You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #17: Should sue the Republican Party [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
17. Should sue the Republican Party
They are the ones demonizing government agencies. They never accept that those agencies are made up of people. Real American people that do not deserve to be exploited so for political purposes. They use Government as an entity upon itself and not made up of normal everyday people..When they attack Government they are attacking American everyday people and they need to be called on it..It is certainly not patriotic of them to condemn the very fabric of our country..Government is of the people, by the people and for the people, no matter how much they want it to be strictly for the wealthy and the corporations. It is for the people and they want to kill it..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  - IRS worker's widow sues pilot's wife cali  Feb-24-10 11:21 AM   #0 
  - Sad all around.  Brickbat   Feb-24-10 11:23 AM   #1 
  - Don't people normally sue an estate in these cases?  Barack_America   Feb-24-10 11:24 AM   #2 
  - She's not suing the estate  NoNothing   Feb-24-10 11:29 AM   #9 
  - Hence my question.  Barack_America   Feb-24-10 11:30 AM   #10 
  - They're not suing the estate for this claim. It's against the wife.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 02:19 PM   #57 
     - Good summary except the word "slighest indication".  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:22 PM   #59 
        - The burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence."  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 02:31 PM   #68 
           - Not a statement the guy made.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:37 PM   #74 
              - You imagine "proof" in court is more than it is.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 02:53 PM   #88 
                 - Juries are imperfect however that is why a complaint should have some merit.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:59 PM   #94 
  - So do I.  virgogal   Feb-24-10 11:51 AM   #23 
  - There may not be an "estate" because he has a surviving spouse.  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 11:33 AM   #15 
  - Ah, thanks for that.  Barack_America   Feb-24-10 11:44 AM   #21 
  - It depends actually  NoNothing   Feb-24-10 11:58 AM   #25 
  - If everything, like most middle class people, is held as joint tenants with right of survivorship ..  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 12:17 PM   #28 
  - Correct but that is different then saying there is no estate.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 01:57 PM   #38 
  - That depends on the state laws on marital property  NoNothing   Feb-24-10 02:38 PM   #76 
  - It differs per state.  Shell Beau   Feb-24-10 02:48 PM   #82 
  - Marital property is different than items such as bank accts, cars and houses held as joint tenants  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 03:07 PM   #98 
  - Texas....  sendero   Feb-24-10 07:29 PM   #159 
  - If there is no will, then it goes to his legal heirs as determined by the  Shell Beau   Feb-24-10 01:51 PM   #35 
  - Yes but there is still an estate.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:26 PM   #63 
     - Are you saying there is ALWAYS probate?  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 02:54 PM   #91 
        - Unless the estate is empty.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:13 PM   #102 
           - I think we are on the same page.  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 03:17 PM   #107 
  - That doesn't sound right. Everyone has an estate.  Shell Beau   Feb-24-10 01:50 PM   #33 
  - Not true. 1) there is ALWAYS an estate. it may be a worthless estate but it is there ...  Statistical   Feb-24-10 01:56 PM   #37 
  - I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, everyone has an estate but in a lot of cases ...  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 03:13 PM   #103 
     - That is true (I think) or at least in most estates.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:14 PM   #104 
  - Is she his 2nd wife?  WolverineDG   Feb-24-10 02:52 PM   #87 
  - He committed suicide, so no life insurance  Love Bug   Feb-24-10 07:03 PM   #157 
  - No necessarily. If there IS a life policy most likely suicide is only precluded first two years.  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 09:47 PM   #177 
  - and you'd lose that bet  griffi94   Feb-25-10 08:09 AM   #183 
  - A surviving spouse and a brazillion dollars in back taxes(nt)  Jeff In Milwaukee   Feb-24-10 07:47 PM   #163 
