Loophole in Trust laws ? I can hardly believe what I've learned
Dave
then appoints a trustee, then dies without ever telling the
beneficiaries that there is a trust for them.
So, the trustee never informs the beneficiaries
about the trust and simply reaps the rewards of its
asssets, the beneficiaries never being the wiser.
This is what happened to me. And I really must
wonder just how many other people it
might be happening to as we spea... er, as I type !
My Dad made a trust
for my brother and I and he relied on my brother to
tell me about it. But my brother never did tell me
about it It was created for us over 5 years ago
and I only recently found out about it
from a third party by virtue of a simple twist of fate.
Needless to say, I am planning to sue
to have my brother removed as the trustee.
Which brings up a question. I want to get a lawyer to
represent me since I live in an entirely different state from
where the trust exists. To further complicate matters,
the settlors lived in one county and the trustee lives
in another.
So, how can I find out which county in that other state
I should choose to look for counsel in ?
Thanks
Outraged and Disgruntled Dave.
David L. Martel
> Which brings up a question. I want to get a lawyer to
> represent me since I live in an entirely different state from
> where the trust exists. To further complicate matters,
> the settlors lived in one county and the trustee lives
> in another.
>
> So, how can I find out which county in that other state
> I should choose to look for counsel in ?
I'm not sure what "settlors" are You seem to want to sue the trustee so
I bet you'll want to look there for a lawyer. A lawyer who handles wills,
probate, and trusts would be a good bet. So, try to get a copy of the trust
documents and find a lawyer, then decide whether to sue.
Good luck,
Dave M.
kastnna
> Let's say someone creates a trust for some beneficiaries,
> then appoints a trustee, then dies without ever telling the
> beneficiaries that there is a trust for them.
Why didn't the grantor tell the beneficiaries? What did the
beneficiaries think happened to the grantors estate when he/she died?
> So, the trustee never informs the beneficiaries
> about the trust and simply reaps the rewards of its
> asssets, the beneficiaries never being the wiser.
Depends on how well the trust was drafted. Most competently drafted
trusts will include provisions requiring that 1) the trustee provide
annual accounting to the beneficiaries and 2) assets be distributed in
a particular way (e.g. all income distributed annually and split
evenly between all beneficiaries).
> This is what happened to me. And I really must
> wonder just how many other people it
> might be happening to as we spea... er, as I type !
...
You should definitely seek out an estate planning attorney. But for
the record, this is not a "loophole" in trust law. Trust law cannot
account for the criminal and civil misdeeds of individuals. This trust
broke down due to the actions (or inactions) of the attorney, the
grantor, and the trustee.
McGyver
news:QKjak.6299$CC....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
Hire an attorney in the county where the trustee lives. That's not the only
proper jurisdiction for filing the lawsuit, but it is a safe choice and
saves you having to research the issue. If your attorney wants to file in
some other place, that attorney will decide that.
Don't try to get a copy of the trust before hiring the attorney. Getting
the copy is the attorney's job. Whether to wake up the trustee before
filing the suit is the attorney's decision. Just hire the attorney.
It is not uncommon for people to draft trusts and purposely refrain from
informing the beneficiaries. There are often reasons to keep the
beneficiaries blissfully uninformed. That is not a loophole. Also,
embezzlement by the trustee is not a loophole. If the trustor trusts the
trustee too much, that's the trustor's mistake. The trustor's attorney
should advice the trustor on this issue, but the attorney cannot inform the
beneficiaries if the client says not to. Some people instruct their
attorneys to inform the beneficiaries after the date of death of the trustor
that there is a trust. And finally, the most common practice is for the
trustor to inform the beneficiaries so that the trustee is not overly
tempted.
On the death of your father, you should have hired an attorney to file for
probate of the estate. Then you as executor would have tried to gather all
assets and would have found that some or all had been transferred to a
trustee. Then you would have sued the trustee and all would be well. So
let's divide the blame: Trustor 25%, you 25%, embezzler 50%, legal system
0%.
This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com . And I am not your attorney.
McGyver
kastnna
FWIW, "settlors" is commonly used in place of "grantors" in living
trusts and family limited partnerships.
David L. Martel
Why do you recommend hiring the attorney first? In reading this man's
post I was not convinced that this trust actually exists. It sounded as if
he heard a rumor from someone about the trust. This struck me as rather
strange. The trustor does not tell him there's a trust. The trustee does not
tell him there's a trust. I'm guessing that the estate goes through probate
and he doeasn't notice a lot of missing assets. I'm not sure that there is a
trust so I'd think researching the trust might be a good first step. Why
hire a lawyer before you know that there is a trust.
Dave M.
Deadrat
news:HrmdnWDv1t2Wd_fV...@earthlink.com:
> McGyver,
>
> Why do you recommend hiring the attorney first? In reading this
> man's
> post I was not convinced that this trust actually exists. It sounded
> as if he heard a rumor from someone about the trust. This struck me as
> rather strange. The trustor does not tell him there's a trust.
There's nothing unusual about that.
> The trustee does not tell him there's a trust.
That would require no more than a dishonest trustee.
> I'm guessing that the
> estate goes through probate and he doeasn't notice a lot of missing
> assets.
If the trustor placed all his property in the trust before he died, there'd
be no estate so there'd be nothing to probate.
> I'm not sure that there is a trust so I'd think researching
> the trust might be a good first step.
How do you do that? Trusts are private arrangements.
Dave
"kastnna" <kas...@auburnalum.org> wrote in message news:4bde6aea-1108-4191...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 1:04 am, "Dave" <gasol...@all-costs.com> wrote:
> Let's say someone creates a trust for some beneficiaries,
> then appoints a trustee, then dies without ever telling the
> beneficiaries that there is a trust for them.
Why didn't the grantor tell the beneficiaries? What did the
beneficiaries think happened to the grantors estate when he/she died?
Well. in my imaginary scenario, the grantor intended to
tell the beneficiaries but died before getting around to doing so.
> So, the trustee never informs the beneficiaries
> about the trust and simply reaps the rewards of its
> asssets, the beneficiaries never being the wiser.
Depends on how well the trust was drafted. Most competently drafted
trusts will include provisions requiring that 1) the trustee provide
annual accounting to the beneficiaries
True, but a provision is only a provision and not any kind of
guarantee will be carried out.
and 2) assets be distributed in
a particular way (e.g. all income distributed annually and split
evenly between all beneficiaries).
Yes, I have a copy of the trust and it clearly spells out
that the beneficiaries are to be notified of their withdrawal
rights.
I also have a copy of a letter to the trustee that
he signed acknowledging a deposit of 48K to the trust.
around 4 years ago. In that document it specifically
names me and states that I have the right to withdraw
1/3 of the deposit.
In the trust it states that if the beneficiary doesn't withdraw
his share of any deposits within 60 days then the beneficiary
loses the right of withdrawal.
Yet the trustee never notified me (the beneficiary) about
the deposit, let alone the very existance of the trust.
So I imagine since over 4 years has passed, so has my
withdrawal right. Yet, how could I withdraw my share
when I didn't even know that it existed?
> This is what happened to me. And I really must
> wonder just how many other people it
> might be happening to as we spea... er, as I type !
...
You should definitely seek out an estate planning attorney. But for
the record, this is not a "loophole" in trust law. Trust law cannot
account for the criminal and civil misdeeds of individuals. This trust
broke down due to the actions (or inactions) of the attorney, the
grantor, and the trustee.
Yeah, after giving it some thought an analogy came to
mind. Let's say you give 30 bucks to someone then tell them
to distribute it to several other people. it's pretty much
between you and the person you trusted and the several
other people to see that this happens, not the laws
responsibility.
