Bankrupt Casey Anthony interviewed by KPHO CBS in Phoenix #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I am so discouraged by this news!!!
I did a bit of "googling" on what AZ had said and it is pretty clear that "future earnings" cannot be liened on.

Although the details are different, the idea here in this judgement from the US Supreme Court seems clear:

http://www.canb.uscourts.gov/node/980

The Supreme Court reasoned that there was no lien on debtor's future earnings when the bankruptcy petition was filed because those earnings did not yet exist. Moreover, the underlying debt was discharged before the debtor's future earnings came into existence. The Supreme Court stated further as follows:

The earning power of an individual is the power to create property; but it is not translated into property within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act until it has brought earnings into existence. An adjudication of bankruptcy, followed by a discharge, releases a debtor from all previously incurred debts ... and it logically cannot be supposed that the act nevertheless intended to keep such debts alive for the purpose of permitting the creation of an enforceable lien upon a subject not existent when the bankruptcy became effective or even arising from, or connected with, preexisting property, but brought into being solely as the fruit of the subsequent labor of the bankrupt.


Id. at 243. The Supreme Court noted that a contrary holding would undermine the debtor's fresh start and thus be contrary to a fundamental policy objective of bankruptcy. Id. at 245.
Click to expand...

I guess that we can only hope that the civil lawsuits don't get discharged and that she will have to take her "future earnings" and pay the people her lies have damaged.
 
Jomo said:
I am so discouraged by this news!!!
I did a bit of "googling" on what AZ had said and it is pretty clear that "future earnings" cannot be liened on.

Although the details are different, the idea here in this judgement from the US Supreme Court seems clear:

http://www.canb.uscourts.gov/node/980



I guess that we can only hope that the civil lawsuits don't get discharged and that she will have to take her "future earnings" and pay the people her lies have damaged.
Click to expand...

I am overwhelmingly discouraged also Jomo, but then again, I'm not getting the same reading from this ruling as you have. it appears to me the Supreme Court is talking about earnings that someone made after they were declared discharged that weren't an asset at the time.

There is no doubt "her story" is an asset and I don't know how any court could doubt that FCA has held off telling her story until her civil suits and court charges disappeared.

What no one is saying seems to be that was she honestly trying to make a fresh start, she has had every opportunity to "tell her story" to the highest bidder, despite the negative hoopla it would have received. Am I really supposed to believe that ABC or Dr. Phil wouldn't have put her on?? C'mon! Earn a million dollars, pay what she could out of it easily and there's your fresh start.

This Defense Lawyer might be able to trick the courts into believing his motion is "real" but not me. This is a sick sympathy play that is so undeserved based on the facts in the BK filing - it's beyond belief.

If her motion is granted - that's it for me watching this case. I'll be looking for a legal world that makes sense to me.
 
logicalgirl said:
I am overwhelmingly discouraged also Jomo, but then again, I'm not getting the same reading from this ruling as you have. it appears to me the Supreme Court is talking about earnings that someone made after they were declared discharged that weren't an asset at the time.

There is no doubt "her story" is an asset and I don't know how any court could doubt that FCA has held off telling her story until her civil suits and court charges disappeared.

What no one is saying seems to be that was she honestly trying to make a fresh start, she has had every opportunity to "tell her story" to the highest bidder, despite the negative hoopla it would have received. Am I really supposed to believe that ABC or Dr. Phil wouldn't have put her on?? C'mon! Earn a million dollars, pay what she could out of it easily and there's your fresh start.

This Defense Lawyer might be able to trick the courts into believing his motion is "real" but not me. This is a sick sympathy play that is so undeserved based on the facts in the BK filing - it's beyond belief.

If her motion is granted - that's it for me watching this case. I'll be looking for a legal world that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. She doesn't want to make the money and THEN have to pay the civil suits. She needs to wait until they can't touch her earnings. Incredibly transparent to everyone.... Almost.
 
I'm not ready to give up, either, though it is discouraging. There must be a precedent or the lawyer who placed the $10,000.00 bid wouldn't have conceived of this plan. And the Trustee, who seems on the ball, wouldn't have proposed it. And OJ's rights to the future earnings of his book were taken. We also have Zenaida and Roy K.'s lawyers who are saying there are bank accounts and other monies that contain more than the allowed $4,000. for Florida bankruptcy.I am looking at the glass half filled. We are not defeated yet.
 
mac66 said:
I'm not ready to give up, either, though it is discouraging. There must be a precedent or the lawyer who placed the $10,000.00 bid wouldn't have conceived of this plan. And the Trustee, who seems on the ball, wouldn't have proposed it. And OJ's rights to the future earnings of his book were taken. We also have Zenaida and Roy K.'s lawyers who are saying there are bank accounts and other monies that contain more than the allowed $4,000. for Florida bankruptcy.I am looking at the glass half filled. We are not defeated yet.
Click to expand...

Your above thoughts are the way I feel.

There is not much, if any exact, information on this subject. Googling mostly brings up links talking about CA's BK trustee wanting to sell the story. Seems like this subject might not have been used very much. I guess most people that are "celebrities" usually don't have a need to file bankruptcy.

JMO
 
Interesting article outlining 2 Caylee "charities" that were pretty shady, imo. $500,000 out of $600,000 are unaccounted for from the Dr. Phil "contribution". The remaining $100K was divided between 3 charities. So, $500K went to "reasonable administrative costs" for this "charity"? Where did the $$ go?

http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/p...d-dr-phil-give-600000-to-anthony-charity.html

Actually, papers [PDF] dissolving the entity known as Caylee’s Fund Foundation were filed with the Florida Secretary of State in May, signed by Lippman the attorney as its registered agent, based on a vote of the “members” of the corporation on May 22, 2012.
Click to expand...

If Casey Anthony received any money from the fund, it would violate Article VII in the amended articles of incorporation, filed August 2011, which disallowed any of the earnings of the fund to go “to its directors, officers, or other private persons, except that the Corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered …”
Click to expand...
 
Pattymarie said:
This case coupled with what happened at Sandy Hook tells me that evil has been unleashed in our country
Click to expand...

Sad but true. Now all we need is for that Arias thing in Arizona to be set free and this country will be good to go.
 
mac66 said:
I hope the response is nonsense, but it seemed fairly reasonable to me. I sure hope not because I haven't been so enthused about anything but the possible sale of her rights for months. Even AZ lawyer previously said it could be done, and she isn't one for giving us false hope. Even when we want it.
Click to expand...

I am enthusiastic about the idea of selling her property as well, not so much because I believe it is going to actually happen but because I like hearing that there are people in positions of a bit more power than I or anyone I know personally have (the one known bidder, the trustee and any others who may eventually become known) who care enough to publicly state that they see wrongs that should be righted, even if the possibility of such in this case is remote.
 
K_Z said:
Interesting article outlining 2 Caylee "charities" that were pretty shady, imo. $500,000 out of $600,000 are unaccounted for from the Dr. Phil "contribution". The remaining $100K was divided between 3 charities. So, $500K went to "reasonable administrative costs" for this "charity"? Where did the $$ go?

http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/p...d-dr-phil-give-600000-to-anthony-charity.html
Click to expand...

I don't understand why local journalists, particularly those calling themselves 'investigative journalists' have not covered this fraudulent foundation and exposed every dirty little maneuver by the A's.
 
Jomo said:
I am so discouraged by this news!!!
I did a bit of "googling" on what AZ had said and it is pretty clear that "future earnings" cannot be liened on.

Although the details are different, the idea here in this judgement from the US Supreme Court seems clear:

http://www.canb.uscourts.gov/node/980



I guess that we can only hope that the civil lawsuits don't get discharged and that she will have to take her "future earnings" and pay the people her lies have damaged.
Click to expand...

The debts that might have resulted from the lawsuits have not been created yet. But they are being allowed to be listed as debts she currently owes.

But hey, as long as Casey gets her fresh start, to he!! with everyone else, right?

She kills...and she goes free.

Upon release from jail she rakes in cash and checks from a rash of supporters, but now claims those donations were petty, amounts so minimal that she never saw a need to keep a tally...and the BK court accepts that claim.

She lists future (not yet created) debts of unknown amounts that she might possibly (but nobody knows for sure) owe to some people someday...and the court is just dandy with all that.

But OMG, that anyone would dare suggest there might be income on the horizon that could pay all her debts--debts the debtor needs discharged only because she has no means to pay--and everyone is up in arms over her rights.

I can completely support a law that says you cannot put a lien on income that has not been earned yet; it is the law that says you can discharge debts that have not been incurred yet that I am having trouble with.
 
But but but you will be depriving her of her memories! You know, the ones of wrapping duct tape around her toddler's face!!
 
krkrjx said:
The debts that might have resulted from the lawsuits have not been created yet. But they are being allowed to be listed as debts she currently owes.

But hey, as long as Casey gets her fresh start, to he!! with everyone else, right?

She kills...and she goes free.

Upon release from jail she rakes in cash and checks from a rash of supporters, but now claims those donations were petty, amounts so minimal that she never saw a need to keep a tally...and the BK court accepts that claim.

She lists future (not yet created) debts of unknown amounts that she might possibly (but nobody knows for sure) owe to some people someday...and the court is just dandy with all that.

But OMG, that anyone would dare suggest there might be income on the horizon that could pay all her debts--debts the debtor needs discharged only because she has no means to pay--and OMG everyone is up in arms over her rights.

I can completely support a law that says you cannot put a lien on income that has not been earned yet; it is the law that says you can discharge debts that have not been incurred yet that I am having trouble with.
Click to expand...


Great point about the future debt of the pending civil lawsuits ! I'm don't quite understand to whole deal of discharging future debts either. How can you discharge a debt you don't have yet? Maybe her application for discharging debts was premature?

