General Discussion and Theories #4

[Tamarind]

Victims sue other people for injury and wrongful death in accidents all the time. Apparently if you seriously injure or kill someone with your car, especially while impaired, not only are you subject to what the law throws at you, but the victim's family can also sue you, which is why you have insurance.

Suing someone convicted of murdering your loved one, for wrongful death, is no different really, except in most cases the murderer is indigent and it's not likely you'd ever be able to collect. So you wouldn't be putting out lawyer's fees for something you'll never be able to collect on even if you win your case.

TB was 32yrs old. He had many years of earning potential ahead of him. Likely in the 2-3 million dollar range (or more). His wife and daughter have lost that earning potential, not as a result of illness, which is always tragic although no one can be held accountable for that, but allegedly as a result of the actions of two individuals who are charged with his murder. It is certainly his family's prerogative to sue for wrongful death, should they be convicted, to try to recoup that lost earning potential but I have no idea if they would consider it.

MOO

When you sue someone who was responsible in a car accident, that is covered by insurance. That insurance usually carries a million dollar liability. This means the insurance will pay up to that amount. If in the remote chance a judge rules more is due that is when the driver is sued for their own assets. That is a hard road to travel, and will take a very long time, money and no guarantee of winning. MOO

 

[Arnie M]

I am not up to date on the Russel Williams lawsuits and could stand corrected

--- One has been dismissed , the one by Williams neighbor who had been an early suspect and who Williams tried to implicate when police were asking around

--- Another (two) lawsuits were dropped and some type of out of court settlement was arranged .... the terms are secret.

--- Two people (Doe) (Lloyd) may still have suits pending for $7 million and $2 million , they are suing him , his wife , police , and maybe the military. I doubt they will be successful. Besides , Williams does not have , nor will ever have millions of dollars to give anyone , but that is beside the point

Our justice system is based on equality (under the law) , a rich murder is not entitled to more or less justice than a poor murderer. A rich murderer should not be made to pay more consequences than a poor murderer.

If DM and his family are sued and found liable , then also MS and his family should have to pay , and what about CN and her family .... see where I am going with this??

Even the "seizure of assets obtained by criminal means" has created some serious problems , police targeted drug dealers and OC so they could get the Cadillac SUV's , Yacht's , mansions for themselves , or for the local sheriffs department to sell and keep the big bucks , it became a profitable enterprise unto itself disguised as a police department with government approval.

That aside , victims would have a hard time defining the actual DM assets , they were accumulated by Carl (mostly) Wm and MB (partly) , with eventually DM's name added to the list

All they have done is scratch DM's name off the list.
,

 

[Kamille]

I am not up to date on the Russel Williams lawsuits and could stand corrected

--- One has been dismissed , the one by Williams neighbor who had been an early suspect and who Williams tried to implicate when police were asking around

--- Another (two) lawsuits were dropped and some type of out of court settlement was arranged .... the terms are secret.

--- Two people (Doe) (Lloyd) may still have suits pending for $7 million and $2 million , they are suing him , his wife , police , and maybe the military. I doubt they will be successful. Besides , Williams does not have , nor will ever have millions of dollars to give anyone , but that is beside the point

Our justice system is based on equality (under the law) , a rich murder is not entitled to more or less justice than a poor murderer. A rich murderer should not be made to pay more consequences than a poor murderer.

If DM and his family are sued and found liable , then also MS and his family should have to pay , and what about CN and her family .... see where I am going with this??

Even the "seizure of assets obtained by criminal means" has created some serious problems , police targeted drug dealers and OC so they could get the Cadillac SUV's , Yacht's , mansions for themselves , or for the local sheriffs department to sell and keep the big bucks , it became a profitable enterprise unto itself disguised as a police department with government approval.

That aside , victims would have a hard time defining the actual DM assets , they were accumulated by Carl (mostly) Wm and MB (partly) , with eventually DM's name added to the list

All they have done is scratch DM's name off the list.
,

No one could or would sue members of DM or MS's family. They are not, to my knowledge, involved in this murder and cannot be held responsible. They would only sue MS and DM (and perhaps the TPS for allowing these murderers to continue to kill after LB's death, IF they are convicted of that murder as well) Since MS is indigent, there would be no point dollar wise but there still would be a point comfort wise I suppose. And MB might only be attached to a suit on DM because of the $1 transaction to shift assets so that a creditor could not go after them. She would not be sued for the wrongful death, just for the funds that she acquired in a questionable transaction from DM after his arrest.