Yet, on the other hand, there seem to be a lot of statutes
and rules that govern trusts and such. So in essence
they are institutions of sorts are they not? As an institution
shouldn't it be evolved to be more protective of all
involved in it?
Not quite sure "institution" is the word I'm looking for,
but you know what I'm getting at hopefully.
Thanks
--Dave--
Deadrat
news:0PDak.18860$PZ6....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
> "kastnna" <kas...@auburnalum.org> wrote in message
> news:4bde6aea-1108-4191...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
> .. On Jul 1, 1:04 am, "Dave" <gasol...@all-costs.com> wrote:
>> Let's say someone creates a trust for some beneficiaries,
>> then appoints a trustee, then dies without ever telling the
>> beneficiaries that there is a trust for them.
>
<snip>
>
> Yet, on the other hand, there seem to be a lot of statutes
> and rules that govern trusts and such. So in essence
> they are institutions of sorts are they not? As an institution
> shouldn't it be evolved to be more protective of all
> involved in it?
>
> Not quite sure "institution" is the word I'm looking for,
> but you know what I'm getting at hopefully.
There are rules governing trusts and trustees, but one of the benefits of a
trust is the ability of the trustor to keep secret the disposition of his
assets. The drawback is that the trustor has to trust somebody.
That's why they call it a trust.
>
> Thanks
> --Dave--
>
>
>
Dave
"David L. Martel" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:HrmdnWDv1t2Wd_fV...@earthlink.com...
> McGyver,
>
> Why do you recommend hiring the attorney first? In reading this man's
> post I was not convinced that this trust actually exists. It sounded as if
> he heard a rumor from someone about the trust.
Well, the "rumor" turned out to be true.
> This struck me as rather
> strange. The trustor does not tell him there's a trust. The trustee does not
> tell him there's a trust. I'm guessing that the estate goes through probate
> and he doeasn't notice a lot of missing assets. I'm not sure that there is a
> trust so I'd think researching the trust might be a good first step. Why
> hire a lawyer before you know that there is a trust.
>
> Dave M.
FWIW, I have a copy of the trust. I got it from my Dad's attorney.
He was not however the attorney that drafted the trust.
Unfortunately the copy he gave me does not list the assets of
the trust. It refers to a life insurance policy in schedule A and also
some properties in schedule B, but in the copy I have, schedule A & B
are blank.
Just why my Dad never told me about the trust does
remain a bit of a mystery to me. My brother claims that
there's a reason, but he won't tell me what that "reason" is.
For all I know, the reason might simply be that he trusted
my brother to tell me about it. For all I know, my brother
might have misled my dad and told him that he was
keeping me well informed.
At any rate, from what I can gather from reading
California statutes, a trustee is legally required to
disclose everything to the beneficiaries at the very
moment he becomes the trustee of an irrevocable
trust. This trust was created as "irrevocable" right
from the start. So my brother broke
the law by not disclosing it to me at the time that
it was created back in 2002
My brother claims that my dad didn't want him
to reveal it's existance to me and I almost believed
him for awhile. But then I began to wonder why
(even after my Dad died) wouldn't my brother tell
me about it. I really don't believe that my Dad
would have wanted to keep it a secret from me
even after his death.
And even if for some reason my Dad did actually
tell my brother not to disclose it's existance to me,
he still would have been breaking the law anyway
by not doing so.
At any rate, I'm tired of being totally ignored by
my brother on the matter and I'm going to go after
him to be removed as the trustee. I am
listed in the trust as being next in line to be the trustee
should my brother be unable to fulfill the obligations.
I'm hoping that the court will make
me the new trustee, but I will be happy if they simply
appoint an impartial third party.
Thanks
Dave
foad
"McGyver" <Grey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g4e262$a0e$1...@aioe.org...
> On the death of your father, you should have hired an attorney to file for
> probate of the estate. Then you as executor would have tried to gather
> all assets and would have found that some or all had been transferred to a
> trustee. Then you would have sued the trustee and all would be well. So
> let's divide the blame: Trustor 25%, you 25%, embezzler 50%, legal system
> 0%.
That's not good advice and this isn't the first time you've given it. An
executor and successors are named in any competently drawn will. It's not a
beneficiary's duty to hire a lawyer to probate the estate. A beneficiary is
merely the donee of a gift. He has no duties.
McGyver
news:HrmdnWDv1t2Wd_fV...@earthlink.com...
I had two reasons. First, the attorney would want to make the decision
about whether to file the lawsuit before letting the trustee know that the
alleged embezzlement or other misconduct is about to be exposed. In some
cases an attachment order can be obtained ex parte if there is evidence or
even reasonably based suspicion that the defendant is about to abscond with
assets. I know there is no such evidence in OP's post, but if the
attorney's questioning of OP does reveal some such indication, we don't want
the embezzler to have been warned by OP's fumbling around, demanding a copy
of the trust or whatever.
Second, there is a delay factor. Even if OP finds the trust instrument,
another copy will have to be obtained through discovery. So letting the
attorney do the inevitable discovery work first saves time.
I'm not saying either reason is important. The OP found a copy of the trust
and no harm has been done, I suppose. But when you are going to sue
someone, always let the attorney advise on the strategies.
McGyver
"Dave" <gaso...@all-costs.com> wrote in message
news:8hFak.18890$3F5....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "David L. Martel" <mart...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:HrmdnWDv1t2Wd_fV...@earthlink.com...
>> McGyver,
>>
>> Why do you recommend hiring the attorney first? In reading this man's
>> post I was not convinced that this trust actually exists. It sounded as
>> if
>> he heard a rumor from someone about the trust.
>
> Well, the "rumor" turned out to be true.
>
>> This struck me as rather
>> strange. The trustor does not tell him there's a trust. The trustee does
>> not
>> tell him there's a trust. I'm guessing that the estate goes through
>> probate
>> and he doeasn't notice a lot of missing assets. I'm not sure that there
>> is a
>> trust so I'd think researching the trust might be a good first step. Why
>> hire a lawyer before you know that there is a trust.
>>
>> Dave M.
>
>
> FWIW, I have a copy of the trust. I got it from my Dad's attorney.
> He was not however the attorney that drafted the trust.
> Unfortunately the copy he gave me does not list the assets of
> the trust. It refers to a life insurance policy in schedule A and also
> some properties in schedule B, but in the copy I have, schedule A & B
> are blank.
That's common. When the attorney drafts the instrument the assets have not
been transferred yet, so the schedules are blank. The should be filled in
later, after the property has been transferred. The copy the attorney keeps
would normally not be the one with the assets listed.
> Just why my Dad never told me about the trust does
> remain a bit of a mystery to me. My brother claims that
> there's a reason, but he won't tell me what that "reason" is.
> For all I know, the reason might simply be that he trusted
> my brother to tell me about it. For all I know, my brother
> might have misled my dad and told him that he was
> keeping me well informed.
There are several reasons the trustor sometimes wants the beneficiary to
remain uninformed until after the trustor's death. The first is that the
trustor doesn't want to be bothered by the beneficiary asking questions,
objecting to the allocations, whining about why the other beneficiary was
selected as the trustee, demanding to know why the brother gets the Beverly
Hills house while the non-trustee beneficiary gets the broken-down
Chevrolet.
> At any rate, from what I can gather from reading
> California statutes, a trustee is legally required to
> disclose everything to the beneficiaries at the very
> moment he becomes the trustee of an irrevocable
> trust. This trust was created as "irrevocable" right
> from the start. So my brother broke
> the law by not disclosing it to me at the time that
> it was created back in 2002
>
> My brother claims that my dad didn't want him
> to reveal it's existance to me and I almost believed
> him for awhile. But then I began to wonder why
> (even after my Dad died) wouldn't my brother tell
> me about it. I really don't believe that my Dad
> would have wanted to keep it a secret from me
> even after his death.