  - Don't think you can sue an estate in Texas  End Of The Road   Feb-24-10 01:51 PM   #34 
     - If someone dies, and they owe money to creditors (or whoever),  Shell Beau   Feb-24-10 01:54 PM   #36 
     - Not in Texas  End Of The Road   Feb-24-10 02:00 PM   #39 
        - How can the executor or administrator be sued if they aren't the  Shell Beau   Feb-24-10 02:05 PM   #45 
           - They can't and aren't. You file a claim against the estate (link)  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:12 PM   #50 
     - That wouldn't make sense.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:00 PM   #41 
     - Hey, I said I just live here, I'm not an attorney, but  End Of The Road   Feb-24-10 02:13 PM   #51 
        - Mr Blow seems more likely. Mrs. Hunter is an interested party in the estate and is unlikely to be  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:17 PM   #56 
     - Yes, you can, but you're not going to get much  WolverineDG   Feb-24-10 02:53 PM   #90 
  - Don't all life insurance policies preclude payout for suicide?  hlthe2b   Feb-24-10 11:25 AM   #3 
  - There is usually a two year "suicide clause".  Poker Player   Feb-24-10 11:28 AM   #7 
  - Same here on initial reaction, but she has a point with "a duty to avoid a foreseeable risk of  FSogol   Feb-24-10 11:25 AM   #4 
  - Perhaps the point is to send a message to those defending his actions...  hlthe2b   Feb-24-10 11:26 AM   #5 
  - If they were added to the lawsuit they would shut up in a hurry.  theoldman   Feb-24-10 11:28 AM   #8 
  - If that's the case  atreides1   Feb-24-10 11:30 AM   #11 
  - She was not in a position to know what his imminent plans or  hlthe2b   Feb-24-10 11:32 AM   #12 
  - Exactly!  Larkspur   Feb-24-10 12:21 PM   #29 
  - And even if there is any, doesn't the IRS get first dibs?  hughee99   Feb-24-10 11:33 AM   #13 
  - And how would the wife had known that?  atreides1   Feb-24-10 11:35 AM   #16 
  - Pretty hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a wife ...  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:05 PM   #44 
  - Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for a criminal case. Not civil. n/t  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:50 PM   #85 
  - That's what I was thinking.  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 03:32 PM   #116 
     - And if she was worried he might assault someone, did nothing  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 03:53 PM   #130 
        - So what do you propose she do?  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 04:28 PM   #140 
           - No but she could have called the cops for beating on her ass and warned them  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 08:05 PM   #168 
              - Ah, so you ARE blaming an abused wife for not doing something about her situation.  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 09:27 PM   #174 
              - except he didn't beat her  griffi94   Feb-25-10 08:14 AM   #184 
  - So it was foreseeable that he would fly his plane into a building the next day?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-24-10 04:00 PM   # 
     - Of course. Isn't that the first thing that comes to mind in a domestic violence situation? n/t  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 04:29 PM   #142 
  - Those who are calling Stack a hero need to be reminded of the truth  left coaster   Feb-24-10 11:27 AM   #6 
  - Explain that one to us  atreides1   Feb-24-10 11:40 AM   #20 
     - I don't know what he meant, but I'll give an answer of my own.  jobycom   Feb-24-10 12:12 PM   #27 
  - All of these women need to mellow out.  951-Riverside   Feb-24-10 11:33 AM   #14 
  - Should sue the Republican Party  Winterblues   Feb-24-10 11:36 AM   #17 
  - +1 or at least Rep. King  ecstatic   Feb-24-10 11:38 AM   #19 
  - I feel for Mrs. Hunter, but there is no way Mrs. Stack could have foreseen  ecstatic   Feb-24-10 11:37 AM   #18 
  - She's just suing to make sure her bases are covered.  jobycom   Feb-24-10 11:50 AM   #22 
  - Good post!  Spazito   Feb-24-10 02:06 PM   #46 
  - More power to Mrs. Hunter. If I were an attorney, I'd file the suit for free.  sinkingfeeling   Feb-24-10 11:53 AM   #24 
  - Ugh  NoNothing   Feb-24-10 12:01 PM   #26 
  - Because I doubt that a person marries and remains with another person without sharing basic beliefs.  sinkingfeeling   Feb-24-10 01:48 PM   #31 
  - Why does Mrs. Hunter HAVE to sue anyone?  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 01:50 PM   #32 
  - This is the USA,. We sue everybody. So because Mrs. Hunter's husband was murdered she should just  sinkingfeeling   Feb-24-10 02:01 PM   #42 
