Judge tells man he's still legally dead.

[Just_A_Guy]

"I don't know where that leaves you, but you're still deceased as far as the law is concerned," [Judge] Davis said.

[Backroads]

Fascinating.

I find myself largely thinking he got the consequences he earned, though the technicalities of a death ruling boggle my mind. JaG, can you shed light on that?

[Dravin]

You know, it's headlines like the above that fuel lawyer jokes.

[Guest]

Yep. He's legally dead.

This is prime example of how law has to deal with legalities and not realities. Therefore, when you have a Congress that is trying to put a law like... say... gun control or affordable healthcare on the table, you HAVE to think of how that would work LEGALLY and not just how it is in reality.

Because, in reality, it might be really, really nice to have 100% insurance coverage or have 0 assault weapons in the country... but trying to control that through LEGAL means is a complete other matter. I mean... first you have to define the words "affordable" and "assault" in the eyes of the law. That, in itself, is a challenge.

[mnn727]

So, correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't he rob a bank (or commit any crime) and escape punishment legally since he's dead?

[Dravin]

So, correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't he rob a bank (or commit any crime) and escape punishment legally since he's dead?

I can see the headline now: "Zombie robs bank"

[ZionsRodeVos]

Incredible a judge would actually rule that way. It was interesting reading a lot of the comments on that article.

I hope this man can find a way to live with this fact (no pun intended) or appeal the decision and get things fixed.

[Just_A_Guy]

So, correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't he rob a bank (or commit any crime) and escape punishment legally since he's dead?

Cop: "Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations."

[Vort]

So, correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't he rob a bank (or commit any crime) and escape punishment legally since he's dead?

Or, scarily, he cannot be murdered. How can anyone be charged with murdering a dead man?

[Just_A_Guy]

Vort, there's an old Cary Grant movie called People Will Talk that has a minor subplot involving a character who was framed for murder, did his prison time, was released, found the alleged victim still alive, killed him for real, and was convicted again. Great date flick.

[Guest]

Vort, there's an old Cary Grant movie called People Will Talk that has a minor subplot involving a character who was framed for murder, did his prison time, was released, found the alleged victim still alive, killed him for real, and was convicted again. Great date flick.

There's a better movie with Ashley Judd in it. She got charged with murdering her husband, spent time in jail, got released for good behavior, found out her husband was the one that set it up and he's actually still alive so she went and killed him. Well, since she already did the time for that murder, she's all set.

[Guest]

Incredible a judge would actually rule that way. It was interesting reading a lot of the comments on that article.

I hope this man can find a way to live with this fact (no pun intended) or appeal the decision and get things fixed.

Why is it incredible? The guy's SS was already claimed by his children. If he were to be alive again, he'll have to get back his SS and his children will have to pay the government back the money so this bozo can claim his SS.

If he wants an SS, he just has to go apply for another one as a "new man".

[Backroads]

Incredible a judge would actually rule that way. It was interesting reading a lot of the comments on that article.

Not so much. Like anatess said, this is reality vs legality . According to paperwork, the law considers him dead. Obviously, the judge recognizes the man is viable, but it seems reversing all that paperwork can't just be magically done.

I hope this man can find a way to live with this fact (no pun intended) or appeal the decision and get things fixed.

'Cept changing things would put a lot of monetary pressure on his ex-wife who, if I read the article right, went for the declared dead ruling because she desperately needed money to raise this low-life's children.

[ZionsRodeVos]

But the thing is he is alive and I would think (I guess erroneously) that a judge would be able to declare him alive and at the same time find a legal way to ensure the ex wife and children do not suffer financial difficulties because of it. If it means he has to pay back everything because he allowed everyone to believe he was dead then so be it. That would be part of the price of doing what he did and then showing up to ask that he be declared alive.

