I have a Will, but I might die intestate

caroln said:
I'm with you on this. I understand people wanting their money to go where they want it, but I hope to never get so paranoid about what happens to my money when I'm dead.
Click to expand...
You know, I think that I do have a moral obligation with the rather decent amount that I have saved (and through inheritance). I feel that I must at least attempt to give back. - David
 

David said: Am I so far-fetched with my thinking? Let's face facts: Today, police, our inferred protectors, can readily seize a person's money through the "in rem" civil asset procedure (which has been confirmed as legitimate by the Supreme Court, despite the fact that it emanates from 17th Century British Admiralty Law). In fact, the FBI has stated that more people lose money through this program than they do through burglaries...

You are confusing possibly Escheating to the State with Asset forfeiture. Consult a Probate attorney for advice.
 
Buckeye said:
OP's first post seems to follow a pattern I see a lot on line. Long involved narrative about some unsolvable, tangled problem, and as is the case here, the problem is always self-inflicted (in this case by paranoia and greed). Any advise or suggestion will be dismissed out of hand.

YMMV
Click to expand...
In fact, I honestly do not blame you for deeming my posts to be futile: the pattern is evident. But, let us be forthright: You did not grow up in my shoes. On 9 OCT I was looking up my father's obituary from 2013 in Connecticut, where I was raised. Suddenly, my brother's obituary came up, from 6 OCT, only three days previously. I found out about this on the Internet. I have no other siblings.

My life has been filled with such slamming. At my brother's wedding in 1985, at the reception, he had his band member announce to all that I was going to give a speech discussing whether this marriage was viable or not. Even someone so used to denigration was stunned and, for the first time ever, I saw my father look at my brother with disgust.

Still, I have not opted to hate, because that would have destroyed me. My school life was so bad that I had to forego lunch and stay in the school library. The bus ride to and fro was me sitting in the middle of a group which kept punching me, spitting on me. Importantly, there was NO ONE who cared. My parents kept looking the other way (better for social climbing).

But, I am not asking for pity. Indeed, in some ways of navigating life, especially with young people (who need "safe spaces" in their universities) or even the general populace who have long experienced things always being predictable in their lives, I have been able to deal with adversity. These other people tend to 'fall apart' when met with negativity. I really think that I have a decided advantage over those, so try not to feel so sorry for me. - David
 

ohioboy said:
David said: Am I so far-fetched with my thinking? Let's face facts: Today, police, our inferred protectors, can readily seize a person's money through the "in rem" civil asset procedure (which has been confirmed as legitimate by the Supreme Court, despite the fact that it emanates from 17th Century British Admiralty Law). In fact, the FBI has stated that more people lose money through this program than they do through burglaries...

You are confusing possibly Escheating to the State with Asset forfeiture. Consult a Probate attorney for advice.
Click to expand...
I think that, perhaps, you should investigate the purpose and reason for the Institute for Justice in Arlington, VA. Website: IJ.ORG. The need is there. Countless innocent people have been robbed in the middle of the country with nothing left in their pockets. It is real, but embarrassingly so. And it is legal. - David
 
ohioboy said:
Again, you are confusing the two.
Click to expand...
NOPE. "in rem" (in the thing, in Latin) civil asset forfeiture. Escheat is when money is OWED. Forfeiture is when money is simply taken. The theory for "In Rem" is that the THING (money) is the guilty party, not the person carrying it. In fact, it is so bad that Canada advised its people not to carry much cash in the US. Ohioboy, it is real, and the overwhelming number of these thefts are done to people who are entirely innocent, not drug dealers. Police departments buy a lot of stuff with this money. - David
 
Last edited:
I really do not understand. If a bank cannot find the depositor, the money must be sent to the state. That is sensible and is 'escheat'. I am talking about naked theft by police (verbiage dressed up as protecting America from drug dealers). Theft, not escheat. - David
 
Civil asset forfeiture concerns seizing property which may be connected to criminal activity, such as raiding a drug house and discovering 25 grand in cash.

If you have a Will, that is not dying Intestate.
 
ohioboy said:
Civil asset forfeiture concerns seizing property which may be connected to criminal activity, such as raiding a drug house and discovering 25 grand in cash.

If you have a Will, that is not dying Intestate.
Click to expand...
Yes, but did you know that most such seizures are from people who are innocent? Getting your money back can cost more than was seized. It is naked theft.

IT IS dying intestate if the Will does not find its way to the probate court. - David
 
David born 1950 said:
Yes, but did you know that most such seizures are from people who are innocent? Getting your money back can cost more than was seized. It is naked theft. - David
Click to expand...
Regardless, Civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with your facts. That is a State Probate matter
 
Hmmm... another (how many were there?!) forum you just joined two days ago and posted this same post lists your estate has a worth of "about a million." Far cry from "a couple hundred thousand." What the heck?! If the moderators banned you there or kept editing you the first day you joined, there was a good reason. That's the point I was trying to make... you joined two forums the same day with vastly different "net worth stories." And those people pointed out the same things our members here tried to point out.

I'm outta here. đź‘‹
 
Last edited:
CallMeKate said:
Deleting this post because of what I found out... it's in my next post.
Click to expand...
OK, one by one Kate: No, I did not 'argue' with you about asset disclosure. I merely stated (politely) that if I had owned a small home (like most do), would that be outwardly, infamously revealing to the trolls out there? I do think not, but you are certainly free to disagree. No argument from me.

early-retirement.org was SO restrictive about my posts, and almost everyone was edited followed by a dire warning, that I rationally decided that it simply was not worth the time.

What I 'want' is what I had stated. You know, Kate, you do not have to read my posts if you are so bothered by them. There is no 'rule' that you do so. Really, just because someone does not follow your advice is no reason for displaying angst. (I do think that if the moderators are honest, they will agree with that statement.) I had thanked you, but, still preferred not to follow your advice. Is that so bad. Just because you are a "senior member" does not, by definition, mean that you are always correct (and if the moderators are fair, they will at least privately agree with that statement).

I am not trying to waste anyone's time. But, again, all posters cannot fathom to believe that they can all satisfy every personality. I think that my point was fair, just, and complete here. - David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top