From today's NZ Herald:
Family fight for $650,000 left to charity
A woman who claims her father raped her and abused young family members was forced into a legal battle with Save the Children after he left the bulk of his fortune to the charity.
The man left his family less than 10 per cent of a $715,000 estate.
The woman, 60, alleged her father raped her 30 years ago, molested her sister when she was young and also abused his granddaughter.
The money would "release them from financial burdens because they are living on welfare", the family member said.
The challenge was filed last July and this week Save the Children was awarded just $56,666 of the $715,000.
In an affidavit supporting her claim, the woman said she had a "very difficult relationship" with her father and described an incident where he raped her at age 30
which is thirty years ago! Even if this man were still alive, how could he possibly defend himself against allegations concerning something that allegedly happened so long ago?
A complaint was never laid with police and the father was never charged but the woman's brother was convicted of abusing his own daughter and jailed in the late 1980s.
And what exactly does that have to do with this woman's allegations?
The woman described a difficult childhood where she and her siblings were made to dig drains, paint buildings and do maintenance work for their father.
The horror! Digging drains, painting buildings and doing maintenance work! Clearly, he was a heartless bastard...but not so despicable that they're unwilling to make a grab for his money now he's dead.
Yet another case where the lawyers and judges presume themselves to be the anointed arbiters of morality.
Yet another case where allegations of abuse are used in order for a plaintiff to get her (usually) own way by using the court's leftist bias. The standard of proof in civil cases is lower than that required in criminal cases. This woman and her legal accomplices have used the court to smear a dead man's reputation, to overturn what is supposed to be his right to dispose of his assets as he wished--all in order to grab money which they didn't earn themselves.
All this judge had was his personal assessment of the woman's veracity. A woman who stood to gain financially and whose "evidence" couldn't be challenged by the person smeared.
Lawyers and judges are effectively another layer of government, making laws and interpreting laws according to their personal philosophical bent.
If your will isn't sacrosanct, proof against the depredations of the socialist state,then what the fuck is?
-- R.G. Menzies
LIBERTARIAN/CONSERVATIVE DIGEST AND COMMENTARY FROM AN ACADEMIC PSYCHOLOGIST in Brisbane, Australia. My academic publications are widely read
Click on the title of any post to bring up the sidebar
"last will and testament"? don't bet on it.....
From today's NZ Herald:
Post a Comment
All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them