5 ms·

You're still legally dead, judge tells Fostoria man

42 points by bsullivan01 13y ago

ryusage 13y ago
Weird. Why is there a three year limit anyway? If the guy is standing in front of you and it's pretty clear he's not dead, why insist that he's dead?
- HarryHirsch 13y ago
  This is about the guy's Social Security money. You could argue that he shows up with unclean hands at court, after all he knew he had been declared dead since 2005 and did nothing about it in the intervening years. The obligatory references are Le Gentil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Gentil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Gentil) and the Uttar Pradesh Association of Dead People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_the_Dead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_the_Dead)
  - TheSwordsman 13y ago
    Maybe he didn't have the money to try to appeal this in court. The original article makes it seem that money was a factor here. I guess it makes sense, but weird that you need to pay a nice chunk of money for someone to determine you are indeed actually alive...
- fnbaptiste 13y ago
  I would guess that the limit is so people don't cheat the system. Someone could "disappear" for three years, let their loved ones collect life insurance or in this case SS benefits, then come back and say it was all a mix up. That's the only reason I could think of. It makes me wonder if something happened in a past case that prompted them to create the three year limit.
  - vubuntu 13y ago
    That should be covered by 'fraud' related laws and he would have to be jailed and pay his dues to the society. Not by keeping him still labelled as 'dead'. Recovery of the defrauded money (life insurance, social security benefits etc) from the family/beneficiaries is a tricky one. The law/judge would have to look into the knowledge/involvement of the family regarding the fake 'death' situation. Also any benefits they would have received from state (like child support obtained from state in lieu of a paying spouse, unemployment benefits that the spouse would have earned for the family had he been 'present' and unemployed rather than fakely dead etc) if the person were not fake dead but rather just "unemployed and/or unable-otherwise to pay child support" should not be recovered from the family. Life insurance payments are to be considered 'windfall' and would have to be recovered from family to as much extent possible without making them any worse off than they were just before the person fake died.
sparktherapy 13y ago
This would cause all sorts of complications. I think the three-year limit should have an exception for mysterious reappearance, this man given his "life" back and be demanded to repay child support. What happens if this man gets murdered? Can you go to jail for killing a dead man?
- RokStdy 13y ago
  If his being dead exempts him from paying child support, does that also mean he can't be convicted of a crime? This guy has inadvertently circumvented the legal system! He is currently robbing a liquor store while streaking and littering. He's untouchable.
  - nextw33k 13y ago
    Its probably the opposite. Police pick him up for any crime, take him to a cell, look him up on the police database. Find out he's dead and decide not to feed him and just leave him in his cell. He's dead so no need to grant him bail.
- TheSwordsman 13y ago
  I don't think there should be a limitation on this at all. What if someone was taken by someone else and then escaping ten years later and trying to get their life back. This situation is definitely not that, but this could definitely cause some unneeded stress on someone...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
grecy 13y ago
> "I don't know where that leaves you, but you're still deceased as far as the law is concerned," Davis said. When even a Judge recognizes that common sense should prevail, but isn't willing to do anything about it, courts start to be pretty useless.
- tikhonj 13y ago
  Is it common sense though? After all, the limit's been put in for a reason. A good solution could be to create a new legal identity for the person in question rather than trying to undo the death ruling. This could also be used to account for the Social Security benefits already paid out and such. After all, this is not a matter of life and death. It's a question entirely of bureaucracy. So "common sense" isn't applicable: the real question is not "is this guy dead" (he isn't, obviously) but "how to rectify this fact with existing systems".
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    I'm a bit sorry for the wording, but WTF! He is alive. Recognize that. Will he (or his family) go broke because of some law that shouldn't apply? Then make him exempt. Will he go broke because of some law that should apply? Then lead him to a bankrupcy court. Anyway, he's alive, and he's still himself.
- protomyth 13y ago
  I get the feeling that it has more to do with protecting Robin Miller from having to pay back the SS benefits received because of Donald's being declared dead. I really don't think the article has the whole story. I believe in logic first, but it looks like a judge trying not to punish the innocent.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Yokel judges don't get to control the actions of the Social Security Administration. There is absolutely no hope that this ruling would have any effect on federal benefits.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
"He asked the court to reverse its 1994 death ruling so he can reinstate his canceled Social Security number and driver's license. The court said no." I don't think he's legally dead, I just think he's not going to be able to get his old identification back. Sounds like a civil rights problem, as this man is being refused access to his own identity and rights. In particular, I think if he commits a crime, like spitting on the judge right after his announcement, he'd certainly be found "alive" enough to incarcerate, so really the only thing the judge is doing is preventing him from accessing the services of government, although he's imminently liable for abiding by the strictures of government. Heck if I wouldn't be tempted to break a law if I were him. Then appeal it as undue process because the officers of the court refused to identify him. I am definitely not a lawyer, but I feel certain this man is not legally dead in the way most people think of it.
- rprospero 13y ago
  > Heck if I wouldn't be tempted to break a law if I were him. Then appeal it as undue process because the officers of the court refused to identify him. Of course, the simple solution there would be for the cops to just shoot him. File in the police report that the suspect was "Dead on Arrival". There's not enough information in the store to tell, but I think that he is not being held liable for abiding the strictures of the government. There was no comment about him being asked to pay the back child support he owed. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's been working off the books and not paying into Social Security (hence remaining dead for so long). I'm not saying that this ridiculous legal status is a good thing. I've been on the reverse side of this - we're still getting various agencies to recognize my father's death, despite his cremation. However, my suspicion is that he'll find legal resurrection far less enjoyable than his current state.
jonnathanson 13y ago
This is an extremely weird and interesting case, and it'd be especially curious if he's no longer afforded the Constitutional protections of a natural, living citizen. The closest legal analogue I can think of is the (now outdated) concept of "outlawry," whereby an "outlaw" was someone legally excommunicated from a society. An outlaw could be deprived of property, liberty, and even life by any legal citizen of that society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw
peterkelly 13y ago
Imagine all the crimes you could get away with. "What is your defence sir?" "I'm dead, so I couldn't conceivably be guilty of doing any of these things"
- krapp 13y ago
  On the other hand, if you're dead they wouldn't really have to bother with a trial, would they?
  - soneca 13y ago
    If someone kills him, is it not murder?
    - krapp 13y ago
      That depends on how far the state is willing to entertain the farce that you were "dead" to begin with. They may just declare you "guilty in absentia" or just say "nope, turns out you're not dead, goofball."
    - ChuckMcM 13y ago
      Nah, that's just "fixing the glitch" :-)
- pekk 13y ago
  Why assume that the testimony of dead people has any legal force?
- fluidcruft 13y ago
  "Get back in the ground, zombie."
  - peterkelly 13y ago
    You know, if they treated me like that, I'd almost be tempted to dress up in full zombie costume and makeup and respond to all questions simply with the long, drawn-out moan of "BRAINS..."
jyz 13y ago
This is why I'm an engineer instead of a lawyer
peterkelly 13y ago
Not the first time a dead person as been put on trial... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