Technically MS can be attached to the lawsuit and should he ever make any money, perhaps in a job program in prison, his wages, or prison funds, could be garnished for a certain percentage to go towards paying any settlement against him as well I suppose. DM would be able to pay his settlement outright and his prison funds would not be touched. So I guess in that situation, MS would have it harder because he is the "poor" one.

All MillardAir assets, at the moment, belong to DM regardless of who actually accumulated them. That may change when the WM trial is resolved. It was the assets that were just in his name that were transferred to MB for $1. So those are actually the assets that may be the only assets in question that a wrongful death suit can target. The MillardAir assets would go to whomever was next in line from DM to inherit from WM.

As always, IANAL and this is my opinion only.

 

[Tamarind]

No one could or would sue members of DM or MS's family. They are not, to my knowledge, involved in this murder and cannot be held responsible. They would only sue MS and DM (and perhaps the TPS for allowing these murderers to continue to kill after LB's death, IF they are convicted of that murder as well) Since MS is indigent, there would be no point dollar wise but there still would be a point comfort wise I suppose. And MB might only be attached to a suit on DM because of the $1 transaction to shift assets so that a creditor could not go after them. She would not be sued for the wrongful death, just for the funds that she acquired in a questionable transaction from DM after his arrest.

There is no evidence to suggest assets were shifted so that any hypothetical futuristic creditor may or may not go after them. IMO. There is also nothing questionable about it.
Intent would be a very very difficult thing to prove even IF her son was responsible for any alleged crime.

Technically MS can be attached to the lawsuit and should he ever make any money, perhaps in a job program in prison, his wages, or prison funds, could be garnished for a certain percentage to go towards paying any settlement against him as well I suppose. DM would be able to pay his settlement outright and his prison funds would not be touched. So I guess in that situation, MS would have it harder because he is the "poor" one.

How would MS have it harder ? They would both be sitting in jail IF they were guilty. Its not like anyone can go out on a spending spree from there. IMO

All MillardAir assets, at the moment, belong to DM regardless of who actually accumulated them. That may change when the WM trial is resolved. It was the assets that were just in his name that were transferred to MB for $1. So those are actually the assets that may be the only assets in question that a wrongful death suit can target. The MillardAir assets would go to whomever was next in line from DM to inherit from WM.

IF the Millardair assets were transferred they would no longer belong to DM IMO.

As always, IANAL and this is my opinion only.

Can you tell me what this ominous looking short form of something means please. I haven't come across it before, thank you.

 

[Juballee]

IANAL is an acronym for "I Am Not A Lawyer". It's a general disclaimer.

 

[Kamille]

Tim Bosma Murder Case: Dellen Millard land deals 'beyond smelly', experts say.

http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news...ard_land_deals_beyond_smelly_experts_say.html

 

[Alethea Dice]

Since MS is indigent, there would be no point dollar wise but there still would be a point comfort wise I suppose.

I've heard this mentioned several times, but never seen it anywhere but here. Could you please provide a link where the fact that MS is indigent was confirmed? TIA

I realize he doesn't seem to have property or an estate, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is indigent. He was living at home so any money he made, legal or otherwise, wasn't being spent on rent or a mortgage. If he is needy as you say, it would seem a terrible waste of money to hire a lawyer to sue someone with nothing. JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Tim Bosma Murder Case: Dellen Millard land deals 'beyond smelly', experts say.

http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news...ard_land_deals_beyond_smelly_experts_say.html

So it's only the three properties that were transferred - the two condos and the family home. And the one lawyer says it wouldn't protect the properties anyway, just maybe make the process a little more difficult.

“The purpose of doing this is opaque to me,” he said. “[Millard] has not put these three properties out of reach of his creditors. He has only placed an obstacle in their path, which a plaintiff lawyer can circumvent.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/06/05/millard_land_deals_beyond_smelly_experts_say.html

 

[Kamille]

I've heard this mentioned several times, but never seen it anywhere but here. Could you please provide a link where the fact that MS is indigent was confirmed? TIA

I realize he doesn't seem to have property or an estate, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is indigent. He was living at home so any money he made, legal or otherwise, wasn't being spent on rent or a mortgage. If he is needy as you say, it would seem a terrible waste of money to hire a lawyer to sue someone with nothing. JMO

MS qualifies for legal aid, which means he is indigent. If he has any substantial money saved up, he may be required to contribute towards his legal fees (step 2 at the link) If not, I suppose whatever assets he had at the time of the murder, that his still has at the time of conviction, are subject to a wrongful death lawsuit as well.

http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/certificateprogram.asp

MOO

 

[Kamille]

So it's only the three properties that were transferred - the two condos and the family home. And the one lawyer says it wouldn't protect the properties anyway, just maybe make the process a little more difficult.



http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/06/05/millard_land_deals_beyond_smelly_experts_say.html

It's highly unlikely that WM's estate had been settled at the time of the murder. DM transferred what he could IMO, all assets that were in his name, on the advice of DP most likely. And what I have been saying all along is that it may not protect the properties (well actually the proceeds from their sale at this point), from creditors, it was likely done to make it more difficult to get at the funds, to "shield" them. To make the lawyers for the creditors work twice as hard to prove the transactions were not in good faith. Which, according to the article we both linked, contravenes provincial laws forbidding these types of transactions.