The suspense of it all is actually bothering me! I guess all of this is dredging up the past trial sentiments. :okay:
 
logicalgirl said:
I am overwhelmingly discouraged also Jomo, but then again, I'm not getting the same reading from this ruling as you have. it appears to me the Supreme Court is talking about earnings that someone made after they were declared discharged that weren't an asset at the time.

There is no doubt "her story" is an asset and I don't know how any court could doubt that FCA has held off telling her story until her civil suits and court charges disappeared.

What no one is saying seems to be that was she honestly trying to make a fresh start, she has had every opportunity to "tell her story" to the highest bidder, despite the negative hoopla it would have received. Am I really supposed to believe that ABC or Dr. Phil wouldn't have put her on?? C'mon! Earn a million dollars, pay what she could out of it easily and there's your fresh start.

This Defense Lawyer might be able to trick the courts into believing his motion is "real" but not me. This is a sick sympathy play that is so undeserved based on the facts in the BK filing - it's beyond belief.

If her motion is granted - that's it for me watching this case. I'll be looking for a legal world that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
I don't know how much more I can take either, LG. :(
When will the world right itself?
 
Jomo said:
Great point about the future debt of the pending civil lawsuits ! I'm don't quite understand to whole deal of discharging future debts either. How can you discharge a debt you don't have yet? Maybe her application for discharging debts was premature?

The suspense of it all is actually bothering me! I guess all of this is dredging up the past trial sentiments. :okay:
Click to expand...

If you carefully dissect the law as written, it says future income cannot be placed in jeopardy. In Casey's situation, they are referring to her story rights as "personal property" rather than future income. If it is deemed by the judge to be personal property that she does currently possess, I am not sure it would automatically be covered by that law that says you cannot go after income that has not been earned yet. IOW, if a knowledgeable attorney argued it properly, this situation might not be as cut and dried as it might appear on its face.
 
krkrjx said:
If you carefully dissect the law as written, it says future income cannot be placed in jeopardy. In Casey's situation, they are referring to her story rights as "personal property" rather than future income. If it is deemed by the judge to be personal property that she does currently possess, I am not sure it would automatically be covered by that law that says you cannot go after income that has not been earned yet. IOW, if a knowledgeable attorney argued it properly, this situation might not be as cut and dried as it might appear on its face.
Click to expand...

Isn't this a point that the trustee is saying this is not a future asset but a current one because he has a bid for it now?? I don't agree with saying it is a personal asset because she would need a commercial vehicle to see it through to recoup and earnings. Isn't there a $$$ cap on personal property?

He isn't saying she can't work as a victims advocate or any other ridiculous thing she wants to do and call it work as a result of her um.."background" - he is saying she can't use that "background" to sell her story commercially. I didn't see any notation saying she couldn't work in a field that result from her background. Big diff in my world. Keep her personal memories all she likes.....no commercial packages...
 
What I didn't like in Casey's argument was that her lawyers were implying that Casey's "memories" were being put up for sale and that her rights were being infringed upon.

The trustee wants to sell only the money making rights to her story. She would still be able to write all of her memories and talk all about any experience she had. It is just that she couldn't receive any money for having shared them. She is not being prohibited from expressing herself in any form she chooses ~ she is just being prohibited from being paid for her expressions.

I don't liken sharing your specific history to song writing at all. Music doesn't require memory or experience at all (although they help); even robots can write music now. http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/n...instruments-compose-and-perform-symphony.html
 
Also - it seems to me that what FCA's BK lawyer is saying is - as soon as this bankruptcy is discharged, she IS going to sell her story to give her the fresh start she so "desperately wants". :facepalm:

Like another poster so wisely said - she doesn't want to share it - and as things stand now - she definitely would have to.

Also I think it's a question of right now, is her story an asset. If she did an interview today, would anyone pay her?
This asset isn't something she has to develop in the future at all, like sitting down and writing a song.
 
logicalgirl said:
Also - it seems to me that what FCA's BK lawyer is saying is - as soon as this bankruptcy is discharged, she IS going to sell her story to give her the fresh start she so "desperately wants". :facepalm:

Like another poster so wisely said - she doesn't want to share it - and as things stand now - she definitely would have to.

Also I think it's a question of right now, is her story an asset. If she did an interview today, would anyone pay her?
This asset isn't something she has to develop in the future at all, like sitting down and writing a song.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking. If CA does win this battle, as she usually does, any money that she gets will not last long. I don't think she has the smarts to write a book, she will need a ghost writer who will get most of the proceeds.
What she does get she will blow thru it in no time and be right back where she started, minus the one thing that could have been a blessing, Little Caylee. Money will not change the leopard's spot. I can't wait to see all these attys. that have been fawning all over her eating her dust as she drives off to her next adventure.

JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 680 (members: 155, guests: 525)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
525
Total visitors
680
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,336
Messages
18,237,862
Members
234,343
Latest member
almsrq
Back
Top