Suicide Letter Of Man who Crashed Into IRS Building In Austin Texas

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I wasn't thinking life insurance, but rather liability policies (such as homeowners, umbrella, etc.). Life insurance is POD to beneficiary. The only way I think the plaintiff could make a claim on the proceeds is if there were NO beneficiary, and it paid into the deceased's estate.

Well I was responding to ATL's post and he was clearly referring to life insurance:

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I can't imagine any life insurance policy would pay out on this.

In any event. You are still wrong. If the IRS guy's wife, was being sued, they would go after her assets, which would now include any life insurance for which she was the beneficiary. If she was sued, regardless of how stupid the lawsuit was, her homeowners would cover her defense unless it was an act the was specifically excluded from that policy. Perhaps TTH can opine here, because I'm sure he knows a lot more about liability coverage than the rest of us combined.

[TexTushHog]

First, as to attorneys seeking out the IRS widow, while attorney solicitation does occur from time to time even though it is both unethical and illegal, I can't imagine a bunch of runners and unethical lawyers turning up on her door step. Those lawyers tend to be bottom feeders and wouldn't be interested in taking on a lawsuit that is 1) factually and legally difficult; and 2) where there will substantial controversy as to whether there is any insurance coverage. Now had the IRS worker been killed by a drunk driver in an 18 wheeler, the family would have to fight those guys off to get to a good lawyer.

As to whether there is liability insurance, my strong guess is "no." Any liability policy that might otherwise cover the activity -- and probably an aviation liability policy would be the only one -- is going to have a exclusion for intentional acts. As to PJ's guess on Homeowner's Policy, since we no longer have standard forms on Homeowners' policies here in Texas who knows whether her homeowners has an general aviation exclusion. Any insurance company can write a policy that covers (or doesn't cover) whatever it wants. My guess is that general aviation is excluded on most HO policies. I seem to recall when I got my private pilot's license that most HO policies excluded aviation. But even if it does'nt have a general aviation exclusion, it will certainly have an intentional acts exclusion.

I've dealt with intentional act exclusions in cases like paint ball injuries. You can argue that the kid intended to shoot the paint ball gun, but didn't intend to put the other kid's eye out, etc. But in this case, at least from media reports, it seem clear that this guy intended to fly a plane into the building and may have in fact intended to injure people who worked for the IRS. A very tough case if you ask me.

As to DFWTraveler5's post, I'll simply respond by saying that you just can't write laws to govern complex situations and achieve justice with simple, easy to understand laws. It's just not that simple.

And as for understanding the Constitution, it's extraordinarily difficult. Look at the huge amount of litigation and disagreement about what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means. Or the Commerce Clause. The shorter and simpler the statement, the more it is open to interpretation by courts in later cases as you see in those two instances. And that is appropriate for a Constitution because those writing it realized it needed to be flexible to accommodate change in society. But one of the reasons statutes are not short is that Congress (or the State legislature) wants to cover most or all situations that can arise. They don't want to leave courts and private parties to have to guess about what a statute means. And by and large, they succeed. There is some litigation over the meaning of Federal Statutes, but it is surprisingly small given the number of statutes written.

[OneHotMale]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Nooooooooo, it's not even possible. The ethics rules don't allow it.

Yeah boy that is what most PI attorneys will try and lead or want you to believe. If I am not mistaken you are in South Texas? Heck that is big businesss down in your neck of the woods if you are well connected.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

As to whether there is liability insurance, my strong guess is "no." Any liability policy that might otherwise cover the activity -- and probably an aviation liability policy would be the only one -- is going to have a exclusion for intentional acts. As to PJ's guess on Homeowner's Policy, since we no longer have standard forms on Homeowners' policies here in Texas who knows whether her homeowners has an general aviation exclusion. Any insurance company can write a policy that covers (or doesn't cover) whatever it wants. My guess is that general aviation is excluded on most HO policies. I seem to recall when I got my private pilot's license that most HO policies excluded aviation. But even if it does'nt have a general aviation exclusion, it will certainly have an intentional acts exclusion.

Unless I misunderstood CT2005's post, you misunderstood my answer. (Is that a double negative? )

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

At the risk of un-hijacking this thread I'd like to discuss the next step in this sad tale: i.e. the IRS worker's widow who sued the pilot's widow.

The basis of the lawsuit is that the pilot's widow was negligent because she knew about the pilot's state of mind or intentions and did nothing to stop it.

Well, this seems to me to be somewhat far-fetched. First of all, it assumes facts that may never be uncovered. Even close friends indicated that this was totally out of character.

Finally, I think the pilot's widow can assert marital confidentiality to prevent the plaintiff from inquiring about what kind of communications she (pilot's widow) had with her husband.

The wife is being sued for negligence for not stopping him. Isn't negligence the essence of most homeowner policy suits? If she was found negligent, admittedly a stretch, her assets would be at risk -- including any marital estate and life insurance where she was the beneficiary.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And as for understanding the Constitution, it's extraordinarily difficult.

Well, I would word this as "it's extraordinarily difficult to understand the law and case law that has has been added and often blatantly ignores the constitution."

The end result is the same though. You can't really challenge the constitutionality of the law unless you have lots of money or political support. Even then, you really need some level of support of some of those within our ruling classes.

[Guest083011]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Those lawyers tend to be bottom feeders and wouldn't be interested in taking on a lawsuit ....