42 points by bsullivan01 13y ago

Weird. Why is there a three year limit anyway? If the guy is standing in front of you and it's pretty clear he's not dead, why insist that he's dead?

HarryHirsch 13y ago
This is about the guy's Social Security money. You could argue that he shows up with unclean hands at court, after all he knew he had been declared dead since 2005 and did nothing about it in the intervening years. The obligatory references are Le Gentil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Gentil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Gentil) and the Uttar Pradesh Association of Dead People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_the_Dead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_the_Dead)
- TheSwordsman 13y ago
  Maybe he didn't have the money to try to appeal this in court. The original article makes it seem that money was a factor here. I guess it makes sense, but weird that you need to pay a nice chunk of money for someone to determine you are indeed actually alive...
fnbaptiste 13y ago
I would guess that the limit is so people don't cheat the system. Someone could "disappear" for three years, let their loved ones collect life insurance or in this case SS benefits, then come back and say it was all a mix up. That's the only reason I could think of. It makes me wonder if something happened in a past case that prompted them to create the three year limit.
- vubuntu 13y ago
  That should be covered by 'fraud' related laws and he would have to be jailed and pay his dues to the society. Not by keeping him still labelled as 'dead'. Recovery of the defrauded money (life insurance, social security benefits etc) from the family/beneficiaries is a tricky one. The law/judge would have to look into the knowledge/involvement of the family regarding the fake 'death' situation. Also any benefits they would have received from state (like child support obtained from state in lieu of a paying spouse, unemployment benefits that the spouse would have earned for the family had he been 'present' and unemployed rather than fakely dead etc) if the person were not fake dead but rather just "unemployed and/or unable-otherwise to pay child support" should not be recovered from the family. Life insurance payments are to be considered 'windfall' and would have to be recovered from family to as much extent possible without making them any worse off than they were just before the person fake died.

sparktherapy 13y ago

This would cause all sorts of complications. I think the three-year limit should have an exception for mysterious reappearance, this man given his "life" back and be demanded to repay child support. What happens if this man gets murdered? Can you go to jail for killing a dead man?

