You're still legally dead, judge tells Fostoria man | Hacker News Reader

You're still legally dead, judge tells Fostoria man

thecourier.com

42 pointsbsullivan0149 comments

> "I don't know where that leaves you, but you're still deceased as far as the law is concerned," Davis said.

When even a Judge recognizes that common sense should prevail, but isn't willing to do anything about it, courts start to be pretty useless.

I get the feeling that it has more to do with protecting Robin Miller from having to pay back the SS benefits received because of Donald's being declared dead. I really don't think the article has the whole story.

I believe in logic first, but it looks like a judge trying not to punish the innocent.

Yokel judges don't get to control the actions of the Social Security Administration. There is absolutely no hope that this ruling would have any effect on federal benefits.

Well, it's a might bit hard for the SSA to collect if the guy is not alive. You would be surprised how a local judge can muck with a federal agency.

The man is alive. Federal law and federal courts do not care if state law decides to ignore the patently obvious. They are not bound by state law.

Nope, he is still legally dead. Logic outside the law has little effect on logic inside the law. Unless the SSA decides to challenge the ruling (doubtful) or he wins an appeal or other avenue, he is dead.

"They are not bound by state law"

That's not really true, the US Constitution has a different interpretation, the state still has rights and areas of responsibility.

Ohio, for the moment, thinks he is dead. Absolutely no one outside of Ohio is required to recognize this absurdity.

And specifically as to federal law, the US Constitution is crystal clear on this matter:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Go get the Social Security Act -- a federal law -- declared beyond the powers of the federal government (not going to happen), and you'll have a coherent argument. Until then, you're just speaking nonsense.

And before you tiresomely drag out the full faith and credit clause, try looking it up and actually reading about it.

Has it occurred to you that the text of the Social Security Act probably predicates the life/death status of a person on the determination made by the state? There is no federal agency that issues birth/death certificates, those are all done at the state level. You're assuming that federal law already contains a provision for dealing with situations like this which would override state law, whereas it appears that what the man would need to do is sue the SSA in federal court, which he doesn't have the resources to do.

Has it occurred to you to read the act? It's readily available. Certificates of death can be considered, but they're not controlling.

On the contrary, you can find a very clear, unambiguous statement that such certificates are not controlling in the SSA's policy documents[1]:

"Give the court's declaration of death based on a presumption great weight depending on the supporting evidence, but is not controlling. The number holder may not be presumed dead for purposes of Social Security until he or she has been missing for 7 years and the presumption of death is not rebutted as instructed in GN 00304.050A.1., in this section."

And this isn't just about him wanting to be declared alive -- the Social Security Administration is going to want back the benefits it paid out, and it's going to want to sue him and his family to get them, not the other way around.

[1] https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200304050

None of which has any bearing on his being legally dead in Ohio. I'm not sure what point you think you're arguing, since nobody is claiming that the SSA is powerless to act.

Did you read the thread?

> Well, it's a might bit hard for the SSA to collect if the guy is not alive.

For that matter, do you remember what you wrote just a few hours ago?

> Has it occurred to you that the text of the Social Security Act probably predicates the life/death status of a person on the determination made by the state?

I don't care if he's legally dead in Ohio. I was never arguing about that. It is, in fact, entirely irrelevant to any point I've been making.

Whatever argument you think you're having with me is all in your head.

"And before you tiresomely drag out the full faith and credit clause, try looking it up and actually reading about it."

I get the feeling you haven't read it or how the Federal law might try to declare him alive. You also seem to have decided to go insulting to defend your point. The SSA will have to initiate action and this will be a loser for any Federal official all the way around.

The SSA takes action to recover overpayments all the time.

SSA is a federal agency. He paid into them and now he wants his money back, according to the law. So he can file a lawsuit and tell a Fed judge: touch me, I'm alive.

A lot of state court actions can be appealed to federal courts as violations of Bill of Rights. Surely being called dead when you are not violates a few of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

In his defense, it isn't the judge's primary responsibility to change law, it's the legislature's.

I was prepared to think that before reading the article. However, after reading it, I understand:

Reversing the man's death status will hurt innocent people badly. In particular, it would force his abandoned wife and children to pay back the Social Security benefits they claimed after he disappeared.