I agree. So you should be in an attorney's office getting the lawsuit
started.
> And even if for some reason my Dad did actually
> tell my brother not to disclose it's existance to me,
> he still would have been breaking the law anyway
> by not doing so.
>
> At any rate, I'm tired of being totally ignored by
> my brother on the matter and I'm going to go after
> him to be removed as the trustee. I am
> listed in the trust as being next in line to be the trustee
> should my brother be unable to fulfill the obligations.
> I'm hoping that the court will make
> me the new trustee, but I will be happy if they simply
> appoint an impartial third party.
On the facts you posted, and not having seen the document or heard the other
party's side of the story, I think you have an excellent chance of getting
the trustee removed and yourself appointed.
kastnna
I think you have come to the proper realization that you need a
lawyer. This is definitely the next step.
Before you start "counting up your loot", the trustee MAY be allowed
to compensate themselves for management of the trust. Quoting two
different trusts currently sitting on my desk:
1. "All successor trustees shall be entitled to annual compensation
for their services as trustee in the amount of three percent (3%) of
the value of the trust estate." and
2. "Members of the ________ family shall serve as trustee without
compensation; however, any non-family member trustee shall be entitled
to reasonable compensation as determined by the family-member
trustees. All reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by a trustee
in the management of this trust shall be reimbursed from the trust
assets."
While this doesn't excuse your brother from any provisions he may have
violated (e.g. accounting and disbursements), it may explain (either
wholly or partially) some of the money he withdrew. In the very least,
that's what he's going to claim, if able.
Long story short, it appears from the limited info we have been given
that your brother breached his fiduciary duty. Hire a lawyer NOW.
McGyver
You are right. The only duty of a beneficiary is to sit back and wait for
the executor or administrator to do the job. The beneficiary's role is
especially non-demanding if there is no will, no executor, no administrator
and no other person steps forward to present an estate-without-will to
probate. All the beneficiary has to do is watch the assets disappear. As a
side benefit, the beneficiary and the embezzler can stay friends.
Any beneficiary who thinks there are assets that should be coming his way
and who notices that the assets are not appearing like magic, has the
alternative (not the duty) to petition for probate of the estate. That
action can: (a) result in the beneficiary becoming the executor or
administrator if there is no will or if the nominated executor has committee
malfeasance, (b) force the person nominated as executor in a will to get off
the dime and oppose the petition by filing one of his own, (c) force a
negligent or criminal trustee into the limelight, or (d) expose and prevent
the disappearance of assets.
David L. Martel
These are points worth considering. Everything is trumped by the
revelation that the OP has a copy of a draft(?) of the trust. I guess it's
now worth hiring a lawyer since it's likely that there is a trust in which
he is a beneficiary.
Dave M.
Dave
"McGyver" <Grey...@hotmail.com> wrote
<snipped>
> On the facts you posted, and not having seen the document or heard the other
> party's side of the story, I think you have an excellent chance of getting
> the trustee removed and yourself appointed.
I must thank you for this particular bit of advice especially.
I had some dealings with an attorney even before
I posted on this matter. I tried to get just such an opinion
from her.
But, rather than answer the question of whether I might have
a case or not, she was very abrupt on the phone and said
that she needed to see the copies of the trust. I assumed that
she meant that she needed to see them before she could
answer that *hypothetical* question.
She told me that I could mail them or fax them, but
faxing them didn't work so I scanned them and
emailed them to her. Then she emailed me back
and told me she would need $300 to read them.
Well, this really didn't sit well with me and I emailed her
back and told her that her services were no longer
desired.
Oh what the heck, here's a cut and paste of my second
letter to her; (since it pretty much explains all);
****************************
"My wife seems to think I owe a better explanation of my dissatisfaction. So that you might avoid disenfranchising any future
customers in this manner, I agreed.
Here goes;
Firstly you were very abrupt on the phone even after it had been explained to me that 30 minutes intial consultation is free. You
wouldn't even answer a hypothetical question about whether I would have a case against a Trustee that had never maintained an open
book policy as is required by California statutes.
I did not ask that question for no reason. The reason for the question was because before I sink money into something, I would like
to at least have some idea whether it's going to pay off or not. This is purely common sense.
Rather than answer such a simple question you replied that you needed to see the trust and requested that I mail it or fax it to
you. Since you had only talked to me for 5-10 minutes, this left me with the impression that in order for you to complete the 30
minute consultation, you needed the docs.
Herein lies the problem. Let's say I had mailed it to you. 4-5 days later you would be telling me, "ok, I have the paperwork, now
send me some money to make me read it.' Then I would have had to send the money and wait another 4-5 days just for the money to
get there and god only knows how long before you actually *might* read it.
So, worst case, it might have taken almost two weeks for me to get an opinion when if you would have simply told me up front that
money would be required before you would read it, I might have sent the paperwork and the money both together and shortened this
time by 4-5 days.
I'm assuming you were abrupt on the phone because your time is precious. Well, so is mine, especially considering that every day
that goes by is another day that the Trustee of my inheritance has to screw things up for me even more.
So to set the record straight, I have no problem paying fair money for services. I have enough clout to do that without blinking an
eye. In essence, my dissatisfaction is about two things, firstly not being listened to or taken seriously enough, secondly your
methodology was poorly constructed such that some time was wasted that need not have been.
IOW, I'm off to find a lawyer that listens a bit better and is a bit more on the ball. It's doubtful I'll find such, but one never
know unless they try.
Sorry if I seem a bit curt, but you have to realize that the whole reason I'm looking for a lawyer is to go after someone that's
jerking me around and wasting my time. IOW, I already have enough of that."
**********************************************
So thanks Mc Gyver and all else who advised me here.
You all gave me what I couldn't seem to get from the
first attorney that I contacted. As it turns out, she probably
isn't in the best county anyway and I'm now looking for
an attorney in the county where the trustee lives.
Dave
foad
> "foad" <sjk...@sdjh.com> wrote in message
> news:R6Iak.141$9W.101@trndny04...
>>
>> "McGyver" <Grey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:g4e262$a0e$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>>> On the death of your father, you should have hired an attorney to file
>>> for probate of the estate. Then you as executor would have tried to
>>> gather all assets and would have found that some or all had been
>>> transferred to a trustee. Then you would have sued the trustee and all
>>> would be well. So let's divide the blame: Trustor 25%, you 25%,
>>> embezzler 50%, legal system 0%.
>>
>> That's not good advice and this isn't the first time you've given it. An
>> executor and successors are named in any competently drawn will. It's not
>> a beneficiary's duty to hire a lawyer to probate the estate. A
>> beneficiary is merely the donee of a gift. He has no duties.
>
> You are right. The only duty of a beneficiary is to sit back and wait for
> the executor or administrator to do the job. The beneficiary's role is
> especially non-demanding if there is no will, no executor, no
> administrator and no other person steps forward to present an
> estate-without-will to probate. All the beneficiary has to do is watch
> the assets disappear. As a side benefit, the beneficiary and the
> embezzler can stay friends.
You can be as sarcastic as you like. It's my meat. But you're still wrong,
both in the macro sense, unless you believe that every time a human dies
each one of its kin should hire a lawyer and attempt to probate the estate.
And you're wrong in this particular case, because you assign blame for the
OP's brother's purported criminal conduct on the OP. If dead guy had a trust
he certainly had a will and the will certainly named an executor and so even
if the OP had hired an attorney to probate the estate the OP wouldn't have
been permitted to probate the estate and the embezzlement would have occured
anyway. There's no evidence here of wrongdoing by the executor or with
anything having to do with probate.
