GUILTY MN - Barway Collins, 10, Crystal, 18 March 2015 #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thinking further down the line...

Who will get the insurance money from Barway? Obviously, not PC. I assume PC's present wife stands to collect the $50,000.
 
Thinking further down the line...

Who will get the insurance money from Barway? Obviously, not PC. I assume PC's present wife stands to collect the $50,000.

I don't think insurance pays out for murder.
 
That is correct.
ETA : so I may not be totally accurate. Think about if someone insured is a victim of a serial killer or mass murder, etc. Proven to NOT be associated with the beneficiary. I believe those would be paid out IMO. Seems case by case. In this case? Really suspect, again MOO, nothing would happen in this case but who knows?
 
Minnesota Statutes
2014 Statutes
524.2-803 EFFECT OF HOMICIDE ON INTESTATE SUCCESSION, WILLS, JOINT ASSETS, LIFE INSURANCE AND BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS; EMERGENCY ORDER.
(a) A surviving spouse, heir or devisee who feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent is not entitled to any benefits under the will or under this article, including an intestate share, an elective share, an omitted spouse's or child's share, homestead, exempt property, and a family allowance, and the estate of decedent passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent. Property appointed by the will of the decedent to or for the benefit of the killer passes as if the killer had predeceased the decedent.
(b) Any joint tenant who feloniously and intentionally kills another joint tenant thereby effects a severance of the interest of the decedent so that the share of the decedent passes as the decedent's property and the killer has no rights by survivorship. This provision applies to joint tenancies in real and personal property, joint accounts in banks, savings associations, credit unions and other institutions, and any other form of co-ownership with survivorship incidents.
(c) A named beneficiary of a bond or other contractual arrangement who feloniously and intentionally kills the principal obligee is not entitled to any benefit under the bond or other contractual arrangement and it becomes payable as though the killer had predeceased the decedent.
(d) A named beneficiary of a life insurance policy who feloniously and intentionally kills the person upon whose life the policy is issued is not entitled to any benefit under the policy and the proceeds of the policy shall be paid and distributed by order of the court as hereinafter provided. If a person who feloniously and intentionally kills a person upon whose life a life insurance policy is issued is a beneficial owner as shareholder, partner or beneficiary of a corporation, partnership, trust or association which is the named beneficiary of the life insurance policy, to the extent of the killer's beneficial ownership of the corporation, partnership, trust or association, the proceeds of the policy shall be paid and distributed by order of the court as hereinafter provided.
Upon receipt of written notice by the insurance company at its home office that the insured may have been intentionally and feloniously killed by one or more named beneficiaries or that the insured may have been intentionally and feloniously killed by one or more persons who have a beneficial ownership in a corporation, partnership, trust or association, which is the named beneficiary of the life insurance policy, the insurance company shall, pending court order, withhold payment of the policy proceeds to all beneficiaries. In the event that the notice has not been received by the insurance company before payment of the policy proceeds, the insurance company shall be fully and finally discharged and released from any and all responsibility under the policy to the extent that the policy proceeds have been paid.
 
Yes, I believe I read somewhere, have no idea where, someone who knows him back in Liberia, said he was in his early 50's, nor early 30's. After seeing him up close I could believe that.
 
Okay. I have some hard questions. Why build a house in Nigeria for BC's mother? Supposedly, BC wanted his mother to have a house. Do we know that for sure? She hadn't seen him in what 8 years, and he wanted her to have a house? Who's coordinating this effort?
 

Thank you MinnesotaMary (Post #957) for asking the question - and :gthanks: Inthedetails, for your response (with links)!

Even though my response won't bring the quotes over, I wanted to chime in to say this:

Anyone who receives assistance (Section 8 from the Housing Authority, or any other form of public assistance, does so under strict income guidelines. PC's insurance payouts should have been reported the moment he received any of those checks (fraudulent or otherwise), because it is considered income. Heck, if someone gives you anything "in-kind" - you're supposed to report it! The income guidelines for some of these programs are quite low, and I've no doubt that PC would have lost a benefit or three had he reported just one of his settlement checks. :moo:
Recipients qualify and recertify for their "benefits" via various methods all under the penalty of perjury.

