Judge tells living man that he’s still legally dead

[merithyn]

It's tragic, however this plays out. He's clearly a mess, and she was trying to provide for her kids.

Of course you always assume the best motives for the woman

And again, clearly you don't know me. I assume the best motives for everyone.

I am also assuming the best motives of the man, in this case. I don't think anyone set out to defraud anyone. I think that circumstances led them to a position that's pretty awful for everyone.

[Malthus]

His ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.

Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."

So, he's a deadbeat.

Yeah, but he's not a zombie. Fucker's alive.

True. The issue, though, is the legal effect of his "death". Namely, that property and rights got transferred to other people.

At issue is whether they should be transferred back now. It's really a limitations issue: seems that the way the law works, too much time has passed, so he's shit out of luck.

Limitations always has the effect of extinguishing otherwise sound rights simply because it would be unfair, after so long, to try to turn the clock back and restore the situation as it was ... even though, had people known and acted on the facts earlier, the situation would have been different.

Him losing property isn't the issue though. If he's dead then he legally doesn't exist and can't function in society. His SSN is invalid and he can't work, can't pay taxes, can't have financial interactions with banks, can't buy or rent property, can't have health care, can't sign up for any government programs, etc. How is that acceptable?

How has he been doing all that stuff in the many years since he disappeared? It doesn't seem to have bothered him much, given that he only found out about his "death" in 2005, and he was ruled "dead" in  1994.

[lustindarkness]

His ex-wife, Robin Miller, asked for the initial death ruling so that Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. She reportedly declined to testify in court on Monday.

Robin Miller says she opposed overturning the death ruling, because she would then have to pay back the federal government for the benefits she received and does not have the financial means to do so. Donald Eugene Miller reportedly owed her $26,000 in child support at the time of his "death."

So, he's a deadbeat.

Yeah, but he's not a zombie. Fucker's alive.

True. The issue, though, is the legal effect of his "death". Namely, that property and rights got transferred to other people.

At issue is whether they should be transferred back now. It's really a limitations issue: seems that the way the law works, too much time has passed, so he's shit out of luck.

Limitations always has the effect of extinguishing otherwise sound rights simply because it would be unfair, after so long, to try to turn the clock back and restore the situation as it was ... even though, had people known and acted on the facts earlier, the situation would have been different.

Him losing property isn't the issue though. If he's dead then he legally doesn't exist and can't function in society. His SSN is invalid and he can't work, can't pay taxes, can't have financial interactions with banks, can't buy or rent property, can't have health care, can't sign up for any government programs, etc. How is that acceptable?

He chose not to be part of society many years ago.

[jimmy olsen]

Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.

However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.

[merithyn]

He chose not to be part of society many years ago.

He managed it for 27 years. That's impressive.

[lustindarkness]

Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.

However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.

Was drugs and mental issues mentioned in some other article? It does not help his case anyway.

[jimmy olsen]

He chose not to be part of society many years ago.

What the individual does is irrelevant, absent conviction of a crime, the government should not be allowed to cut off a citizen from civilized society.

[Malthus]

Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.

However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.

Well, I agree. Is there any indication that it is all-or-nothing - that is, that this ruling makes him in fact a legal "unperson"?

My impression, from the admittedly sketchy article, is that what is really at stake is the entitlement to accrued rights. Presumably, some mechanism will be found to make him legally (heh) "born again" as an ongoing matter.

[jimmy olsen]

Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.

However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.

Well, I agree. Is there any indication that it is all-or-nothing - that is, that this ruling makes him in fact a legal "unperson"?

My impression, from the admittedly sketchy article, is that what is really at stake is the entitlement to accrued rights. Presumably, some mechanism will be found to make him legally (heh) "born again" as an ongoing matter.

The article said he lost his social security number and driver's license.  He doesn't have the money to go to federal court.

I have no idea how you go about getting a new social security number. I'm sure the government has procedures in place for victims of identity theft, but do they have them for this situation? If not I'm not confident in the flexibility of the federal bureaucracy in dealing with it.

[Malthus]

Due to his drug/mental issues I assume he's been living as a bum on the street most of that time, getting help from soup kitchens, churches, etc.

However, despite that being the case, I don't see how it's morally justifiable to legally cut of a human being from society like that.

Well, I agree. Is there any indication that it is all-or-nothing - that is, that this ruling makes him in fact a legal "unperson"?

My impression, from the admittedly sketchy article, is that what is really at stake is the entitlement to accrued rights. Presumably, some mechanism will be found to make him legally (heh) "born again" as an ongoing matter.

The article said he lost his social security number and driver's license.  He doesn't have the money to go to federal court.

I have no idea how you go about getting a new social security number. I'm sure the government has procedures in place for victims of identity theft, but do they have them for this situation? If not I'm not confident in the flexibility of the federal bureaucracy in dealing with it.

I'm willing to be the federal government would re-discover his "personhood" pretty quickly, if he set himself up as some sort of tax shelter. 

[DGuller]

Well, if this mix-up can't be straightened out one way, it has to be straightened out the other way.

[Malthus]

Well, if this mix-up can't be straightened out one way, it has to be straightened out the other way.

But who will pay for the funeral? 

[The Brain]

As The Christ said: "let the dead bury their dead".

[Iormlund]

Well, if this mix-up can't be straightened out one way, it has to be straightened out the other way.

Which begs an interesting question. Can you be sent to jail for killing someone already dead?

[The Brain]

Well, if this mix-up can't be straightened out one way, it has to be straightened out the other way.

Which begs an interesting question. Can you be sent to jail for killing someone already dead?

How would you kill him?