T1B

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:37 pm**

Legally, this is a relatively easy one. Yes.

Son died intestate (that means without a will), had no surviving spouse and no kids. Under the law in this state, the parents each get half. That assumes, of course, that the money from the Victims' Compensation Fund passes through his estate.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just saying what the law is.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:40 pm**

Then he got more than he deserved. No way should the POS get another thin dime, as long as the article is accurate.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:47 pm**

"After the first plane struck his building, he managed a quick call to his mother before the phone line went dead."

There's 3 things all Nogs have even if they don't have a pot to piss in. A cell phone, nice car rims, and a crack pipe. Maybe dude should have high-tailed it outta there in his $500 1984 POS with the $4K wheels, smoked a bub of caine, and then called his mammy to let her know he'd be bringing the watermelon to the BBQ later that evening. Instead, homeboy makes a phone call from a land line. I don't know about you, but if a plane hits my building, I am outta there... right quick.

I'd give all of the $2.9M to Al Sharpton, btw... he deserves it. 'Bout time the Nog community gave something back....

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:48 pm**

mvscal chiming in, in 3...2...1...

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:54 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:Then he got more than he deserved. No way should the POS get another thin dime, as long as the article is accurate.

What if the bitch cheated on him first? Then what?

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:56 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:Then he got more than he deserved. No way should the POS get another thin dime, as long as the article is accurate.
What if the bitch cheated on him first? Then what?

And just like that this thread turns into an episode of "Maury". Nice going, BSmack.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:05 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:Then he got more than he deserved. No way should the POS get another thin dime, as long as the article is accurate.
What if the bitch cheated on him first? Then what?

What does that have to do with him having little or no contact with his kid? Wait, why am I even responding to you, you wouldn't understand. You really need to be a parent to "get it."

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:10 pm**

mvscal wrote:Sure he should get paid...in single dollar bills shoved down his throat until he chokes to death.

RACK that!!

There is no reason to not stay in contact with your children despite marital indifferences, unless you pass away.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:12 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:
BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:Then he got more than he deserved. No way should the POS get another thin dime, as long as the article is accurate.
What if the bitch cheated on him first? Then what?
What does that have to do with him having little or no contact with his kid? Wait, why am I even responding to you, you wouldn't understand. You really need to be a parent to "get it."

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:19 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:What does that have to do with him having little or no contact with his kid? Wait, why am I even responding to you, you wouldn't understand. You really need to be a parent to "get it."

Get what? That you're all over the fucking map with your posts? I'm just saying that before you take the baby momma's word as gospel, you might want to consider that things could be more complicated than the Daily News is making them out to be.

BTW: As far as I'm concerned, neither parent should get a fucking dime from the compensation fund. Caldwell had no dependents of any kind. Why should the parents profit in any way from this?

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:23 pm**

mvscal wrote:...in single dollar bills

Wurd!!! Makes it rain on him!

Sin,
PacMan Jones

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:24 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:What does that have to do with him having little or no contact with his kid? Wait, why am I even responding to you, you wouldn't understand. You really need to be a parent to "get it."
Get what? That you're all over the fucking map with your posts? I'm just saying that before you take the baby momma's word as gospel, you might want to consider that things could be more complicated than the Daily News is making them out to be.

BTW: As far as I'm concerned, neither parent should get a fucking dime from the compensation fund. Caldwell had no dependents of any kind. Why should the parents profit in any way from this?

Right. I'm sure there's some federal program that we could start to buy colostomy bags for people that can afford to pay for them on their own already.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:28 pm**

BSmack wrote:BTW: As far as I'm concerned, neither parent should get a fucking dime from the compensation fund. Caldwell had no dependents of any kind. Why should the parents profit in any way from this?

It depends on how you look at it. If the compensation fund is essentially the equivalent of the proceeds of a cause of action existing on behalf of the kid at the time of his death, then it properly is property of his estate. With no one else in line, legally, to collect from the estate, it goes to the parents.

Or put it another way. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that you weren't married. Let's then suppose that one day, as you're driving on 490, a Wegmans truck going the wrong way on 490 hits you head on, killing you. The representative of your estate then successfully sues Wegman's for wrongful death. You didn't have a will. Who do you think gets the money?

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:30 pm**

BSmack wrote:Get what? That you're all over the fucking map with your posts? I'm just saying that before you take the baby momma's word as gospel, you might want to consider that things could be more complicated than the Daily News is making them out to be.

It doesn't matter how "complicated" it is. If you haven't seen your kid in 28 years, then you're a scumbag. It doesn't matter what, if anything, the wife did to offend him. You don't punish your kid to get back at her.

If I had to guess, I'm going to "go out on a limb" and say that the reason brothaman couldn't go and visit his son is because the Department Of Corrections usually frowns upon such excursions.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:59 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Or does NY make such dinstinctions?

This type of question belongs in the Sleep Inducing Coma Forum, ya heard? Don't be so fucking rude.

I just caught that, btw....

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:01 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Or put it another way. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that you weren't married. Let's then suppose that one day, as you're driving on 490, a Wegmans truck going the wrong way on 490 hits you head on, killing you. The representative of your estate then successfully sues Wegman's for wrongful death. You didn't have a will. Who do you think gets the money?

I kind of agree with BSmack on this one. I think if dude had no spouse or children, then the compensation fund should be redistributed.

However, if money is to go to the parents, then the law shouldn't be black and white in this case. A judge should definitely have a ruling on this. I guess this is where the judiciary system we live in coincides with justice.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:05 pm**

Dinstinction:

a special honor or recognition indigenous to the U & L region that is described in an overly verbose and more often than not, incorrect manner.

Dinstinction

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:06 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
BSmack wrote:BTW: As far as I'm concerned, neither parent should get a fucking dime from the compensation fund. Caldwell had no dependents of any kind. Why should the parents profit in any way from this?
It depends on how you look at it. If the compensation fund is essentially the equivalent of the proceeds of a cause of action existing on behalf of the kid at the time of his death, then it properly is property of his estate. With no one else in line, legally, to collect from the estate, it goes to the parents.

Or put it another way. Let's suppose, hypothetically, that you weren't married. Let's then suppose that one day, as you're driving on 490, a Wegmans truck going the wrong way on 490 hits you head on, killing you. The representative of your estate then successfully sues Wegman's for wrongful death. You didn't have a will. Who do you think gets the money?

The way I read this, the compensation fund is simply a way for the federal government to keep American and United Airlines from going belly up. The condition being that if you take taxpayer funded compensation money, you waive your right to sue the airlines.

It's an absolute crock, since the only people who should be sued over 9-11 are the upper echelons of Al Queda and the estates of the dead terrorists.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:17 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:What does that have to do with him having little or no contact with his kid? Wait, why am I even responding to you, you wouldn't understand. You really need to be a parent to "get it."
Get what?

A pretty funny joke.

Why the fuck should 9/11 victims' eastates get any money?

But if I had to make the law/decision, I'd say if the estaranged father owed child support, and didn't catch up until he stood to profit from doing so, fuck him.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:28 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
But if I had to make the law/decision, I'd say if the estaranged father owed child support, and didn't catch up until he stood to profit from doing so, fuck him.

My thinking exactly. Hopefully the judge will see things the same way.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:33 pm**

OCmike wrote:Hopefully the judge will see things the same way.

I'm guessing it's up to a jury.

And while Terry is a stark raving dunderhead, he is a lawyer in NY(sorry for the redundancy), and he seems fairly confident it's cut and dried. It's not up to a jury to write the law, merely determine guilt/innocence and $$$/fuck you.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:40 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
OCmike wrote:Hopefully the judge will see things the same way.
I'm guessing it's up to a jury.

Not in Surrogate's Court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Surrogate's_Court

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:42 pm**

mvscal wrote:What jury?

My bad. I somehow got the impression they were duking it out in civil court over the spoils, not blocking the actual payment. The article is too damn long for the story content, and the first paragraph seemed like a distant memory by the end.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:55 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:What does that have to do with him having little or no contact with his kid? Wait, why am I even responding to you, you wouldn't understand. You really need to be a parent to "get it."
Get what?

You don't question "it," you either get "it" or you don't. You obviously, don't.

BSmack wrote:That you're all over the fucking map with your posts? I'm just saying that before you take the baby momma's word as gospel, you might want to consider that things could be more complicated than the Daily News is making them out to be

Explain how I'm all over the map. And as far as taking the mothers word as gospel, you musta missed this part of my original reply

TWIS wrote:as long as the article is accurate.

.

It's easy to see why you ~~seem to~~ lose so many interweb arguements.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:05 pm**

TWIS wrote:as long as the article is accurate.

Yea, never seen a New York daily rag ignore the facts in favor of an exploitative story before. No sirrie.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:18 pm**

BSmack wrote:
TWIS wrote:as long as the article is accurate.
Yea, never seen a New York daily rag ignore the facts in favor of an exploitative story before. No sirrie.

You don't comprehend things very well.

Society just called and respectfully requested that you never, ever, for any reason whatsoever, have children.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:23 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:
BSmack wrote:
TWIS wrote:as long as the article is accurate.
Yea, never seen a New York daily rag ignore the facts in favor of an exploitative story before. No sirrie.
You don't comprehend things very well.

So it's OK to just assume this guy is a scumbag without checking the Daily News' facts?

Society just called and respectfully requested that you never, ever, for any reason whatsoever, have children.

Society can get fucked.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:31 pm**

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Nogs...

Will be Nogs, I guess --

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - A crowd attacked and killed a passenger in a vehicle that had struck and injured a child, police said Wednesday.

Police believe 2,000 to 3,000 people were in the area for a Juneteenth celebration when the attack occurred Tuesday night. The man who was killed had been trying to stop the group from attacking the vehicle's driver when the crowd turned on him, authorities said.

The Austin Police Department identified the victim as David Rivas Morales, 40. The child was taken to a hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Police spokeswoman Toni Chovonetz said she had no further information, including how many people were involved.

The driver was able to get away from the crowd and is cooperating with investigators, police said.

Juneteenth marks the day Gen. Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston in 1865 to share news of the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves two years earlier on Jan. 1, 1863.

It's bad enough that they make up a new holiday every year that Whitey isn't allowed to participate in, but now they use it as an excuse to go on noglike murderous rampages?

Where's Jesse and Al?

It makes me feel pretty sorry for hardworking blacks that get judged with this Nog scum by association.

If a black person comes from a tough background, but recieves good parenting, studies hard in school, builds a solid work hostory, and chooses to raise his family in a nicer neighborhood rathet than persuing a life of crime, he's now an outcast, and labelled an "uncle tom."

I don't see that same sort of discouragement in the trailer parks or barrios.

Not only deplorable and stupid, but it seems the "african american community" has some sort of vested interest in being scumbags.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:37 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:
BSmack wrote: Yea, never seen a New York daily rag ignore the facts in favor of an exploitative story before. No sirrie.
You don't comprehend things very well.
So it's OK to just assume this guy is a scumbag without checking the Daily News' facts?

I have neither the time nor inclination to "check the facts" of the (very plausable) story that was posted, which is why I dropped the caveat of "as long as the article is accurate" in my post.

Society just called and respectfully requested that you never, ever, for any reason whatsoever, have children.

Bidiot wrote:Society can get fucked.

So you're saying that you're going to have kids. Yup, we're fucked and you're still a fucking idiot.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:41 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:I have neither the time nor inclination to "check the facts" of the (very plausable) story that was posted, which is why I dropped the caveat of "as long as the article is accurate" in my post.

Normally when one is uninformed, they decline comment. Props to you for choosing the path that is more likely to lead to you being plungered.

So you're saying that you're going to have kids.

Yep, you're a regular fucking rocket scientist.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:45 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:Juneteenth celebration.

Nice ebonics sounding name.... I never even heard of this farce of a holiday until some Nog Governor got elected in MA.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:58 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:I have neither the time nor inclination to "check the facts" of the (very plausable) story that was posted, which is why I dropped the caveat of "as long as the article is accurate" in my post.
Normally when one is uninformed, they decline comment. Props to you for choosing the path that is more likely to lead to you being plungered.

Since you're so informed, you'll have no problem providing that link that will prove the Daily News article wasn't factual? I mean you wouldn't assume it was incorrect for no reason, correct? Otherwise, you'd look like a fucking idiot.

You've forgotten more about being plungered than I'll ever know. Props for being such a bitch.

So you're saying that you're going to have kids.

Yep, you're a regular fucking rocket scientist.

No, but you toss these softballs that can't be missed.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:15 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:I have neither the time nor inclination to "check the facts" of the (very plausable) story that was posted, which is why I dropped the caveat of "as long as the article is accurate" in my post.
Normally when one is uninformed, they decline comment. Props to you for choosing the path that is more likely to lead to you being plungered.

So you're saying that you're going to have kids.
Yep, you're a regular fucking rocket scientist.

If you do a little bit of looking, the story can also be found carried by the Associated Press. The woman owns a small business. The husband has never made any effort to be involved in his son’s life. It’s just not that hard to connect the dots. Apparently, she raised the kid on her own and he grew up to be a technology manager for a consulting firm.

If there is a God, Bsmack will be found to be sterile.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:27 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:Since you're so informed, you'll have no problem providing that link that will prove the Daily News article wasn't factual? I mean you wouldn't assume it was incorrect for no reason, correct? Otherwise, you'd look like a fucking idiot.

Asking someone to prove a negative? You're a regular paragon of logic TWIS.

Of course you miss the point. Which is that the article is, without any evidence presented by the father, simply a recitation of the mother's complaint and her comments to reporters. Without any input from the father's side whatsoever, one might think you would at least defer comment.

You've forgotten more about being plungered than I'll ever know. Props for being such a bitch.

Move from Binghamton to KC eh?

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:32 pm**

Bshit,
Stop digging, seriously.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:45 pm**

The father abandoned the family when the kid was two years old. When the father was awarded that work comp money, he had to use a good chunk of it to pay back child support. Yeah, everyone is on the edge of their seats waiting to hear his side of the story.

If you go here, you’ll find that the woman was honored back in March at a CYO Hall of Fame banquet. Yeah, she’s pretty evil.

http://archdiocese-phl.org/press%20rele ... 001203.htm

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:45 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:Bshit,

3rd grade nic changing. Check

Stop digging, seriously.

Claiming "bode". Check

Pulling your plays straight out of the tard handbook eh?

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:07 pm**

BSmack wrote:
The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:Bshit,
3rd grade nic changing. Check

Dooh! you got me there.

BSmack wrote:
Stop digging, seriously.
Claiming "bode". Check

Pulling your plays straight out of the tard handbook eh?

Ooooff, another good one B, that's gonna leave a mark.

I don't claim 'bode or seek adjulations from others, I'm only here for fun, so thanks for making today fun. The "stop digging" comment was to stop you from kicking your own ass any further, I've failed in that respect.

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:11 pm**

The Whistle Is Screaming wrote:I've failed.

FTFY

Posted: **Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:14 pm**

What next B, spelling & grammar smack?

T1B

How should the Judge rule?