MOO

 

[Juballee]

That is if it wasn't done in good faith.

But what if, as some suggest, DM will be using the money to pay for his legal bills? Would he not be able to transfer and sell his own properties to pay for his own current expenses, on the off chance that he may get sued later? That would not be very fair.

The fact is that many people make such property transfers when they are arrested, on the advice of their attorneys. If they were all smelly just for that reason, the practice would have been outlawed by now.

 

[Juballee]

MS qualifies for legal aid, which means he is indigent. If he has any substantial money saved up, he may be required to contribute towards his legal fees (step 2 at the link) If not, I suppose whatever assets he had at the time of the murder, that his still has at the time of conviction, are subject to a wrongful death lawsuit as well.

http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/certificateprogram.asp

MOO

in·di·gent
ˈindəjənt/
adjective
1.
poor; needy.
synonyms: poor, impecunious, destitute, penniless, impoverished, insolvent, poverty-stricken; More
antonyms: rich
noun
noun: indigent; plural noun: indigents
1.
a needy person.
synonyms: vagrant, homeless person, down-and-out, beggar, pauper, derelict, have-not; informalbum
"a shelter for the city's indigents"


I'm not sure indigent is the right word to describe someone who lived at home with his mom. I don't think that most of these synonyms fit his situation; he was not penniless or destitute, nor was he a homeless vagrant from what I have read. And if he was so poor as to be considered indigent, wouldn't it make him all the more likely of the two to have committed a violent crime to gain a valuable possession?

I'm am also not sure if it is fair to say that everyone who qualifies for legal aid is indigent, I think that may be insulting to the working poor who cannot afford lawyers on their own.

All my opinion only. Except for the definition, that is fact.

 

[Kamille]

in·di·gent
ˈindəjənt/
adjective
1.
poor; needy.
synonyms: poor, impecunious, destitute, penniless, impoverished, insolvent, poverty-stricken; More
antonyms: rich
noun
noun: indigent; plural noun: indigents
1.
a needy person.
synonyms: vagrant, homeless person, down-and-out, beggar, pauper, derelict, have-not; informalbum
"a shelter for the city's indigents"


I'm not sure indigent is the right word to describe someone who lived at home with his mom. I don't think that most of these synonyms fit his situation; he was not penniless or destitute, nor was he a homeless vagrant from what I have read. And if he was so poor as to be considered indigent, wouldn't it make him all the more likely of the two to have committed a violent crime to gain a valuable possession?

I'm am also not sure if it is fair to say that everyone who qualifies for legal aid is indigent, I think that may be insulting to the working poor who cannot afford lawyers on their own.

All my opinion only. Except for the definition, that is fact.

Link please?


indigent
1) n. a person so poor and needy that he/she cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter) for himself/herself. 2) n. one without sufficient income to afford a lawyer for defense in a criminal case. If the court finds a person is an indigent, the court must appoint a public defender or other attorney to represent him/her. This constitutional right of counsel for the indigent was determined by Gideon v. Wainright in 1963, when a penciled letter from a prisoner came to the attention of prominent Washington attorney Abe Fortas, who carried the case to the Supreme Court for free. Fortas later became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 3) adj. referring to a person who is very poor and needy.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=944

IMO, without a source of income, MS fits the legal definition of indigent.

 

[Kamille]

That is if it wasn't done in good faith.

But what if, as some suggest, DM will be using the money to pay for his legal bills? Would he not be able to transfer and sell his own properties to pay for his own current expenses, on the off chance that he may get sued later? That would not be very fair.

The fact is that many people make such property transfers when they are arrested, on the advice of their attorneys. If they were all smelly just for that reason, the practice would have been outlawed by now.

MB had been given power of attorney to handle all financial transactions for DM, including paying his legal fees, before the questionable property transfer. She's had no trouble dealing with everything labelled as MillardAir assets with that POA. The $1 transaction was not necessary for access to funds.