> Any beneficiary who thinks there are assets that should be coming his way
> and who notices that the assets are not appearing like magic, has the
> alternative (not the duty) to petition for probate of the estate. That
> action can: (a) result in the beneficiary becoming the executor or
> administrator if there is no will or if the nominated executor has
> committee malfeasance, (b) force the person nominated as executor in a
> will to get off the dime and oppose the petition by filing one of his own,
> (c) force a negligent or criminal trustee into the limelight, or (d)
> expose and prevent the disappearance of assets.
I agree that if someone is stealing from you you should stop them and that
if your rights are being violated you should take steps to protect them.
However, that's not what you said earlier and those are not the facts that
the OP presented. His question concerned a trust of which he was unaware
that contained assets of which he was presumably unaware, which assets were
being embezzled by the trustee.
foad
A long stupid pointless rude boorish poorly written letter. Hopefully she
bills you for having read it.
Deadrat
More like it's your due.
> But you're still
> wrong, both in the macro sense, unless you believe that every time a
> human dies each one of its kin should hire a lawyer and attempt to
> probate the estate.
This is an argument from the illogical conclusion. There is no "macro
snese" in McGyver's advice: he's not giving universal prescriptions.
> And you're wrong in this particular case, because
> you assign blame for the OP's brother's purported criminal conduct on
> the OP.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read MGyver's posts. He doesn't assign
blame to the OP; he makes a suggestion as how to proceed.
> If dead guy had a trust he certainly had a will
Why certainly? If the trustor transferred all his assets to his trust
before his death, then he would have no estate.
> and the will
> certainly named an executor and so even if the OP had hired an
> attorney to probate the estate the OP wouldn't have been permitted to
> probate the estate and the embezzlement would have occured anyway.
If there was no will, the lawyer could claim the OP's father died
intestate and that there should have been assets. If there was a will,
the lawyer could find out the disposition. In either case, the existence
of the trust would likely come to light.
> There's no evidence here of wrongdoing by the executor or with
> anything having to do with probate.
There's no "evidence" of an executor. Finding out why or whether is a
good start to figuring out what happened.
>> Any beneficiary who thinks there are assets that should be coming his
>> way and who notices that the assets are not appearing like magic, has
>> the alternative (not the duty) to petition for probate of the estate.
>> That action can: (a) result in the beneficiary becoming the executor
>> or administrator if there is no will or if the nominated executor has
>> committee malfeasance, (b) force the person nominated as executor in
>> a will to get off the dime and oppose the petition by filing one of
>> his own, (c) force a negligent or criminal trustee into the
>> limelight, or (d) expose and prevent the disappearance of assets.
>
> I agree that if someone is stealing from you you should stop them and
> that if your rights are being violated you should take steps to
> protect them. However, that's not what you said earlier and those are
> not the facts that the OP presented. His question concerned a trust of
> which he was unaware that contained assets of which he was presumably
> unaware, which assets were being embezzled by the trustee.
So if someone is stealing from you, you should stop them, but not if they
are embezzling from you?
Dave
"foad" <sjk...@sdjh.com> wrote in message news:aV3bk.132$Z11.81@trndny05...
Can I bill you for reading your pointless and rude reply?
Dave
"foad" <sjk...@sdjh.com> wrote
<<essentially absolutely nothing>>
foad, you're the only one posting in this thread
that has contributed absolutely nothing of any
value to me.
If your goal in life is to be a rude obstinate ankle-biting
asshole that wastes the time of anyone who reads your crap,
then congratulations on your success.
Dave
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote
> Perhaps you should go back and re-read MGyver's posts. He doesn't assign
> blame to the OP; he makes a suggestion as how to proceed.
Well, he assigned 25% of the blame to me and if one chooses
to enterpret it a certain way , then foad might have an argument.
However, after thinking about what McGyver said a bit, I understood
that although he didn't spell it out clearly, he was talking about
*responsibility* in my case and not *blame*.
IOW, as a mature adult one shouldn't be completely naive
about matters in the world and one should realize that the
only person one can absolutely count on is oneself. Therefore
an intelligent mature human being should consider all possibilities
and take whatever intitiatives are necessary.
foad no doubt is the kind of person that is more interested
in his own agenda than the truth. I'd almost put money on it that he
understood (just as I did) what McGyver really meant, but chose
because of vindictiveness or insecurity to play up the literal translation.
My guess would be that foad is posting from prison.
Dave
Firstly, it was not rude at all. I actually liked this person and I sent
her the letter so that she could improve her methods and not make the same
mistake again.
So, you think it was pointless to explain to her that she could do things
in a better way?
Probably because if anyone ever explained to you
how you could do things in a better way, it certainly would be pointless
as no doubt it would be falling on deaf ears.
ok foad, you're gods gift to humanity
back to your cell now
Deadrat
news:tFbbk.16782$NQ5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
I'll concede that the reply was probably pointless: you'd already sent
the letter, and your smartass retort means that you'd probably send it
again.
But you might want to consider what is fair criticism:
1. Long. Over 500 words for what? To vent your displeasure over your
situation.
2. Pointless. Is there something you wanted from this lawyer? Seems
that the answre is no.
3. Rude, boorish. You tell the lawyer that she would have delayed
answering you to hold you up for a retainer, that she's a bad listener,
that she's incompetent, that she's "jerking you around," and that her bad
behavior is representative of her entire profession.
4. Poorly written. Clumsy, verbose, errors of grammar and punctuation.
You say this venture was prompted by your wife. Why don't you grow a
pair before her mouth gets your ass in trouble?
Or let her write her own letters.
Deadrat
news:u_bbk.16794$NQ5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
Stop guessing who people are, and try to understand what they're telling
you.
Deadrat
news:J4cbk.16802$NQ5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
Yeah, you called her an unethical practitioner of an immoral profession
who's out to waste your time and money. But you meant that in the nicest
possible way.
> I actually liked this person
How do you treat people you don't like?
> and I
> sent her the letter so that she could improve her methods and not make
> the same mistake again.
Well, aren't you a nominee for the next Nobel Peace Prize!
You sent her the letter because you were pissed off about your brother
and she was a handy target.
That and you couldn't tell your wife to butt out.
> So, you think it was pointless to explain to her that she could do
> things in a better way?
If you wanted her to listen, it was certainly counterproductive to attack
her integrity and her profession.
But you didn't want her to listen; you just wanted to sound off, right?
<snip/>
foad
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote
>
> Perhaps you should go back and re-read MGyver's posts. He doesn't assign
> blame to the OP; he makes a suggestion as how to proceed.
"On the death of your father, you should have hired an attorney to file for
probate of the estate. . . . So let's divide the blame: Trustor 25%, you
25%, embezzler 50%, legal system 0%."
Thanks for playing, retard.
foad
So when you apologized in the letter for being "curt," a word meaning
"brusque; marked by rude or peremptory shortness; Brief or terse, especially
to the point of being rude" you did so because you were not being rude.
> I actually liked this person and I sent
> her the letter so that she could improve her methods and not make the same
> mistake again.
She didn't make any mistakes. You asked a question about a trust. She asked
to see the trust document. That's not a mistake.
> So, you think it was pointless to explain to her that she could do things
> in a better way?
I think you have no idea about this woman or her practice or what she or
other lawyers do or don't do and your criticism -- "your methodology was
poorly constructed such that some time was wasted need not have been" -- is
completely meaningless. Other than that, it was spot on.
Deadrat
The title of this thread was about a loophole in the law. There isn't one.
Given the advice that McGyver gave and the explanations that came along
with that advice, it's clear that "blame" here is ironic. No legal or
ethical fault accrues to the OP for his inaction.
At least that's the way I took it. I may be wrong, and if so, McGyver can
correct me.
But at least I'm not literal minded.
foad
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:%grbk.31329$ZE5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "foad" <sjk...@sdjh.com> wrote in news:Mulbk.235$wa1.8@trndny07:
>
>>
>>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should go back and re-read MGyver's posts. He doesn't
>>> assign blame to the OP; he makes a suggestion as how to proceed.