  - She can only be sued if she has liability.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:10 PM   #49 
  - OJ actually committed the crime. Mrs. Stack committed no crime.  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 03:18 PM   #108 
  - I heard an interview with the attorney this morning  End Of The Road   Feb-24-10 02:03 PM   #43 
     - Interesting...  beevul   Feb-24-10 08:59 PM   #172 
     - no it won't  griffi94   Feb-25-10 08:20 AM   #185 
  - THERE IS ALWAYS AN ESTATE.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:09 PM   #48 
  - OK, but there's not necessarily any MONEY or ASSETS in such an estate.  Romulox   Feb-24-10 02:14 PM   #54 
  - Agreed but the claim is against the estate. If the estate has no money they the claim is worthless.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:20 PM   #58 
     - No--this lady is claiming the widow of the pilot herself breeched a duty as to the IRS agent  Romulox   Feb-24-10 02:24 PM   #61 
        - I understand however now the burden of proof rises.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:29 PM   #65 
           - I largely agree with you.  Romulox   Feb-24-10 02:36 PM   #72 
              - Romulox mark you calender (we rarely agree on things) and I agre with you on this one.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:45 PM   #79 
  - Not if all assets are held in joint ownership with the rights of suvivorship. The survivor, Mrs.  sinkingfeeling   Feb-24-10 02:53 PM   #89 
  - Our Constitution prevents prosecutions for thought crimes. Look it up! nt  Romulox   Feb-24-10 02:13 PM   #53 
  - Not true. My own parents are conservatives, my husband is more conservative then me.  Jennicut   Feb-24-10 03:57 PM   #132 
  - Good point, anyone have Carville's number?  Fla_Democrat   Feb-25-10 08:38 AM   #186 
  - Isn't that what people are doing who are going after Mrs. Hunter?  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:22 PM   #60 
     - Wife of "asshole terrorist" isn't a crime.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:32 PM   #69 
        - If she had an inkling of what he was thinking and did nothing she should be punished.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:39 PM   #77 
           - You know, despite what the DU Binary Thinking brigade says,  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 03:20 PM   #110 
              - And yet I don't hear anyone calling Mrs. Stack names. They damn sure are calling Mrs. Hunter names.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 03:44 PM   #124 
                 - Who is calling her names?  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 03:47 PM   #127 
                 - I haven't seen anyone here calling Mrs. Hunter names. Do you have a link?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-24-10 04:07 PM   #134 
                    - This works for me.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 04:24 PM   #139 
                       - Reaching... n/t  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 04:29 PM   #141 
                       - I don't think so. It was uncalled for considering the circumstances. n/t  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 04:30 PM   #143 
                          - I think it's a low thing to do as well.  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 04:32 PM   #144 
                             - Your sympathy oozes from every post you've put up.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 08:06 PM   #169 
                                - Really? I'm sympathizing with both of them.  superduperfarleft   Feb-24-10 09:28 PM   #175 
                       - Alrighty then.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Feb-24-10 07:57 PM   #167 
  - Why? You like punishing victims?  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:06 PM   #47 
     - The VICTIM is Mrs. Hunter. n/t  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:25 PM   #62 
        - There are many victims.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:30 PM   #66 
           - No one said Mrs. Stack is a criminal. But that doesn't mean she's not liable.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:42 PM   #78 
  - Is she the mother of the daughter who thinks Stack is a hero?  proud2BlibKansan   Feb-24-10 12:42 PM   #30 
  - no sheryl isn't samanthas mother  griffi94   Feb-25-10 08:43 AM   #187 
  - Smart move on the part of the murdered man's family.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 02:00 PM   #40 
  - Suing the estate is valid. Suing the wife directly is only valid IF she had knowledge.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:16 PM   #55 