Just because he has done all these horrible things doesn't mean he can't and/or hasn't changed. I am not trying to sound like I am defending him but if he can't find a way to live even though he is legally dead then the situation needs to be corrected and in my minds eye it is not going to be as simple as showing up at social security and asking for a new social security number. Any document he shows them will point them to his old social security number and they would also have record of him being declared dead.

[Guest]

Look who knows so much? He was only mostly dead.

[Backroads]

Does the judge have the power to overrule the laws and declarations? Is it the judge's job to seek out help for this guy?

The problem is that the wife would have to pay HIM back for the Social Security benefits she arranged for the children.

[Guest]

But the thing is he is alive and I would think (I guess erroneously) that a judge would be able to declare him alive and at the same time find a legal way to ensure the ex wife and children do not suffer financial difficulties because of it. If it means he has to pay back everything because he allowed everyone to believe he was dead then so be it. That would be part of the price of doing what he did and then showing up to ask that he be declared alive.

Just because he has done all these horrible things doesn't mean he can't and/or hasn't changed. I am not trying to sound like I am defending him but if he can't find a way to live even though he is legally dead then the situation needs to be corrected and in my minds eye it is not going to be as simple as showing up at social security and asking for a new social security number. Any document he shows them will point them to his old social security number and they would also have record of him being declared dead.

This is a country ruled by law. A judge can't legislate from the bench. They try all the time, but they SHOULDN'T.

This case is not for the JUDGE to rule. This case is for State Congress to mull over and make a legislative solution for this particular case. He needs to go that route. State Congress will have to make sure that whatever law they put in the books to deal with this situation does not provide, in any way, a path for people who want to renege on their child support or other financial obligations a way to just "die" and "resurrect" because it is now legal.

And that, my friends, is how this country is set up. That's why you guys can't just vote Congress in like you're playing Fantasy Football. The legislative process is very very complicated.

[ZionsRodeVos]

I don't know if the judge could have done more or not since I don't know a lot about the laws involved. But if you have a declaration that someone is legally dead in front of you and you also have verified that you have that person alive, standing in front of you, well it's pretty obvious the declaration that he is legally dead is wrong.

The judge doesn't need to seek out help for this man and the man didn't ask for the judge to seek help for him. The man asked that the same court that declared him legally dead reverse it's decision based on the fact that he happens to be alive. So it was the guy that was trying to correct the erroneous declaration (made possible through his own fault) that he was dead.

So the court that created the situation can't undo it? It seems logical that it could. And just where else would/could someone turn to get them selves declared legally alive after a court has declared them legally dead?

Just read the last post by anatess. The problem probably will have to be handled by the state legislators as it already shows people a way to get out of paying child support. I guess I am just too simple minded, but too me if the court can declare him legally dead, it should be able to declare him legally alive. I guess if there hadn't of been a time limit stipulated of 3 years then the judge could have.

Edited October 9, 2013 by ZionsRodeVos

[Just_A_Guy]

Just based on the article, it looks like if you're declared dead you have a three-year window (presumably from the time you should reasonably know that the declaration occurred) to get it undone. After that, you're stuck.

The trouble with the judge saying "yes, you're alive, but we're not going to change the Social Security payout situation", is that a legal declaration of death is generally a state law issue determined by a state court judge. But state judges don't typically have the legal authority to order a federal agency like the Social Security Administration to take a particular administrative action.

[NeuroTypical]

That's why you guys can't just vote Congress in like you're playing Fantasy Football.

Anatess, I have to disagree with you here. If America put the same thought and effort into the electoral process that they do into fantasy football, I think things would be much better.

[Guest]

Anatess, I have to disagree with you here. If America put the same thought and effort into the electoral process that they do into fantasy football, I think things would be much better.

You know what, you're right!!!

[Lakumi]

Or, scarily, he cannot be murdered. How can anyone be charged with murdering a dead man?

perfect line for his assassin to say; omae wa mou shinderu (you're already dead)

Edited October 10, 2013 by Lakumi