Isn't "lawyers" and "bottom feeders" redundant?

[DFW5Traveler]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Lets break it down, shall we:

• The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consititution,
  (There are 17 enumerated powers in the Constitution)
• nor prohibited by the States,
  (Each states have the ability to enact it's own laws as long as they do not trample the Bill of Rights)
• are reserved to the states, or to the people.
  (What is so difficult to understand about our, WE THE PEOPLE, Tenth Amendendment?)

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

As to DFWTraveler5's post, I'll simply respond by saying that you just can't write laws to govern complex situations and achieve justice with simple, easy to understand laws. It's just not that simple.

And as for understanding the Constitution, it's extraordinarily difficult. Look at the huge amount of litigation and disagreement about what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means. Or the Commerce Clause. The shorter and simpler the statement, the more it is open to interpretation by courts in later cases as you see in those two instances. And that is appropriate for a Constitution because those writing it realized it needed to be flexible to accommodate change in society. But one of the reasons statutes are not short is that Congress (or the State legislature) wants to cover most or all situations that can arise. They don't want to leave courts and private parties to have to guess about what a statute means. And by and large, they succeed. There is some litigation over the meaning of Federal Statutes, but it is surprisingly small given the number of statutes written.

I tend to think that liberal/progressive attorneys overthink the the Constitution. Occam's Razor - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity) The simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by SR Only

Isn't "lawyers" and "bottom feeders" redundant?

No. Like any other profession, there are really good ones and really bad ones.

[Guest083011]

Word. I have a family member who's an attorney. Smart person but not a lick of common sense.

[Carl]

As an aside, on the local Austin news it was reported that Stack would have likely killed more people but for a stroke of luck or providence. His plane (loaded with a drum of aviation fuel in place of some removed seats) stuck the steel reinforced concrete slab between the 1st and 2nd floors. Otherwise the plane and resultant fireball would have penetrated much further into the building.

Additionally, his accountant did speak to the press and here is part of a news report from a TV station website. The wife mentioned, I think, is his first wife, not the current one, though it's not clear from the report.:

Andrew Joseph Stack's accountant has confirmed that Stack was in the middle of an audit for failing to report income when he crashed a plane into an IRS building in North Austin last week.

Nearly 30 years ago, the IRS declared the Universal Life Church an illegal tax shelter. Stack, his wife and thousands of others had founded home churches under the same name.

Stack sued the government to defend the church's status. Court documents show that after five years in court, the Stack's were ordered to pay more than $14,000 in back taxes from 1981 to 1983. They were also forced to pay fines, penalties and interest for fraud and negligence.

A post on a Web site owned by Stack included vague references to his involvement with the Universal Life Church.

The post was also critical of the IRS, government and the Catholic Church.

[TexTushHog]

PJ, I wasn't suggesting that you vouched for a particular answer under the homeowners' policy, you just suggested it as a source of potential coverage. To the extent you offered an answer, you were correct, it's covered unless it's excluded.

And for those who think that the Constitution is so simple, let's try this one:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.

First Easy Question. Does this put any limits on State regulation of interstate commerce?

Second Question: So could the Federal government use the clause to invalidate a transportation monopoly given to a particular shipper?

Third Question: What about a hotel that excludes blacks? Can that be regulated under the Commerce Clause?

Forth Question: In support of a Federal agricultural price support program, can the Federal government regulate how much wheat a farmer can grow?

Fifth Question: Regulate the number of hours people work at a saw mill?

Sixth Question: Regulate the sale of of marijuana for medicinal purposes?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

PJ, I wasn't suggesting that you vouched for a particular answer under the homeowners' policy, you just suggested it as a source of potential coverage. To the extent you offered an answer, you were correct, it's covered unless it's excluded.

And for those who think that the Constitution is so simple, let's try this one:

[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.

First Easy Question. Does this put any limits on State regulation of interstate commerce?

Second Question: So could the Federal government use the clause to invalidate a transportation monopoly given to a particular shipper?

Third Question: What about a hotel that excludes blacks? Can that be regulated under the Commerce Clause?

Forth Question: In support of a Federal agricultural price support program, can the Federal government regulate how much wheat a farmer can grow?

Fifth Question: Regulate the number of hours people work at a saw mill?

Sixth Question: Regulate the sale of of marijuana for medicinal purposes?

Hmm, at least I think these are the answers based on laws that have been passed.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. I know the Feds pulled this off with chain stores; hotel: hmm, perhaps if the claim was they advertised nationally (or something like that) and therefore crossed state lines?
4. The government does, but I think it does it via incentives of cash for not overgrowing as opposed to forbidding it
5. Yes, the lumber probably comes in from a different state?
6. Wasn't there a case recently from the GWB administration against California growers and the Feds won the case?

Here is another one: Does the Federal government have the right to force a drinking age of 21 nationally?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Here is another one: Does the Federal government have the right to force a drinking age of 21 nationally?

No, I do not think so. But they make it miserable for states that don't do as they say!

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by WTF

No, I do not think so. But they make it miserable for states that don't do as they say!

My understanding is in the late 80's the Fed Govt threatened to withhold Highway funds for any state that didn't raise it to 21 - but they are State laws

[WTF]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

My understanding is in the late 80's the Fed Govt threatened to withhold Highway funds for any state that didn't raise it to 21 - but they are State laws

Thats what I remember............shit I am old enough to remember buying beer at 18! damn times flies.