>>
>> "On the death of your father, you should have hired an attorney to
>> file for probate of the estate. . . . So let's divide the blame:
>> Trustor 25%, you 25%, embezzler 50%, legal system 0%."
>>
>> Thanks for playing, retard.
>
> The title of this thread was about a loophole in the law. There isn't
> one.
> Given the advice that McGyver gave and the explanations that came along
> with that advice, it's clear that "blame" here is ironic.
Huh. So where MG says that the embezzler is 50 percent to blame for the
trust imbroglio, you took that as ironical.
> No legal or ethical fault accrues to the OP for his inaction.
Yes I know, that's what I said nitwit. And then you disagreed with me. And
now you're agreeing with me. And I only had to kick you once. You're as
smrat Ž as my dog, nearly.
> At least that's the way I took it. I may be wrong, and if so, McGyver can
> correct me.
>
> But at least I'm not literal minded.
Yes quite, you're not literal minded, so when someone uses the word "blame"
you and humpty dumpty immediately assume it's intended to mean something
other than "blame." That must it difficult to fly the boulder in the
morning, and by fly the boulder I obviously mean get out of bed because I'm
not literal minded either. Hey I know, let's do an experiment. I'll say
something like "Go fuck yourself you tiresome fucking dope" and then you can
use your non literal mind to discover the hidden meaning in the subtext.
>
nos...@isp.com
> "McGyver" <Grey...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> * * * On the facts you posted, and not
>> having seen the document or heard the
>> other party's side of the story, I think you
>> have an excellent chance of getting
>> the trustee removed and yourself appointed.
>
> * * * I had some dealings with an attorney . . .
> before I posted on this matter . . . . [who] rather
> than answer . . . whether I might have a case or not
> . . . was very abrupt on the phone and said that she
> needed that she needed to see the copies of the
> trust. I assumed that she meant that she needed
> to see them before she could answer that *hypothetical*
> question.
It appears that the OP has not read sufficiently carefully a key
qualification to what "McGyver" otherwise said -- namely, that his
responses to the OP's query have been predicated solely "[o]n the
facts [the OP] posted" originally _and_ are further subject to "not
having seen the document" (if there is actually a final/signed such)
and also not "having . . . heard the other party's side of the story".
With only one qualification, I do not have any disagreement (on the
basis of the facts the OP appears actually to have so far posted) with
anything "McGyver" has otherwise said in this thread; but that
qualification, too, might be key:
OTOH, the OP's reference above to a "*hypothetical* question"
concerns (on the basis of the facts he actually has so far posted)
little more than a solicitation of a formal definition (i.e., what the
typical trustee's fiduciary duties can be fairly summarized to be and
what commonly prevailing judicial procedures and rules are for redress
in case of a proven violation); although
OTOH, and as "McGyver" did not just say but indeed
(understandably) cautioned, the OP has not really said that he has
seen or actually knows that his now deceased father established a
trust (albeit that his father may have done so or may otherwise have
left an estate).
That is (though "McGyver" also suggested what may be sensible tactical
considerations re. how both probably least ineffectively and also
realistically to try to obtain answers), the OP seems to have said in
this (for him) basic respect little more than that his brother (the
putative trustee) has suggested but not actually demonstrated that the
brothers' father actually established a trust and/but otherwise
refused to communicate informatively with the OP and that someone who
the OP indicated does not have personal knowledge of the facts in this
connection ("an attorney . . . [who] was not . . . the attorney who
drafted the trust") gave him an on-its-face incomplete copy of a
document which, for all the OP actually knows, may be a contemplated
draft of such a document (which his father may not have
signed/implemented although, possibly, too, his father may have
established a trust pursuant to a final/signed version of that
document).
And, too, though he did say that he believed his father
signed/established a trust in part for the OP's eventual benefit about
five years ago, I don't recall the OP having reported in this thread
how long ago his father died and so, relatedly, how long he has chosen
to sit back and not in any credible or otherwise meaningful way seek
an accounting from his brother, if there is a trust, or administration
of whichever may instead apply of a testamentary or intestate estate;
although two things he has done are (i) to post a copy of a long
letter he said he wrote to a lawyer complaining about what appeared to
be a modest fee request and her refusal to give him a "hypothetical"
answer to what he told her and in this thread has so far demonstrated
are speculative questions and (ii) to refrain from saying that he has
actually acted on the so far only actually (for him) important aspect
of the suggestion by "McGyver" (and others) that, if he is actually
serious, he needs as promptly as possible to take _action_.
But, meanwhile: Yes (by definition), a trustee has a fiduciary duty
to act as a trustee is required by law to act (Duh) and there are any
number of remedies available to an interested person to seek redress
if that person acts diligently and otherwise effectively (Duh!)
although in this connection the OP has not reported much less
described any "Loophole in Trust laws" at all let alone any that
affect him.
McGyver
Blame was a dumb choice of words. I only meant that a person shares some
responsibility for doing nothing while an embezzler embezzles. The
percentages were only meant to say that "loophole" in the law or legal
system is not an appropriate conclusion in this case.
McGyver
Deadrat
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:%grbk.31329$ZE5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "foad" <sjk...@sdjh.com> wrote in news:Mulbk.235$wa1.8@trndny07:
>>
>>>
>>>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you should go back and re-read MGyver's posts. He doesn't
>>>> assign blame to the OP; he makes a suggestion as how to proceed.
>>>
>>> "On the death of your father, you should have hired an attorney to
>>> file for probate of the estate. . . . So let's divide the blame:
>>> Trustor 25%, you 25%, embezzler 50%, legal system 0%."
>>>
>>> Thanks for playing, retard.
>>
>> The title of this thread was about a loophole in the law. There
>> isn't one.
>> Given the advice that McGyver gave and the explanations that came
>> along with that advice, it's clear that "blame" here is ironic.
>
> Huh. So where MG says that the embezzler is 50 percent to blame for
> the trust imbroglio, you took that as ironical.
Are you really so pathetic that you have to insist on how right you are
about this?
If I say, yes, McGyver included the OP in using the word "blame," will
you feel vindicated? Can you post a video of you doing a little victory
dance?
It was clear to me from McGyver's posts that he wasn't telling the OP
that he was at fault, legally or ethically, for not pursuing the issue,
just that the responsibility unfortunately found its way to the OP.
>> No legal or ethical fault accrues to the OP for his inaction.
>
> Yes I know, that's what I said nitwit. And then you disagreed with me.
> And now you're agreeing with me.
I disagreed with you about a number of your foolish and combative
statements. But not about fault accruing to the OP.
> And I only had to kick you once.
> You're as smrat Ž as my dog, nearly.
Not only must you "win," you have to declare yourself the "victor."
Pathetic.
>> At least that's the way I took it. I may be wrong, and if so,
>> McGyver can correct me.
>>
>> But at least I'm not literal minded.
>
> Yes quite, you're not literal minded, so when someone uses the word
> "blame" you and humpty dumpty immediately assume it's intended to mean
> something other than "blame."
I read all of McGyver's posts, and that's what I concluded. What's it to
you?
> That must it difficult to fly the
> boulder in the morning, and by fly the boulder I obviously mean get
> out of bed because I'm not literal minded either. Hey I know, let's do
> an experiment. I'll say something like "Go fuck yourself you tiresome
> fucking dope" and then you can use your non literal mind to discover
> the hidden meaning in the subtext.
The meaning isn't hard to discern. It's called projection.
And, by the way, you "win." Feel better, now?
Did I mention how pathetic that is?