RokStdy 13y ago
If his being dead exempts him from paying child support, does that also mean he can't be convicted of a crime? This guy has inadvertently circumvented the legal system! He is currently robbing a liquor store while streaking and littering. He's untouchable.
- nextw33k 13y ago
  Its probably the opposite. Police pick him up for any crime, take him to a cell, look him up on the police database. Find out he's dead and decide not to feed him and just leave him in his cell. He's dead so no need to grant him bail.
TheSwordsman 13y ago
I don't think there should be a limitation on this at all. What if someone was taken by someone else and then escaping ten years later and trying to get their life back. This situation is definitely not that, but this could definitely cause some unneeded stress on someone...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

grecy 13y ago

> "I don't know where that leaves you, but you're still deceased as far as the law is concerned," Davis said. When even a Judge recognizes that common sense should prevail, but isn't willing to do anything about it, courts start to be pretty useless.

tikhonj 13y ago
Is it common sense though? After all, the limit's been put in for a reason. A good solution could be to create a new legal identity for the person in question rather than trying to undo the death ruling. This could also be used to account for the Social Security benefits already paid out and such. After all, this is not a matter of life and death. It's a question entirely of bureaucracy. So "common sense" isn't applicable: the real question is not "is this guy dead" (he isn't, obviously) but "how to rectify this fact with existing systems".
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  I'm a bit sorry for the wording, but WTF! He is alive. Recognize that. Will he (or his family) go broke because of some law that shouldn't apply? Then make him exempt. Will he go broke because of some law that should apply? Then lead him to a bankrupcy court. Anyway, he's alive, and he's still himself.
protomyth 13y ago
I get the feeling that it has more to do with protecting Robin Miller from having to pay back the SS benefits received because of Donald's being declared dead. I really don't think the article has the whole story. I believe in logic first, but it looks like a judge trying not to punish the innocent.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Yokel judges don't get to control the actions of the Social Security Administration. There is absolutely no hope that this ruling would have any effect on federal benefits.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

"He asked the court to reverse its 1994 death ruling so he can reinstate his canceled Social Security number and driver's license. The court said no." I don't think he's legally dead, I just think he's not going to be able to get his old identification back. Sounds like a civil rights problem, as this man is being refused access to his own identity and rights. In particular, I think if he commits a crime, like spitting on the judge right after his announcement, he'd certainly be found "alive" enough to incarcerate, so really the only thing the judge is doing is preventing him from accessing the services of government, although he's imminently liable for abiding by the strictures of government. Heck if I wouldn't be tempted to break a law if I were him. Then appeal it as undue process because the officers of the court refused to identify him. I am definitely not a lawyer, but I feel certain this man is not legally dead in the way most people think of it.

rprospero 13y ago
> Heck if I wouldn't be tempted to break a law if I were him. Then appeal it as undue process because the officers of the court refused to identify him. Of course, the simple solution there would be for the cops to just shoot him. File in the police report that the suspect was "Dead on Arrival". There's not enough information in the store to tell, but I think that he is not being held liable for abiding the strictures of the government. There was no comment about him being asked to pay the back child support he owed. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's been working off the books and not paying into Social Security (hence remaining dead for so long). I'm not saying that this ridiculous legal status is a good thing. I've been on the reverse side of this - we're still getting various agencies to recognize my father's death, despite his cremation. However, my suspicion is that he'll find legal resurrection far less enjoyable than his current state.

jonnathanson 13y ago

This is an extremely weird and interesting case, and it'd be especially curious if he's no longer afforded the Constitutional protections of a natural, living citizen. The closest legal analogue I can think of is the (now outdated) concept of "outlawry," whereby an "outlaw" was someone legally excommunicated from a society. An outlaw could be deprived of property, liberty, and even life by any legal citizen of that society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw

peterkelly 13y ago

Imagine all the crimes you could get away with. "What is your defence sir?" "I'm dead, so I couldn't conceivably be guilty of doing any of these things"

krapp 13y ago
On the other hand, if you're dead they wouldn't really have to bother with a trial, would they?
- soneca 13y ago
  If someone kills him, is it not murder?
  - krapp 13y ago
    That depends on how far the state is willing to entertain the farce that you were "dead" to begin with. They may just declare you "guilty in absentia" or just say "nope, turns out you're not dead, goofball."
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    Nah, that's just "fixing the glitch" :-)
pekk 13y ago
Why assume that the testimony of dead people has any legal force?
fluidcruft 13y ago
"Get back in the ground, zombie."
- peterkelly 13y ago
  You know, if they treated me like that, I'd almost be tempted to dress up in full zombie costume and makeup and respond to all questions simply with the long, drawn-out moan of "BRAINS..."

jyz 13y ago

This is why I'm an engineer instead of a lawyer

peterkelly 13y ago

Not the first time a dead person as been put on trial... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod