Re: [Pointless Response #425] Elizabeth Wilke Spencer Man: an example of 17th...
WJho...@aol.com
bin...@gmail.com writes:
> And that the instrument made by the saide Spencer to the saide
> Elizabeth before the saide Coverture is not sufficient in Law to barr
> the saide Spencer from makeing a
> Testamt. and Executor. … It is therefore ordered that what Estate did
> properly belong to the saide Elizabeth before her intermarriage with
> the saide Spencer and now detained by the saide Elizabeth bee
> forthwith delivered by the saide Elizabeth Spencer unto the saide
> Nusum as Executor to the saide Spencer….”
>
> Gee, Will, I think it was these words. Talk to the VA Bar yet?>>
> -------------
And that does not say what you keep trying to force it to say.
It's not my fault that you can't read plain English.
Talk to your parents.
W "Snarky" J
binky
Guys like you are taught to contradict everything--it's just the way
you go through life. If that doesn't work you lie. There's really no
defense against behavior like yours--it's designed to keep people on
the hook. The real test is how many clients you get--and I don't
think you'll get many.
I challenged you to talk to an attorney--you weren't man enough to do
that. The court case refers to the "instrument" George Spencer made
to Elizabeth before she married him. An "instrument" is in this
context is a legal document. The case refers to Elizabeth as
administratrix; she was that for the estate of Thomas Wilke, so it
must have referred to some of Wilke's property. The probability is
that it was a pre-nup, as trusts placed property with a third party
for safe keeping.
What you're trying to do here, is show that Elizabeth was challenging
the will based upon some other premise, in order to show that wills
could be challenged after probate. That is flatly contradicted by the
facts. I'm not going to argue with Vickie Elam about the number of
Elizabeth's husbands; or with Renia, either. It's not necessary.
But you know that's not true. And I do too. And so does anybody who
called the Virginia Bar Assoc. And so do Vickie and Renia.
I wish you good luck with that act, Will. But consider this--
everybody who calls the VBA knows you're lying. Doesn't that bother
you?
Renia
> The case refers to Elizabeth as
> administratrix; she was that for the estate of Thomas Wilke, so it
> must have referred to some of Wilke's property. The probability is
> that it was a pre-nup, as trusts placed property with a third party
> for safe keeping.
To take out administration of a will means to see to their estate: to
pay their debts and funeral expenses and to see that any children get
their legal share. For those who do not leave a will, the same thing
applies.
It has absolutely nothing to do with pre-nuptual agreements or marriage
settlements.
wjho...@aol.com
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com> :
"Guys like you are taught to contradict everything--it's just the way
you go through life. If that doesn't work you lie. There's really no
defense against behavior like yours--it's designed to keep people on
the hook. The real test is how many clients you get--and I don't
think you'll get many."
As I've told you before, none of my clients have ever heard of Gen-Med so
it makes absolutely zero different what I do here, or how you inaccurately
characterize it.
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com> :
"I challenged you to talk to an attorney--you weren't man enough to do
that. The court case refers to the "instrument" George Spencer made
to Elizabeth before she married him. An "instrument" is in this
context is a legal document. The case refers to Elizabeth as
administratrix; she was that for the estate of Thomas Wilke, so it
must have referred to some of Wilke's property. The probability is
that it was a pre-nup, as trusts placed property with a third party
for safe keeping."
I am *man enough* to talk to an attorney (whatever that is supposed to imply),
I simply chose not to. It's possible she had an agreement of that sort
I thought you were stating that you *knew* she did, but I never implied that
she didn't or that I believed she did or didn't, so that's all irrelevant.
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com> :
"What you're trying to do here, is show that Elizabeth was challenging
the will based upon some other premise, in order to show that wills
could be challenged after probate. That is flatly contradicted by the
facts."
You are confusing your terms. I never stated nor did I imply that she was
challenging the will upon your premise or any other one. I pointed out
that your characterization of what the court said and did was not an accurate
one. That has nothing to do with what she was trying to do. I stated
that you did not understand what the judge said or did.
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com> :
"I wish you good luck with that act, Will. But consider this--
everybody who calls the VBA knows you're lying. Doesn't that bother
you?"
It does not bother me that you call me a liar pants on fire fifteen times.
It's pretty clear to everyone that you don't actually know what the word
"liar" means. Just as you don't know what the word "harassment" means, and you
don't know what the word "illegal" means.
Par for the course.
binky
Your comment makes no sense--when a widow inherited anything--via a
will, or an intestate estate--that property COULD be put into a pre-
nup. Pre-nups are to shelter property from a husband, and until 1705,
pre-nups were only available to widows.
You're trying to hustle me, Will. You think there might be some money
here, don't you? You think I'm so stupid that you think you can just
contradict everything I say, and I'll write you a check. Isn't that
it, Will? What you'd like me to do, is hire you and write you a big,
fat check... And it would be amazing how cooperative you'd be... when
you had that big, fat check.
binky
What I do know is that misrepresenting the facts in a genealogical
case in order to get a commission is fraud; and Internet fraud is a
federal beef.
What I'm telling you is that I'm not going to pay you anything.
Renia
Will hasn't asked you to pay him anything and has no interest in touting
for your custom. Are your reading comprehension skills so poor you think
he is actually interested in being hired by you?
wjho...@aol.com
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>:
"Your comment makes no sense--when a widow inherited anything--via a will, or an intestate estate--that property COULD be put into a pre-nup. Pre-nups are to shelter property from a husband, and until 1705, pre-nups were only available to widows.? You're trying to hustle me, Will. You think there might be some money here, don't you? You think I'm so stupid that you think you can just contradict everything I say, and I'll write you a check. Isn't that it, Will? What you'd like me to do, is hire you and write you a big, fat check... And it would be amazing how cooperative you'd be... when you had that big, fat check."
I however, never said that a widow's property *could not* be put into a pre-nup, so you're arguing against a position I never took.
Next!
Contradiction people makes them write me a check?? It's difficult to toy with you when you come up with such twaddle.? Have you ever been on medication?? You seem to have a kind of conspiratorial bent.
As far as whether I'm co-operative with people who pay me, I think you'll find the majority of my employers remember me as being both brilliant and difficult.? "I know exactly how to do my job, I don't need any input from you."
wjho...@aol.com
From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:42 pm
"What I do know is that misrepresenting the facts in a genealogical case in order to get a commission is fraud; and Internet fraud is a federal beef. What I'm telling you is that I'm not going to pay you anything."
Well gosh then you just screwed yourself. And here you could have
sued me for internet fraud ! But of course by stating that you're
not going to pay me anything you destroy your entire claim !
I thought you were a legal expert.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <wjho...@aol.com>
To: <bin...@gmail.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Pointless response #259] Elizabeth Wilke Spencer Man: an
exampleof 17th...
>
> From: binky <bin...@gmail.com>
>
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:42 pm
>
> "What I do know is that misrepresenting the facts in a genealogical case
> in order to get a commission is fraud; and Internet fraud is a federal
> beef. What I'm telling you is that I'm not going to pay you anything."
>
>
>
> Well gosh then you just screwed yourself. And here you could have
> sued me for internet fraud ! But of course by stating that you're
> not going to pay me anything you destroy your entire claim !
>
> I thought you were a legal expert.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message