Deadrat
So I actually understood what you posted. So let's divide the blame:
McGyver 85% for the usual clear, well-written, on-topic exposition,
Deadrat 15% for simple reading comprehension, foad 0%.
foad
> "foad" <sjk...@sdjh.com> wrote in news:qzrbk.241$qW.123@trndny03:
>
>>
>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:%grbk.31329$ZE5....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> "foad" <sjk...@sdjh.com> wrote in news:Mulbk.235$wa1.8@trndny07:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you should go back and re-read MGyver's posts. He doesn't
>>>>> assign blame to the OP; he makes a suggestion as how to proceed.
>>>>
>>>> "On the death of your father, you should have hired an attorney to
>>>> file for probate of the estate. . . . So let's divide the blame:
>>>> Trustor 25%, you 25%, embezzler 50%, legal system 0%."
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for playing, retard.
>>>
>>> The title of this thread was about a loophole in the law. There
>>> isn't one.
>>> Given the advice that McGyver gave and the explanations that came
>>> along with that advice, it's clear that "blame" here is ironic.
>>
>> Huh. So where MG says that the embezzler is 50 percent to blame for
>> the trust imbroglio, you took that as ironical.
>
> Are you really so pathetic that you have to insist on how right you are
> about this?
How amusing. Pseudo intellectual usenet moron makes error, then insists that
error is not error; then, when presented with proof of error, whinges like a
little bitch about having been corrected.
> If I say, yes, McGyver included the OP in using the word "blame," will
> you feel vindicated? Can you post a video of you doing a little victory
> dance?
No, I won't feel vindicated. I knew all along that I was right and that
you're a complete chowderfuckinghead. I do find your pathological
defensiveness right amusing though.
> It was clear to me from McGyver's posts that he wasn't telling the OP
> that he was at fault, legally or ethically, for not pursuing the issue,
> just that the responsibility unfortunately found its way to the OP.
>
>>> No legal or ethical fault accrues to the OP for his inaction.
>>
>> Yes I know, that's what I said nitwit. And then you disagreed with me.
>> And now you're agreeing with me.
>
> I disagreed with you about a number of your foolish and combative
> statements. But not about fault accruing to the OP.
A brazen lie: "He doesn't assign blame to the OP; he makes a suggestion as
how to proceed."
>
>> And I only had to kick you once.
>> You're as smrat Ž as my dog, nearly.
>
> Not only must you "win," you have to declare yourself the "victor."
>
> Pathetic.
>
>>> At least that's the way I took it. I may be wrong, and if so,
>>> McGyver can correct me.
>>>
>>> But at least I'm not literal minded.
>>
>> Yes quite, you're not literal minded, so when someone uses the word
>> "blame" you and humpty dumpty immediately assume it's intended to mean
>> something other than "blame."
>
> I read all of McGyver's posts, and that's what I concluded. What's it to
> you?
To recap. I was discussing with MG a finer point of the law, the law being a
subject about which you know fuckall. You interrupted the discussion to say
that I was mistaken, that the word "blame" was not used, that if it was it
did not mean blame anyway, and then for good measure you patted yourself on
the back for being so non "literal minded" that you are able to create from
whole cloth new definitions of words used in common parlance. And now that
I've demonstrated that you have no fucking idea what you were on about it's
what's it to me.
>> That must it difficult to fly the
>> boulder in the morning, and by fly the boulder I obviously mean get
>> out of bed because I'm not literal minded either. Hey I know, let's do
>> an experiment. I'll say something like "Go fuck yourself you tiresome
>> fucking dope" and then you can use your non literal mind to discover
>> the hidden meaning in the subtext.
>
> The meaning isn't hard to discern. It's called projection.
I take it projection is another word you don't know the meaning of. Perhaps
we should start a list.
> And, by the way, you "win." Feel better, now?
I felt fine before you fucking dullard. You're the one blubbering like a big
girl's blouse.
> Did I mention how pathetic that is?
It hasn't sunk in yet, how about you drone on for another hundred lines
about how it's unfair of me to persecute you by disproving your factually
incorrect statements.
foad
> Blame was a dumb choice of words. I only meant that a person shares some
> responsibility for doing nothing while an embezzler embezzles.
That simply is not true, either legally or ethically. Embezzlelment is a
species of theft that involves fraud or a violation of trust. The victim of
the theft doesn't share responsibility for having his property stolen or for
having been deceived. Quite the opposite: the crime requires that the
perpetrator intend to deceive the victim; common sense requires that the
perpetrator intends that the victim will not know that he has been
defrauded. Which is why there's no comparative fault in civil conversion
cases and in the criminal law "it is no defense that the loss could have
been avoided."
Deadrat
See McGyver's post. I see you try to take him to ask as well, but my
interpretation of what he said was correct.
Did I mention that you're pathetic?
> > If I say, yes, McGyver included the OP in using the word "blame,"
> > will
>> you feel vindicated? Can you post a video of you doing a little
>> victory dance?
>
> No, I won't feel vindicated. I knew all along that I was right
But you were wrong. How do you handle the cognitive dissonance?
> and that you're a complete chowderfuckinghead.
Well, not a *complete* chowderhead.
> I do find your pathological defensiveness right amusing though.
Try not reading other people's minds.
>> It was clear to me from McGyver's posts that he wasn't telling the OP
>> that he was at fault, legally or ethically, for not pursuing the
>> issue, just that the responsibility unfortunately found its way to
>> the OP.
>>
>>>> No legal or ethical fault accrues to the OP for his inaction.
>>>
>>> Yes I know, that's what I said nitwit. And then you disagreed with
>>> me. And now you're agreeing with me.
>>
>> I disagreed with you about a number of your foolish and combative
>> statements. But not about fault accruing to the OP.
>
> A brazen lie: "He doesn't assign blame to the OP; he makes a
> suggestion as how to proceed."
Try reading for comprehension. Or is it writing for comprehension that's
your problem? We're in agreement about there being no legal fault.
<snip/>
> To recap. I was discussing with MG a finer point of the law, the law
> being a subject about which you know fuckall. You interrupted the
> discussion to say that I was mistaken, that the word "blame" was not
> used,
No, I said that blame as in legal fault was not meant.
> that if it was it did not mean blame anyway,
And it didn't, as McGyver noted.
> and then for good
> measure you patted yourself on the back for being so non "literal
> minded" that you are able to create from whole cloth new definitions
> of words used in common parlance.
Finding meaning in context isn't so difficult that I need to pat myself
on the back. You might want to consider why you can't do it, though.
> And now that I've demonstrated that
McGyver posts that you're wrong, and you still are carrying on as though
you were right.
Pathetic.
> you have no fucking idea what you were on about it's what's it to me.
Except that I do.
>>> That must it difficult to fly the
>>> boulder in the morning, and by fly the boulder I obviously mean get
>>> out of bed because I'm not literal minded either. Hey I know, let's
>>> do an experiment. I'll say something like "Go fuck yourself you
>>> tiresome fucking dope" and then you can use your non literal mind to
>>> discover the hidden meaning in the subtext.
>>
>> The meaning isn't hard to discern. It's called projection.
>
> I take it projection is another word you don't know the meaning of.
> Perhaps we should start a list.
>
>> And, by the way, you "win." Feel better, now?
>
> I felt fine before you fucking dullard.
Perhaps. How could anyone know for sure? Seems odd that you'd feel fine
yet have to spew insults like a Tourette's sufferer while claiming how
right you are.
> you're the one blubbering like a big girl's blouse.
?
>> Did I mention how pathetic that is?
>
> It hasn't sunk in yet, how about you drone on for another hundred
> lines about how it's unfair of me
Unfair? Is that what you think pathetic means?
> to persecute you
Persecute? How are you gonna do that in a post?
> by disproving your factually incorrect statements.
Only for the literally minded. Is that video of your victory dance
ready? May we see it?
