bank account.

  Gayle had retained Perry’s services by paying him an initial $15,000, and later paid him an additional $5,000 before she became aware that something very wrong had occurred.

  He had apparently explained to her that the corporations could act as tax shelters to save money for her and would supposedly at the same time boost the value of her assets. Gayle charged that Perry, through his schemes, had allegedly attempted to pilfer the proceeds from the sales of her real estate holdings by assuming control of the corporations without informing her of his actions.

  “Actually, he had opened the corporation for himself,” Gayle said. “It’s his corporation, not mine.”

  Apparently, Perry March had inserted himself as president of the corporation, and had named his father, Arthur March, as the sole shareholder of the Delaware corporation. On Perry’s advice, Gayle signed documents that transferred her property to the Delaware corporation with the understanding that she would be the president and sole shareholder, not Perry and his dad.

  Gayle later learned that Perry had sold one of her properties, a duplex, in New Orleans, but had failed to inform her of the sale.

  “He sold it for one hundred eighty-one thousand dollars,” she said, “because he wanted a quick sale.” She said that the new owner sold the property a short time later for $252,000. Gayle claimed that she was never paid any of the proceeds.

  “I’m pretty naive when it comes to business,” she said. “I lived on the income of the rentals on the house. So, he took everything I had.”

  Although Gayle had filed a civil suit in a Mexican court, Loridans didn’t believe that she would ever r
egain any of the money that she was claiming to have lost because of Perry’s alleged actions.

  “We feel certain that Perry’s assets are protected or hidden . . . ,” Loridans said.

  After Perry’s business dealings with Gayle had concluded, Gayle found that she was nearly flat broke. She had to go back to work, but was unable to make more than $2 per hour in Mexico. She held one full-time job and three part-time jobs, often working eighty hours a week or more.

  “I’m getting too old for this kind of crap,” Gayle said. “It’s been horrible. I had to eat, for a long time, tortillas, beans, cactus, and eggs. Eggs are cheap.”

  Gayle Cancienne was forced to move out of the house she had purchased in Ajijic because she was unable to afford the expense of keeping it up, nor could she any longer afford to pay her utility bills. She moved into an inexpensive apartment located outside of town where she no longer had the basic conveniences of a telephone, computer, or a television, because she could not afford them. She also had to do without a washer and dryer in her new home.

  “Who would expect this?” she asked. “Who would expect to be destitute? I don’t see much hope for me in getting any money back. . . .”

  According to Joel Rasmussen, many of the people allegedly victimized by Perry March had either been unable to gather sufficient evidence to bring forth charges against Perry and/or his partner, Chavez, and others had simply moved away. Many of the cases had proven very difficult to document, which had proven beneficial to Perry’s freedom and well-being.