Do you have a link for your assertion that it's a fact that many people give their property and assets away for a dollar when they are arrested? I disagree. TIA

MOO

 

[Tamarind]

MB had been given power of attorney to handle all financial transactions for DM, including paying his legal fees, before the questionable property transfer. She's had no trouble dealing with everything labelled as MillardAir assets with that POA. The $1 transaction was not necessary for access to funds.

Is there a link stating that she didnt have any trouble dealing with everything labelled MillardAir? TIA .Maybe she did and maybe she now finds it far easier to work with assets that are in her name. I think the $1 transaction may be very worthwhile if it helps make things easier for someone trying to deal with a lot of work. Something doesn't need to be necessary for it to be helpful.

Do you have a link for your assertion that it's a fact that many people give their property and assets away for a dollar when they are arrested? I disagree. TIA

MOO

Just the fact that the provision to do so exists, proves that it is there for many purposes. Ease of transactions being merely one.

 

[Tamarind]

It's highly unlikely that WM's estate had been settled at the time of the murder. DM transferred what he could IMO, all assets that were in his name, on the advice of DP most likely. And what I have been saying all along is that it may not protect the properties (well actually the proceeds from their sale at this point), from creditors, it was likely done to make it more difficult to get at the funds, to "shield" them. To make the lawyers for the creditors work twice as hard to prove the transactions were not in good faith. Which, according to the article we both linked, contravenes provincial laws forbidding these types of transactions.

MOO

I think creditors should ensure that transactions were done in good faith. Simply because if things are done in good faith they (creditors) can't call foul . MOO

 

[Alethea Dice]

MS qualifies for legal aid, which means he is indigent. If he has any substantial money saved up, he may be required to contribute towards his legal fees (step 2 at the link) If not, I suppose whatever assets he had at the time of the murder, that his still has at the time of conviction, are subject to a wrongful death lawsuit as well.

http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/certificateprogram.asp

MOO

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in that link that confirms that MS is indigent, or even that he is receiving legal aid. I have been searching for some confirmation for the frequent claims that MS is indigent, poor, broke, was unemployed for all the time leading up to this, anything to substantiate his financial status. So I have to ask once again - can you please provide the link that confirms that MS is indeed indigent.

TIA

 

[Alethea Dice]

Link please?


indigent
1) n. a person so poor and needy that he/she cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter) for himself/herself. 2) n. one without sufficient income to afford a lawyer for defense in a criminal case. If the court finds a person is an indigent, the court must appoint a public defender or other attorney to represent him/her. This constitutional right of counsel for the indigent was determined by Gideon v. Wainright in 1963, when a penciled letter from a prisoner came to the attention of prominent Washington attorney Abe Fortas, who carried the case to the Supreme Court for free. Fortas later became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 3) adj. referring to a person who is very poor and needy.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=944

IMO, without a source of income, MS fits the legal definition of indigent.

Canadian version:

Indigency (Indigent Status)
Having so little money that one cannot afford to pay court fees. To apply for indigent status, a person must be receiving benefits under the Employment and Assistance Act or the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disability Act. The person must also provide financial information to prove that their income is low as well as information about employment, education, and workplace skills.

How do you know that MS had no source of income, or that he was receiving employment assistance or disability?

 

[Kamille]

MS is in jail and has been for over 2 years. It does not matter what he was doing before he was arrested, he is not out on bail and able to collect an income and therefore meets the indigent requirements for legal aid since, to my knowledge, he does not own property or have any considerable assets that would disqualify him. Are there any links to say that he does?

That said, however, does not mean that his lawyer is actually billing legal aid and that his defense is not being paid for by someone else or that Thomas Dungey is not working this case pro bono. Again, I've not seen any indication that this is the case either so if anyone has a link to say how he is being paid I'd like to see it too.

MOO

 

[Juballee]

Link please?


indigent
1) n. a person so poor and needy that he/she cannot provide the necessities of life (food, clothing, decent shelter) for himself/herself. 2) n. one without sufficient income to afford a lawyer for defense in a criminal case. If the court finds a person is an indigent, the court must appoint a public defender or other attorney to represent him/her. This constitutional right of counsel for the indigent was determined by Gideon v. Wainright in 1963, when a penciled letter from a prisoner came to the attention of prominent Washington attorney Abe Fortas, who carried the case to the Supreme Court for free. Fortas later became an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. 3) adj. referring to a person who is very poor and needy.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=944

IMO, without a source of income, MS fits the legal definition of indigent.

When you Google "indigent definition" that is the first thing that pops up, in big bold letters.

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=indigent+definition

A person who was considered indigent would be far more likely to commit a violent crime for monetary gain than someone who had assets to sell, in my opinion.