Deadrat
>
> "McGyver" <Grey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g4lp5l$i4l$1...@aioe.org...
>
>> Blame was a dumb choice of words. I only meant that a person shares
>> some responsibility for doing nothing while an embezzler embezzles.
>
> That simply is not true, either legally or ethically.
But of course McGyver didn't mean legally or ethically. He just meant that
sometimes when a situtation needs fixing, you have to undertake to do it
yourself.
> Embezzlelment is
> a species of theft that involves fraud or a violation of trust. The
> victim of the theft doesn't share responsibility for having his
> property stolen or for having been deceived.
Of course not. But sometimes, as in the OP's case, if he wants things
fixed, he gonna have to take steps under his own initiative.
> Quite the opposite: the
> crime requires that the perpetrator intend to deceive the victim;
> common sense requires that the perpetrator intends that the victim
> will not know that he has been defrauded. Which is why there's no
> comparative fault in civil conversion cases and in the criminal law
> "it is no defense that the loss could have been avoided."
You've already been told that McGyver didn't mean to imply fault.
Is your pathetic need to be right that overpowering?
foad
> See McGyver's post. I see you try to take him to ask as well, but my
> interpretation of what he said was correct.
You are wrong on both counts. ITFP, I am not taking M to ask [sic]: I'm
discussing a fine point of the law with a fellow member of the bar. And
ITSP, your interpretation of "So let's divide the blame: . . . you 25%" ie
that it "doesn't assign blame" and if it does it's being "ironic" is fucking
laughable, and doubly so in the face of the author's explanation that he
expressed himself inexactly by using a "dumb choice of words."
Now, if there's anything else that you need explained, I'll have to get a
bigger box of fucking crayons.
> Did I mention that you're pathetic?
Did I mention you're a pseudo intellectual fuckbrain who hangs around in
usenet making believe he's Perry Mason because he hasn't seen a real woman's
tit since the Carter administration? If so, then we're square.
>> > If I say, yes, McGyver included the OP in using the word "blame,"
>> > will
>>> you feel vindicated? Can you post a video of you doing a little
>>> victory dance?
>>
>> No, I won't feel vindicated. I knew all along that I was right
>
> But you were wrong.
So you keep insisting despite the inapposite facts. As a good sociopath
will.
> How do you handle the cognitive dissonance?
Another phrase the meaning of which escapes you.
>
>> and that you're a complete chowderfuckinghead.
>
> Well, not a *complete* chowderhead.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
ps please reply with a suitable latin rejoinder in the great pseudo
intellectual tradition.
>
>> I do find your pathological defensiveness right amusing though.
>
> Try not reading other people's minds.
"The meaning isn't hard to discern. It's called projection."
>
>>> It was clear to me from McGyver's posts that he wasn't telling the OP
>>> that he was at fault, legally or ethically, for not pursuing the
>>> issue, just that the responsibility unfortunately found its way to
>>> the OP.
>>>
>>>>> No legal or ethical fault accrues to the OP for his inaction.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I know, that's what I said nitwit. And then you disagreed with
>>>> me. And now you're agreeing with me.
>>>
>>> I disagreed with you about a number of your foolish and combative
>>> statements. But not about fault accruing to the OP.
>>
>> A brazen lie: "He doesn't assign blame to the OP; he makes a
>> suggestion as how to proceed."
>
> Try reading for comprehension. Or is it writing for comprehension that's
> your problem? We're in agreement about there being no legal fault.
That'd be fascinating if that were the point under discussion, but it's not,
which makes you appear something of the muttonfuckinghead.
>
> <snip/>
>
>> To recap. I was discussing with MG a finer point of the law, the law
>> being a subject about which you know fuckall. You interrupted the
>> discussion to say that I was mistaken, that the word "blame" was not
>> used,
>
> No, I said that blame as in legal fault was not meant.
No retard, you said "Perhaps you should go back and re-read MGyver's posts.
He doesn't assign blame" See? Nothing about "as in legal fault was not
meant," whatever that syntactic horrorshow means.
>
>> that if it was it did not mean blame anyway,
>
> And it didn't, as McGyver noted.
Right. McGuyver said that the advice he gave was inexact, which inexactitude
was corrected by me, which inexactitude was caused by "dumb" words. He
didn't, as you insisted earlier, before you came up with the next lie, say
he was being "ironic."
>> and then for good
>> measure you patted yourself on the back for being so non "literal
>> minded" that you are able to create from whole cloth new definitions
>> of words used in common parlance.
>
> Finding meaning in context isn't so difficult that I need to pat myself
> on the back. You might want to consider why you can't do it, though.
>
>> And now that I've demonstrated that
>
> McGyver posts that you're wrong, and you still are carrying on as though
> you were right.
ITFP, I don't care what M said, because he was wrong regarding the OP's
responsibility for the alleged embezzlement. ITSP, M didn't say I was wrong,
he admitted expressing his opinion using "dumb" words. And ITTP, everyone's
noticed you hiding behind his skirts, so you might as well come out. I'll
get tired of kicking you eventually.
>
> Pathetic.
>
>> you have no fucking idea what you were on about it's what's it to me.
>
> Except that I do.
Ubiquitous usenetards such as yourself will deny reality until everyone else
dies of boredom. Been there done that.
>
>>>> That must it difficult to fly the
>>>> boulder in the morning, and by fly the boulder I obviously mean get
>>>> out of bed because I'm not literal minded either. Hey I know, let's
>>>> do an experiment. I'll say something like "Go fuck yourself you
>>>> tiresome fucking dope" and then you can use your non literal mind to
>>>> discover the hidden meaning in the subtext.
>>>
>>> The meaning isn't hard to discern. It's called projection.
>>
>> I take it projection is another word you don't know the meaning of.
>> Perhaps we should start a list.
>>
>>> And, by the way, you "win." Feel better, now?
>>
>> I felt fine before you fucking dullard.
>
> Perhaps. How could anyone know for sure? Seems odd that you'd feel fine
> yet have to spew insults like a Tourette's sufferer while claiming how
> right you are.
Another word you don't know the meaning of. Only a small percentage of
Tourettes entails the use of obscenities, and in any event it's involutary.
Whereas I swear of my own free will. Fuckfuckfyckfuckfuck. I did that all on
purpose. And then I can go long periods of time with nary a darn or heck. It
all depends on my fucking mood.
>
>> you're the one blubbering like a big girl's blouse.
>
> ?
>
>>> Did I mention how pathetic that is?
>>
>> It hasn't sunk in yet, how about you drone on for another hundred
>> lines about how it's unfair of me
>
> Unfair? Is that what you think pathetic means?
>
>> to persecute you
>
> Persecute? How are you gonna do that in a post?
>
>> by disproving your factually incorrect statements.
>
> Only for the literally minded. Is that video of your victory dance
> ready? May we see it?
What am I wearing when you imagine me dancing nitwit? Paging
doctor freud. Doctor fucking freud to the whie courtesy telephone.
Deadrat
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:IcMbk.6513$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>> See McGyver's post. I see you try to take him to ask as well, but my
>> interpretation of what he said was correct.
>
> You are wrong on both counts. ITFP, I am not taking M to ask [sic]:
> I'm discussing a fine point of the law with a fellow member of the
> bar. And ITSP, your interpretation of "So let's divide the blame: . .
> . you 25%" ie that it "doesn't assign blame" and if it does it's being
> "ironic" is fucking laughable, and doubly so in the face of the
> author's explanation that he expressed himself inexactly by using a
> "dumb choice of words."
So in the face of the author's explanation that my interpretation was
correct, you've decided what? That the author isn't competent to
explain what he himself meant?
Pathetic.
> Now, if there's anything else that you need explained, I'll have to
> get a bigger box of fucking crayons.
Why? Did you break all yours in this hissy fit you're throwing?