I don't have a link handy right now, so I'll add IMO (but my sourcing information comes from my externship hours at the DV shelter. I've also cited similar information in the past).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thank you MinnesotaMary (Post #957) for asking the question - and :gthanks: Inthedetails, for your response (with links)!

Even though my response won't bring the quotes over, I wanted to chime in to say this:

Anyone who receives assistance (Section 8 from the Housing Authority, or any other form of public assistance, does so under strict income guidelines. PC's insurance payouts should have been reported the moment he received any of those checks (fraudulent or otherwise), because it is considered income. Heck, if someone gives you anything "in-kind" - you're supposed to report it! The income guidelines for some of these programs are quite low, and I've no doubt that PC would have lost a benefit or three had he reported just one of his settlement checks. :moo:
Recipients qualify and recertify for their "benefits" via various methods all under the penalty of perjury.

I don't have a link handy right now, so I'll add IMO (but my sourcing information comes from my externship hours at the DV shelter. I've also cited similar information in the past).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about PC's wife? Could she not lose benefits? If she is married to PC, certainly she's just as guilty.
 
What about PC's wife? Could she not lose benefits? If she is married to PC, certainly she's just as guilty.

It's entirely possible that PC lied to his wife about his income. She thought he was going to work on the day of his court appearance, for example. I'm not convinced she was involved with any crime at this point.
 
It's entirely possible that PC lied to his wife about his income. She thought he was going to work on the day of his court appearance, for example. I'm not convinced she was involved with any crime at this point.
I agree. I think she was victimized as much as the other women in his life. IMO in her culture (or the environment PC demanded) she was expected to keep quiet and stand by her man. She isnt out hooting and hollering about how he did her wrong.....that overboard behavior is suspicious IMO. She has been quiet and did not have his back all of the time. JMOO
 
"Meanwhile, Pastor Harding Smith, who initially raised funds for Barway and was the Collins family spokesperson, stepped aside after some community leaders said his involvement posed a conflict of interest because he represented Pierre Collins. However, Hampton said Smith's group actually paid the funeral home money that was promised."

Fom above link BBM. I find that part interesting since IIRC it was said he wasn’t paying at one time?
 
Thank you MinnesotaMary (Post #957) for asking the question - and :gthanks: Inthedetails, for your response (with links)!

Even though my response won't bring the quotes over, I wanted to chime in to say this:

Anyone who receives assistance (Section 8 from the Housing Authority, or any other form of public assistance, does so under strict income guidelines. PC's insurance payouts should have been reported the moment he received any of those checks (fraudulent or otherwise), because it is considered income. Heck, if someone gives you anything "in-kind" - you're supposed to report it! The income guidelines for some of these programs are quite low, and I've no doubt that PC would have lost a benefit or three had he reported just one of his settlement checks. :moo:
Recipients qualify and recertify for their "benefits" via various methods all under the penalty of perjury.

I don't have a link handy right now, so I'll add IMO (but my sourcing information comes from my externship hours at the DV shelter. I've also cited similar information in the past).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't speak for how things are everywhere, but I worked for a Medicaid facility for 16 years. Each individual could have no more than $2000. If their account was $2001 at the close of their statement (1st of the month), they would lose their benefits. BUT--- here's the thing. If they got 8 kajillion dollars on the 3rd of the month and they spent it down throughout the month on approved items that do not count towards your assets, as long as you were below $2000 on the 1st, you were ok. (It might have been $2500, we used $2000 as our cutoff). I guarantee he knew all the loopholes and put money/ spent money/ "gave" money when he had to. Or, he could just be a big liar and not tell them. There is always that, too.
 
In case anyone is wondering. .... PACKED court room, not enough room, we're all out in the hall
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
2,849
Total visitors
2,941

Forum statistics

Threads
603,245
Messages
18,153,869
Members
231,682
Latest member
Sleutherine
Back
Top