     - Suing the wife is valid if she was in any way negligent.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 02:26 PM   #64 
        - Does it have to be mutually exclusive? Can Mrs. Hunter sue both Mrs. Stack AND Mr. Stack's estate?  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:31 PM   #67 
        - No. They will pursue both claims against both defendants.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 02:37 PM   #73 
           - Seems to me that it would be wise to tie up the assets to keep them from being moved otherwise it  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:46 PM   #80 
              - Hunter's attorneys are just trying to box in the assets and the evidence.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 03:04 PM   #95 
                 - It's too bad so many people seem to think that Mrs. Hunter should take Mrs. Stack's well being  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 03:15 PM   #105 
        - A battered spouse going ot hotel doesn't meet the burden of proof.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:36 PM   #71 
           - It all depends on what the evidence shows.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 02:47 PM   #81 
              - Another reason why judges shouldn't be elected.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:49 PM   #84 
              - So says the Republican party.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 03:04 PM   #97 
              - Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the complaint suppose to have some element of evidence.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:55 PM   #92 
                 - A pleading is to put defendants on notice of the claim.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 03:33 PM   #117 
                    - I see. Well I will wait with interest for next filings.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:39 PM   #119 
                       - The reports, in the media at least, go a little beyond "she went to a hotel"  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 05:04 PM   #150 
                          - Based on what we know so far.... no.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 05:37 PM   #152 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Feb-24-10 02:13 PM   #52 
  - The widow had her house burned down around her the same day. What does she have left?  Hekate   Feb-24-10 02:33 PM   #70 
  - Well thats just plain greedy and mean...  winyanstaz   Feb-24-10 02:37 PM   #75 
  - The IRS didn't kill the woman's husband.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:49 PM   #83 
  - Neither did Mrs. Stacks.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 02:50 PM   #86 
  - If it could be proven that Mrs. Stack could have done something to stop Mr. Stack then she is liable  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 02:55 PM   #93 
     - should the family of every drunk driver be sued just to see whether it can be  onenote   Feb-24-10 03:04 PM   #96 
     - That would be up to the family of the deceased wouldn't it?  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 03:12 PM   #101 
        - No it shouldn't be up to the someone if they want to file a baseless claim.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:19 PM   #109 
           - THey can file the claim. Whether or not it is baseless would be up to the court to  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 03:46 PM   #125 
     - The lawsuit as filed is BS.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:08 PM   #99 
        - Whether or not Mrs. Stack is negligent is for the court to decide.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 03:16 PM   #106 
        - That isn't justice.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:21 PM   #112 
           - THAT is how our court system works.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 03:50 PM   #129 
              - Does the fact that even the Police have no duty to protect change your mind?  Statistical   Feb-24-10 06:17 PM   #156 
        - I really doubt they expect to get anything out of this. I'm sure the suit is there for discovery ...  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 03:23 PM   #113 
           - I don't think that is the only thing.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:37 PM   #118 
  - first..neither did the man's wife.  winyanstaz   Feb-24-10 03:47 PM   #128 
     - You don't know that. THAT is the part to be decided in court.  Raineyb   Feb-24-10 04:22 PM   #137 
  - I'm finding it hard to feel sorry for a "widow"  WolverineDG   Feb-24-10 04:51 PM   #148 