>> Did I mention that you're pathetic?
>
> Did I mention you're a pseudo intellectual fuckbrain who hangs around
> in usenet making believe he's Perry Mason
Perry Mason played a criminal trial lawyer. Try to keep up.
> because he hasn't seen a real woman's tit since the Carter
> administration?
Now there's a frightening peak inside your psyche. Does "real" modify
woman or tit?
How do you know I wasn't a suckling babe during the Carter
administration? How do you know I'm not a gay man? Or a woman?
And is that really an insult?
> If so, then we're square.
I am; I think you may be a few degrees short of square.
>>> > If I say, yes, McGyver included the OP in using the word "blame,"
>>> > will
>>>> you feel vindicated? Can you post a video of you doing a little
>>>> victory dance?
>>>
>>> No, I won't feel vindicated. I knew all along that I was right
>>
>> But you were wrong.
>
> So you keep insisting despite the inapposite facts. As a good
> sociopath will.
So now you do diagnoses on newsgroups? OK, I can do the same. Keep
reading (as though you could stop).
>> How do you handle the cognitive dissonance?
>
> Another phrase the meaning of which escapes you.
Another one?
>>> and that you're a complete chowderfuckinghead.
>>
>> Well, not a *complete* chowderhead.
>
> De gustibus non est disputandum.
>
> ps please reply with a suitable latin rejoinder in the great pseudo
> intellectual tradition.
So why did *you* resort to Latin?
But sure: nolli esse anum.
>>> I do find your pathological defensiveness right amusing though.
>>
>> Try not reading other people's minds.
>
> "The meaning isn't hard to discern. It's called projection."
I'll admit it was a guess, but it's dead on isn't it? For more of the
same, read on (as though you could stop).
>>>> It was clear to me from McGyver's posts that he wasn't telling the
>>>> OP that he was at fault, legally or ethically, for not pursuing the
>>>> issue, just that the responsibility unfortunately found its way to
>>>> the OP.
>>>>
>>>>>> No legal or ethical fault accrues to the OP for his inaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I know, that's what I said nitwit. And then you disagreed with
>>>>> me. And now you're agreeing with me.
>>>>
>>>> I disagreed with you about a number of your foolish and combative
>>>> statements. But not about fault accruing to the OP.
>>>
>>> A brazen lie: "He doesn't assign blame to the OP; he makes a
>>> suggestion as how to proceed."
>>
>> Try reading for comprehension. Or is it writing for comprehension
>> that's your problem? We're in agreement about there being no legal
>> fault.
>
> That'd be fascinating if that were the point under discussion, but
> it's not, which makes you appear something of the muttonfuckinghead.
Well, at least it's only the appearance and not complete at that.
>> <snip/>
>>
>>> To recap. I was discussing with MG a finer point of the law, the law
>>> being a subject about which you know fuckall.
As you claim to. Anyone can play Clarence Darrow in cybersapce.
>>>You interrupted the
>>> discussion to say that I was mistaken, that the word "blame" was not
>>> used,
>>
>> No, I said that blame as in legal fault was not meant.
>
> No retard, you said "Perhaps you should go back and re-read MGyver's
> posts. He doesn't assign blame" See? Nothing about "as in legal fault
> was not meant," whatever that syntactic horrorshow means.
I'll type slower so you can follow the tricky syntax.
In giving his advice, McGyver didn't place a legal or ethical burden on
the OP. In spite of using the word "blame."
Clear now?
>>> that if it was it did not mean blame anyway,
>>
>> And it didn't, as McGyver noted.
>
> Right. McGuyver said that the advice he gave was inexact, which
> inexactitude was corrected by me, which inexactitude was caused by
> "dumb" words. He didn't, as you insisted earlier, before you came up
> with the next lie, say he was being "ironic."
Well, it's hard to know exactly what people mean from written words. He
said he was being clumsy, so I missed the tone. But I got the meaning.
> >> and then for good
>>> measure you patted yourself on the back for being so non "literal
>>> minded" that you are able to create from whole cloth new definitions
>>> of words used in common parlance.
>>
>> Finding meaning in context isn't so difficult that I need to pat
>> myself on the back. You might want to consider why you can't do it,
>> though.
>>
>>> And now that I've demonstrated that
>>
>> McGyver posts that you're wrong, and you still are carrying on as
>> though you were right.
>
> ITFP, I don't care what M said, because he was wrong regarding the
> OP's responsibility for the alleged embezzlement.
If he'd meant that the OP held any legal culpability, sure. But it was
clear to me that he didn't mean that. And guess what? He didn't.
> ITSP, M didn't say I
> was wrong, he admitted expressing his opinion using "dumb" words. And
> ITTP, everyone's noticed you hiding behind his skirts,
Another interesting glimpse.
> so you might as
> well come out. I'll get tired of kicking you eventually.
Oh, you may get tired, but I predict you'll never stop kicking. You'll
keep telling yourself (and everyone else) that you're scoring point after
point. And you won't be able to stop. No matter how much I make fun of
you. No matter how much others tell you you're wrong. No matter how
much you make a fool of yourself.
Let's see how good a prognosticator I am, and just wait for your next
post, shall we?
>> Pathetic.
>>
>>> you have no fucking idea what you were on about it's what's it to
>>> me.
>>
>> Except that I do.
>
> Ubiquitous usenetards such as yourself will deny reality until
> everyone else dies of boredom. Been there done that.
And you're still doing it. Because you can't stop yourself, can you?
>>>>> That must it difficult to fly the
>>>>> boulder in the morning, and by fly the boulder I obviously mean
>>>>> get out of bed because I'm not literal minded either. Hey I know,
>>>>> let's do an experiment. I'll say something like "Go fuck yourself
>>>>> you tiresome fucking dope" and then you can use your non literal
>>>>> mind to discover the hidden meaning in the subtext.
>>>>
>>>> The meaning isn't hard to discern. It's called projection.
>>>
>>> I take it projection is another word you don't know the meaning of.
>>> Perhaps we should start a list.
>>>
>>>> And, by the way, you "win." Feel better, now?
>>>
>>> I felt fine before you fucking dullard.
>>
>> Perhaps. How could anyone know for sure? Seems odd that you'd feel
>> fine yet have to spew insults like a Tourette's sufferer while
>> claiming how right you are.
>
> Another word you don't know the meaning of. Only a small percentage of
> Tourettes entails the use of obscenities, and in any event it's
> involutary.
It was a metaphor; not a diagnosis.
But that's pretty much my point. It's involuntary with you. You
couldn't stop responding to me even if you tried.
> Whereas I swear of my own free will. Fuckfuckfyckfuckfuck.
> I did that all on purpose. And then I can go long periods of time with
> nary a darn or heck. It all depends on my fucking mood.
No it doesn't. Your mood doesn't control your posts.
Watch for your next one. It will bubble up from the depths of your mind
unbidden and uncontrolled.
>>> you're the one blubbering like a big girl's blouse.
>>
>> ?
>>
>>>> Did I mention how pathetic that is?
>>>
>>> It hasn't sunk in yet, how about you drone on for another hundred
>>> lines about how it's unfair of me
>>
>> Unfair? Is that what you think pathetic means?
>>
>>> to persecute you
>>
>> Persecute? How are you gonna do that in a post?
>>
>>> by disproving your factually incorrect statements.
>>
>> Only for the literally minded. Is that video of your victory dance
>> ready? May we see it?
>
> What am I wearing when you imagine me dancing nitwit?
Funny, I don't really have an image of you as a nitwit or as anything
else. It was just an insult.
> Paging
> doctor freud. Doctor fucking freud to the whie courtesy telephone.
Whie "[sic]" courtesy phones are found in airports, not hospitals.
How long have you had this fear of flying?