TP crashes in building, part 2

[The Observer]

The NY Times had this tidbit:

In an autobiographical airing of grievances posted to a Web site he controlled, Mr. Stack railed against a local accountant, Bill Ross, who responded with his own statement on Friday, saying Mr. Stack had attracted auditors by lying about his income

.

Anyone have access to the full statement of Mr. Ross?

[Demosthenes]

AUSTIN (February 21, 2010)-In a statement sent to The Associated Press, accountant Bill Ross said the software engineer who crashed his single-engine plane into a building that housed an Internal Revenue Service office failed to disclose all of his income, which prompted an audit by the agency.

Ross said Andrew Joseph Stack III contacted his firm in 2008 for help with his personal taxes, but failed to tell him about all of his income and failed to provide other information, triggering the audit.

Ross said Stack ignored the audit and his advice.

He said his firm dropped Stack as client and has not been in contact with him since October 2009.

He declined further comment.

[fortinbras]

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) made some comments at CPAC about how much he can empathize with Stack. This got a very pointed rejoinder on the floor of the House:

http://iowaindependent.com/28577/congre ... cide-pilot

[The Observer]

Thanks, Demo.

That pretty much completes the picture of Stack as a die-hard TP.He blamed the government, he blamed society, he blamed his accountant, he blamed the IRS. But the portrayal of himself as a continual victim of the ebil gubment rings hollow in light of the fact that he has contested paying taxes throughout his adulthood. He setup a phony church organization to evade taxes, he failed to report income, he hid income, he failed to pay his taxes.

And yet some thinks this means the system is broken. It may or may not be broken, but Stack came nowhere near close to being a victim of it.

[Demosthenes]

IRS worker's widow sues Texas suicide pilot's wifeArticle

The Associated Press
Tags: US Plane Crash Texas
AUSTIN, Texas -- The widow of the Internal Revenue Service employee killed when a Texas man crashed his plane into the agency's Austin office is suing the pilot's widow.

Attorney Daniel Ross says the lawsuit against Sheryl Stack seeks to determine if the pilot left behind insurance policies or other assets.

Ross represents Valerie Hunter, whose 68-year-old husband Vernon Hunter was killed last week when authorities say Joseph Stack deliberately crashed his single-engine plane into the IRS office.

Joseph Stack left behind a lengthy anti-government Internet posting blaming the IRS for personal problems spanning decades.

The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others about her husband.

A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with a family spokesman for Sheryl Stack.

Mrs. Stack was so scared of her husband that she and her daughter left the home and went to a hotel. The next morning, her home with everything in it was burned down by the asshole. Now, she's known as the woman who was married to a monster. She makes less than $12,000 a year as a piano teacher. Just when you think her life couldn't get worse, it does.

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote="Demosthenes"][quote] IRS worker's widow sues Texas suicide pilot's wife

The lawsuit filed Monday says Sheryl Stack should have warned others about her husband.

Just what in the #^!)&$#(^@ is this woman supposed to have done? Taken out a full page ad in every newspaper in Texas? Held a news conference to say "I'm married to a wacko?" Walked the streets of Austin with a sign saying "Beware of Joseph Stack?"

Methinks this is just another one of the all too common situations in Americal life where people react to a tragedy by saying "who can we blame, and who can we sue?" (aided and abetted by lawyers eager to collect 1/3 of the swag).

[fortinbras]

I think primarily the lawsuit is against the pilot's estate, which otherwise goes to his wife, so it looks and sounds like the same thing. It may sound very mean spirited of the IRS worker's widow but this lawsuit may discourage other would-be kamikazes who think that they can strike a blow against the govt AND leave their own families comfortable.

[Demosthenes]

It may sound very mean spirited of the IRS worker's widow but this lawsuit may discourage other would-be kamikazes who think that they can strike a blow against the govt AND leave their own families comfortable.

Bullpuckey. If TDs were worried about the financial well-being of the family, they wouldn't have become tax deniers. People who engage in murder/suicide aren't rational individuals; they are rage-blind killers and this lawsuit is going to fuel that rage big time.

[The Operative]

I think primarily the lawsuit is against the pilot's estate, which otherwise goes to his wife, so it looks and sounds like the same thing. It may sound very mean spirited of the IRS worker's widow but this lawsuit may discourage other would-be kamikazes who think that they can strike a blow against the govt AND leave their own families comfortable.

I don't think it will discourage any of them. It is my belief that one thing these anti-government types have in common is the inability to think beyond their own interests and understand the consequences of their actions. The only consequence they consider is their belief that their actions will bring about some imaginary world where no one pays taxes and everyone else lives according to their rules.

[The Observer]

I think primarily the lawsuit is against the pilot's estate, which otherwise goes to his wife, so it looks and sounds like the same thing. It may sound very mean spirited of the IRS worker's widow but this lawsuit may discourage other would-be kamikazes who think that they can strike a blow against the govt AND leave their own families comfortable.

I doubt Stack was worried about the comfort of his wife, given the facts that he made it so she had to leave her house, and burned their home down. And this situation is not unique given the mentality of most TPs. Look at Ed Brown's attitude towards Elaine and the dogmatic attitudes expressed in other websites about making sure that others suffer as much or more that the TP thinks he is going through.

I am not sure what is left in the estate of Stack, since he burned down a home that probably didn't have much equity to begin with, destroyed the plane that he owned, and with his death ended any income that his business or job was bringing in. And if he had a life insurance policy, I am pretty sure that the insurer isn't going to be paying up.

[Prof]

Actually, Texas is more protective than other states, giving large exemptions, including an unlimited exemption for insurance proceeds. If Stack left insurance policies payable to his estate, which is unusual, then the attorney could reach those proceeds. If Stack left separate property (owned prior to marriage to his current wife or inhereted or subject to some sort of prenup division), then the attorney could reach those assets. Otherwise, most folks in Texas don't own anything that is not exempt. For example, insurance payable to wife would be exempt in an unlimited amount; the same for her retirement interests; house, less than 10 acres urban, unlimited amount; $60,000 of personal property, limited to various categories of property, exempt; there is no exemption for cash. Non-exempt community would be subject to the post marital tort which Stack did cause.

Stack probably had some sort of home owner's policy, generating some liability coverage, but that would ordinarily exclude intentional torts and would not cover the destroyed house; that's a more interesting issue, actually. Can the wife recover for the damage to the home even though intentionally caused by the other member of the community? I don't know.

[Demosthenes]

Any life insurance policy would have to be more than two years old to kick in, because most policies have a two-year suicide clause. If it's older than two years, the insurance company is legally required to pay the death benefit out.

He's a tax denier and they've only been married a short time. I doubt there's any significant life insurance.

The Stark widow probably has a car, the clothes she was wearing, and whatever she was able to grab on her way to taking her daughter to a hotel in a hurry.

[Demosthenes]

Stack probably had some sort of home owner's policy, generating some liability coverage, but that would ordinarily exclude intentional torts and would not cover the destroyed house; that's a more interesting issue, actually. Can the wife recover for the damage to the home even though intentionally caused by the other member of the community? I don't know.

It gets murkier. Stark purchased the home two months before they were married. His is the only name on the property records.

[Prof]

Stack probably had some sort of home owner's policy, generating some liability coverage, but that would ordinarily exclude intentional torts and would not cover the destroyed house; that's a more interesting issue, actually. Can the wife recover for the damage to the home even though intentionally caused by the other member of the community? I don't know.

It gets murkier. Stark purchased the home two months before they were married. His is the only name on the property records.

She would have a tiny community interest -- if any -- representing the increased value between marriage and destruction. I don't know how casualty policies work if the property is titled as separte property of the husband but the wife has a minimal community interest because of increase in value after marriage.

[Cpt Banjo]

I think primarily the lawsuit is against the pilot's estate, which otherwise goes to his wife, so it looks and sounds like the same thing.

To the extent the suit is going after the pilot's widow on the grounds that she was somehow culpable, it's not a suit against the estate but rather one against the widow personally. In my very humble opinion any plaintiff's lawyer who would make such a claim so soon after the incident and without any meaningful investigation as to its validity is lower than pond scum.

Certainly the pilot's estate can be sued for his actions, but the ability of the plaintiff to recover any insurance proceeds left to the pilot's widow is doubtful. Under Texas law, life insurance proceeds are exempt from the claims of creditors of both the insured and the beneficiary, with a few exceptions not applicable to this situation.

What's really sad is that the pilot destroyed the couple's homestead, the major exempt asset.

[Demosthenes]

In my very humble opinion any plaintiff's lawyer who would make such a claim so soon after the incident and without any meaningful investigation as to its validity is lower than pond scum.

Your characterization of the guy is a lot less profane than mine.

[Prof]

The lawyer who filed did file alleging culpability on the part of the wife, apparently. So much bluster for so little possible recovery (some language in a homeowner's general liability policy might be loose enough to get this into court). This is either advertising or just sheer frustration on the part of the widow. In either case, the lawsuit almost certainly goes nowhere.

[wserra]

In my very humble opinion any plaintiff's lawyer who would make such a claim so soon after the incident and without any meaningful investigation as to its validity is lower than pond scum.

Your characterization of the guy is a lot less profane than mine.

Why are you guys wasting your energy denouncing a lawyer who allegedly brought a suit which is not only obnoxious but doomed to fail? If the suit is in fact only against the widow personally (rather than as the representative of the pilot's estate) and was in fact brought by counsel, that is one dumbass lawyer.

Now, an alternative is that the suit is against the widow in representative capacity - a perfectly reasonable suit, given the existence of estate assets - and the lawyer threw in a claim for her personal liability. May not be warm and fuzzy, but I doubt that the family of the dead IRS employee (whom the lawyer would represent) is in a warm and fuzzy mood.

[The Observer]

I think this either is a classic case of an ambulance chaser taking advantage of a widow in her grief or an attorney hoping to get some publicity and reputation as an agressive successful litigator. Whatever the reason, this is a situation that is going to make Mrs. Hunter look to be more concerned with the bottom line rather than the loss of her husband.

[Judge Roy Bean]

We do not yet know the value of the insurance he would have had related to the aircraft value itself and his liability coverage.