  - KENS5 in San Antonio interviewed the attorney for Mrs. Hunter.  sinkingfeeling   Feb-24-10 03:09 PM   #100 
  - The lawyer told the truth but not the WHOLE truth.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:31 PM   #115 
     - That's a gross mischaracterization of what the lawyer is doing.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 03:47 PM   #126 
        - "The goal is to hold the Stack family accountable." The is the problem with lawyers.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 05:36 PM   #151 
           - You summarily find no fault with the widow, but there may be.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 05:41 PM   #153 
  - Here's a summary of the lawsuit.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 03:21 PM   #111 
  - FACTS section is very light  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:29 PM   #114 
  - Don't worry. They're working on a monster Amended Pleading.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 03:39 PM   #120 
  - We kinda are carrying on a conversation at top and bottom of the thread.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 03:42 PM   #122 
     - I think there will be facts that will come out in discovery to support the claim.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 04:08 PM   #136 
  - I'm curious where the legal duty to warn comes from?  onenote   Feb-24-10 03:44 PM   #123 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-24-10 04:44 PM   #146 
  - Why would Mrs. Stack have to proven negligent? The IRS employee was  mudplanet   Feb-24-10 03:53 PM   #131 
     - if the suit is against Joseph Stack's estate based on his actions  onenote   Feb-24-10 04:23 PM   #138 
     - The guy who murdered him is dead. The woman being sued didn't kill anybody.  Romulox   Feb-24-10 04:47 PM   #147 
     - Yea, and the murderer is liable for damages to the mudered's family  mudplanet   Feb-24-10 07:26 PM   #158 
        - Suing the estate is one thing. If you read you would have understood.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 07:39 PM   #161 
     - WTF? No it isn't  Statistical   Feb-24-10 05:45 PM   #154 
        - See my post above. I suspect that the lawyer filed against Mrs. Stacks as  mudplanet   Feb-24-10 07:37 PM   #160 
           - That wasn't your claim.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 07:43 PM   #162 
              - As I said, I believe the suit was filed to allow them to freeze her assests.  mudplanet   Feb-24-10 08:18 PM   #170 
                 - Nice backtrack. But that wasn't your claim. Here are your words.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 08:43 PM   #171 
                    - Oh my goodness. You've defeated me again, moriarity.  mudplanet   Feb-24-10 09:30 PM   #176 
                       - The estate has nothing.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 09:56 PM   #178 
                          - Moriarity, you're able to see into the future. That explains it. Mrs. Stacks should hire you.  mudplanet   Feb-24-10 10:34 PM   #179 
                             - You are mistaken ... failure to warn is not universal.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 10:50 PM   #180 
                                - Wow. You're right. Failure to warn is only universal with therapists and  mudplanet   Feb-25-10 11:00 AM   #189 
  - Why do they want to keep the autopsy under wraps? Any idea how that affects the case?  Hassin Bin Sober   Feb-24-10 03:39 PM   #121 
     - I think it's mainly for privacy reasons.  TexasObserver   Feb-24-10 04:00 PM   #133 
     - That's the part I don't understand.  reflection   Feb-24-10 04:07 PM   #135 
  - Since the house is burned up and the plane is blown up, I don't imagine  cutlassmama   Feb-24-10 04:33 PM   #145 
  - Wrongful death...  hayu_lol   Feb-24-10 04:55 PM   #149 
  - Wait a second THERAPISTS don't even have a duty to warn in Texas.  Statistical   Feb-24-10 06:00 PM   #155 
  - Just plain silly..  sendero   Feb-24-10 07:49 PM   #164 
  - Fascinating Case. Does anybody know if he had formed any kind of LLC? NT  Mike 03   Feb-24-10 07:54 PM   #165 
  - Rec, by the way. I can't think of any logical reason to dis-rec a thread like this. NT  Mike 03   Feb-24-10 07:55 PM   #166 
  - If anything she should be suing that idiot of a daughter  RFKHumphreyObama   Feb-24-10 09:02 PM   #173 
  - For what crime?  Statistical   Feb-24-10 10:55 PM   #182 
  - That's a stretch  Canuckistanian   Feb-24-10 10:54 PM   #181 
  - On the face of it, doesn't hold water...  ljm2002   Feb-25-10 08:44 AM   #188 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC