User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:00:38 PM EDT
[#1]
That depends...is she offering lapdances to the justices as part of her defense?
Because if she is, she probably would get ruth bader ginsberg's vote. But lose david souter's vote... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:01:56 PM EDT
[#2]
She should win. The old geezer changed his will to make her the beneficiary.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:02:09 PM EDT
[#3]
she should.
Whether or not her asshole step kids like it, she was his wife. What did THEY do to earn that money that she didn't? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:05:38 PM EDT
[#4]
+1 It was his money to do with as e saw fit. If he was of sound mind.......Case closed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:05:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Lawyers-
please explain what a divorce case (state) is doing in the SC?  EDITED: yeah, I meant will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:09:29 PM EDT
[#6]
+1. So what does she look like this week?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:09:57 PM EDT
[#7]
It's not a divorce case. It's probate. She was legally married to the man at the time of his death. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:10:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Fixed it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:11:27 PM EDT
[#9]
It's not a divorce case. Anna hooks up with rich old geezer. She marries him. He changes will to give her all his money. He dies. Old geezers kids get the will voided. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:11:31 PM EDT
[#10]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:13:39 PM EDT
[#11]
The worlds most expensive blow job!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:16:18 PM EDT
[#12]
She earned it!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:16:25 PM EDT
[#13]
You beat me to it, and thats all it was. I think she will win! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:18:40 PM EDT
[#14]
A happy ending.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:18:43 PM EDT
[#15]
I thought the root basis of the case (reason to go to the SCOTUS) was that a Federal Court interfered in a Local/State Probate Court ruling.
Not sure who won at each level. Local Probate said (I think) that the Old Guy had given her $6m in Gifts, etc. and NOT intended to add her to the will. (Her Attys claimed that the kids destroyed evidence of the changed will). Kids get money. She declares bankruptcy....Federal Court. Federal Court says, "wait a minute...Old Guy should have given her money in the Will...We'll count that as assets in the bankruptcy" Kids appeal saying that Fed. Court Shouldn't have interfered in Local Probate Judgement. Per something I read--normally Feds don't interfere UNLESS large sums of money are involved (as in this case) and plaintifs are residents of different states. Anyone have any knowledge of the case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:18:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Yeah, I edited it. Isn't probate also a state deal? When the will was read, someone calculated what her "pay" per day married to the old geezer was. More than most of us make in a year IIRC. Thanks, AFARR. First account I've seen that explains it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:23:54 PM EDT
[#17]
I hope so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:29:47 PM EDT
[#18]
That's generally what happened. I believe the issue is the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Federal Courts do not decide probate, the state court does that. Texas ruled that she didn't get the money. She declared bankruptcy, and the bankruptcy judge looked at a passage in the bankruptcy code which generally said that he could determine "any matter related to the bankruptcy" and decided that he could revisit the probate court's ruling. This is generally a big no-no with the courts. One court will not overturn the ruling of another court except for a really good reason. I suspect, that if this is the issue on appeal, that Anna will lose hard. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:32:33 PM EDT
[#19]
I think flashing Clarence Thomas certainly didn't hurt her case at all!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:34:55 PM EDT
[#20]
From what I've read about the case, the son that's contesting it is a bigger shitbag than gold-digging Anna.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:37:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Greedy relatives or greedy wife. A tough call. She'd certainly get that dough out there in the retail end of things, not in some stodgy conservative muni bond trust.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:38:04 PM EDT
[#22]
she should get something out of it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:43:24 PM EDT
[#23]
What I read indicated that the case was more about the jurisdiction of state and federal courts in probate cases. THAT'S why the SCOTUS is hearing it. The fact that it's Anna Nicole is largely irrevelant to the case........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 4:11:22 PM EDT
[#24]
I have a question:
Her dead husband did not name her in the will. I do not know the law in the state where she is married in if she is entitled to anything based on marriage. She claims her dead husband said "He would take care of her forever" (or something to that extent). It is not in writing. Now, Terry Schiavo's husband said "She wouldn't want to be kept alive" There was no written document stating that, and the courts sided with him based on his word. Can that be used here? Could the lawyers for Anna use that as an argument for? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 4:11:33 PM EDT
[#25]
Hard to say... do judges still decide the outcome of a case based on law and not opinion/emotions?
I don't think she derserves.... mainly because she's worthless lowlife trash and doesn't deserve to have a leper take a dump on her face, let alone all that guy's money. Unfortunately, if it's on paper I don't think there's much of a case... which has me wondering why the fuck it's all the way up to supreme court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 5:43:00 PM EDT
[#26]
Actually, the will stated 50% to her and 50% to be split among his children. In addition, she was allowed to keep her gifts from him (2 houses, jewelry, etc....).
She WAS his wife and if HE said she could have 50% they need to abide by his wishes. Who she is matters little. The fact is he willed it to her. She is legally entitled to what he granted her in his will. What argument is there except that his greedy children want it all? 50% initially was $474 million for Anna Nicole Smith & the rest of the millions to the children (total estate est. around $1.6 billion) -- geez, just doesn't look there's enough to go around for all those rich kids..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 6:27:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Actually, it's a bankruptcy case with issues of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the reason it made it to the USSC--whether or not the federal bankruptcy court in California has jurisdiction over Texas probate issues. bd |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
