Re: Back to school
- From: taf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 30, 5:17 am, "Peter W. Pesterhaus III" <bin...@xxxxxxxxx>
I'm telling you the truth--
Absolutely when Diana Dale died she had something. So Vickie Elam
says the probate record must be lost. But is that really the case?
I don't necessarily agree with this either. If a widow's property was
what might be called 'incidental', the estate could have been handled
informally, without going through any formal probate. I am not saying
this was necessarily the case, but I don't agree that 'no probate'
must equal 'probate lost'.
Therefore there was no such estate. When a woman's husband died, she
became "feme sole," or a legal entity capable of independent action.
Again with the myopic legalistic view of the world. People live their
everyday life without consultation of the statutes.
It's obvious Diana Dale disposed of her property before she died.
It is not obvious, just a possibility.
you have but one heir, who said she couldn't? If she wanted to give
Elizabeth Rogers 100 pounds, who was going to stop her? Cite me a
single law which says somebody just can't give their property away
before they die.
No one is saying she couldn't, so the drama is misplaced.
So what Vickie thought was a devastating argument is actually powerful
supporting evidence for me.
No, it isn't. The fact that there is no probate on record is powerful
evidence that there is no probate on record. The implication you
choose to draw from it is self-serving, not self-evident.
Of course a will is full of legal technicalites. What is the matter
Except in reality, many wills are not full of legal technicalities.
They are simply an account of who is to get what.
And Will, you know absolutely nothing about marriage contracts. I'm
surprised you had the nerve to stick your snout out of you hole after
the drubbing I gave you.
You guys think it's smart to say "This could mean this" or "That could
And it is. Any one who believes in historical absolutes - that X
absolutely always means Y, is fooling themselves. They exist in law,
with enough caveats, but law is not reality, and in reality, there are
usually multiple possible interpretations.
I have seen a colonial will that out and out left out a child, not
because they were being disinherited, but because the person writing
the will simply lost track of who he had named so far. He had to
write a codicil to fix the problem. I have seen an administration
where the administrator started dividing up the assets among the 12
children, but forgetting that as eldest child he should have gotten a
double share and had passed out half of the money before he realized
he was using the wrong denominator and had been giving out too much.
He just deposited his documentation up to that point without any
further indication of how the thing was settled. God only knows what
he did next, and no strict reading of inheritance law will tell you.
Law is law, but estates and probates, wills and inheritances happen in
a human real world that cannot necessarily be analyzed based on
absolute legal formulas.
None of you have cited anything in support of your
position. What you are really saying is "I don't know and I'm too
lazy to find out." Do you think you're fooling anybody?
Again with the ad hominem. "Everyone who disagrees with me is an lazy
idiot" is hardly a persuasive argument in favor of your
interpretation. (And you wonder why your arguments are not treated
It's interesting to me that in Linda Sturtz's book she doesn't say
"This could mean this" or "This could mean that." She says "This is
what that means." Why? Because unlike you people she spent many
years researching the topic.
I see: you are the man with one watch, who always knows precisely what
time it is.
Look, one can be absolute when it comes to many aspects of the law.
However, when you come to applying this in the real world, all bets
are off. It is illegal to drive faster than 75 mph, but to say that
because you don't get a ticket means you weren't driving faster than
75 is not a valid conclusion. Maybe you were only going 76, and it
wasn't worth the officer's trouble. Maybe the other guy was going
even faster and so he is the one who was tracked down. Maybe you
batted your eyelashes and showed a little leg, and she let you off.
Maybe Mr. Franklin had something to say on the matter. Using
absolutes in the real world simply gives inappropriate precision.
- Re: Back to school
- From: Peter W. Pesterhaus III
- Re: Back to school