Export thread

This is something that's happening: http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/20...13_story2.asp?d=100813_story2,2013,Oct,08&c=n

So... guy disappears in 1986, ruled dead in 1994. Shows up in 2005. Was afraid of non-payment of child support, so fled the state rather than (he thought) going to jail. The same judge that ruled him "dead" in 1994 rules him "still legally dead" right now, even though the guy is in front of him in the courtroom, and says that as part of the legal ruling. But he's over the 3 years for appeal of the declaration of death. So even if you're alive, after 3 years declared dead, you're still "dead" to the law.

Additional wrinkle: ex-wife originally filed for declared death so that kids could get social security death benefits. Makes sense. When he comes back, she opposes his "life" because she's afraid she'll have to pay back the benefits.

No doubt the guy is bad for non-payment. Seems stupid that the ex-wife would need to pay anything back, as she did what would seem reasonable, having him declared dead. But he's still an un-person, or whatever.

Very odd.

"The records say you're dead, you say you're not... well, I see an easy way to rectify the two."

He's a scumbag who ran out on child support. I have little to no sympathy for him.

Leave him dead. So he'll never receive any benefits from his social security and private insurance in the future.

Officer_Charon said:

He's a scumbag who ran out on child support. I have little to no sympathy for him.

Click to expand...

JUDGED.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about his motives. Why is there no reason to return him to legally living status? Because we don't like what he did? Maybe he is here to try to make what amends he can at 61. Maybe he deserves mercy for coming back at all. What good comes from deciding his bad action makes him unforgivable scum who should be culled, left 'dead,' left without citizenship or rights?

Sounds kind of like he just can't reinstate his old one. The article doesn't say, but can he just apply for a new one? It may mess with his social security pay out if it starts fresh, but that money should go to the kids to pay back his child support anyways.

Officer_Charon said:

He's a scumbag who ran out on child support. I have little to no sympathy for him.

Click to expand...

I only have sympathy under the theory that you don't discriminate on laws. Unequal application of them because we don't like the person has lead us down many very very bad roads. So the fact he's a scumbag (I don't dispute this) has nothing to do with it for me.

The part that I DO think should be remedied ASAP is the idea that the legal fiction of his death shouldn't be overturned. We should have as few (preferably zero) legal fictions. Flat facts should take 100% priority. I've never liked the idea of "legally this did/didn't happen, no matter what the physical reality is." Strikes me far too much of 1984 where 2+2=5 because it must to maintain something else, somewhere, for some "legal" reason. So I'm for reinstating the "legal life" under that principal. I think the judge was in error with his ruling because of this example: "If you decide that legal weight overrules facts, then can't you `legally rule` that a document says something completely different than what it does in reality? Then doesn't that lead to judging even the laws themselves to say differently than they do? `No sir/madam, I am going to legally judge that the law actually says something else, even if you hold the words up to my face.` The principal of reality should trump all else."

So my completely contrived example (not quite, but that's a political debate) shows why I think that despite him being a scumbag, equal application of reality to legal proceedings is important.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have his legal status restored to living. That's a non-issue - the man is alive, he should be termed as alive, with all benefits, rights, and responsibilities contained therein.

But I'm not at all sympathetic to just how difficult his life has become.

Maybe he should commit a minor crime, and demand to be tried for it? Smoke pot in front of the courthouse or something, with the press watching. Then make the court acknowledge that he's a live person, because something tells me you can't fine or incarcerate somebody who's dead. But then again, maybe you can?

Ironically enough, I had thought something similar. Down here, if you commit a traffic infraction and get arrested, and are found to have no driver's license, a Georgia Operator License Number is issued to you (albeit one with no driving privileges attached), so you can be identified again in the system later.

Eriol said:

Maybe he should commit a minor crime, and demand to be tried for it? Smoke pot in front of the courthouse or something, with the press watching. Then make the court acknowledge that he's a live person, because something tells me you can't fine or incarcerate somebody who's dead. But then again, maybe you can?

Click to expand...

You're over-thinking the situation (you could work in government!), just claim as a non living entity he's no longer a citizen and not required to pay taxes. The IRS will get that shit cleared up in no time.

He's dead until his first arrest.

Zappit said:

He's dead until his first arrest.

Click to expand...

Maybe . . .

GasBandit said:

Click to expand...

FINALLY somebody "gets" the thread title.

Covar said:

You're over-thinking the situation (you could work in government!), just claim as a non living entity he's no longer a citizen and not required to pay taxes. The IRS will get that shit cleared up in no time.

Click to expand...

non-living entities can still legally be a person and pay taxes. He's clearly a walking talking corporation.