The real problem is with the Social Security Administration rules. They should not force the woman and her children to give back the money. I suppose the ideal situation is that the man is dead as far as the SSA is concerned.

Honestly, I am totally unsympathetic with this man. He abandoned his family. He abandoned them and was dead to them. He should have just stayed dead. No driver's license? Tough shit, asshole.

Yes... but he's actually, you know, alive

It might be better for him to really start over from scratch. If he's alive, then doesn't he also have to pay his debts and his child support again?

I don't see how you are blaming the government for this. Why not just give out the same social security benefit any old time to anyone who asks? That's what you're going to do when you formalize this as a loophole for getting benefits.

When someone is discovered alive, obviously that should automatically reverse their 'death status' - not to mention that they do not forfeit rights as a citizen because they were thought dead.

Instead of even thinking about the legal issues you are making this about your own emotional reaction to what a bad man he is and how bad the government supposedly is.

I don't think I'd characterize it as a loophole per se, since it requires being legally declared dead in the first place.

That is a pretty big hurdle to have to jump through!

Agreed. My father was in the reverse situation, where he spent several months legally alive in the coroner's office. We're still running into issues with agencies refusing to believe that he passed away.

Any bets he wants his SS# reinstated so he can try to draw benefits?

He seems likely to be roughly about that age now... and he's apparently done just fine for many, many years without a SS# or drivers license, so I'm wondering what exactly is precipitating this (likely high-risk request) and collecting SS benefits is what's staring at me.

Maybe he is an asshole, maybe he just wanted to run away and start a new life, maybe he's changed after 20 years, who knows. The government shouldn't be in a position to judge that he doesn't deserve a license just because they don't like him.

If he is proven to be alive then the keeping him legally dead is obviously absurd.

You kind of missed a point, he's not being judged because he's not liked. He's being judged on the fact that he ran out on his financial responsibility and left the government to foot the bill.

His return means that his ex-wife has to pay back the money then claim it from him. Which he'll probably never pay because he doesn't have it either.

Ideally the government should ask the man to pay back the money, the judge would have no issue granting his request then.

Is it common sense though? After all, the limit's been put in for a reason.

A good solution could be to create a new legal identity for the person in question rather than trying to undo the death ruling. This could also be used to account for the Social Security benefits already paid out and such.

After all, this is not a matter of life and death. It's a question entirely of bureaucracy. So "common sense" isn't applicable: the real question is not "is this guy dead" (he isn't, obviously) but "how to rectify this fact with existing systems".

I'm a bit sorry for the wording, but WTF!

He is alive. Recognize that.

Will he (or his family) go broke because of some law that shouldn't apply? Then make him exempt. Will he go broke because of some law that should apply? Then lead him to a bankrupcy court. Anyway, he's alive, and he's still himself.

The legislature is the appropriate place to address thort of problem, and micro-fixes for corner cases like these pass through legislatures all the time, usually without signficant opposition because they are pragmatic rather than ideological problems. The judge is not in a position to write new laws, all he can do is invalidate some part of the existing law, which would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm betting you're the kind of person that gets really annoyed about 'activist judges' when a judge does act in a way that you disagree with.

This would cause all sorts of complications. I think the three-year limit should have an exception for mysterious reappearance, this man given his "life" back and be demanded to repay child support.

What happens if this man gets murdered? Can you go to jail for killing a dead man?

If his being dead exempts him from paying child support, does that also mean he can't be convicted of a crime?

This guy has inadvertently circumvented the legal system! He is currently robbing a liquor store while streaking and littering.

He's untouchable.

Its probably the opposite.

Police pick him up for any crime, take him to a cell, look him up on the police database. Find out he's dead and decide not to feed him and just leave him in his cell. He's dead so no need to grant him bail.

I don't think there should be a limitation on this at all. What if someone was taken by someone else and then escaping ten years later and trying to get their life back.

This situation is definitely not that, but this could definitely cause some unneeded stress on someone...

Weird. Why is there a three year limit anyway? If the guy is standing in front of you and it's pretty clear he's not dead, why insist that he's dead?

This is about the guy's Social Security money. You could argue that he shows up with unclean hands at court, after all he knew he had been declared dead since 2005 and did nothing about it in the intervening years.

The obligatory references are Le Gentil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Gentil) and the Uttar Pradesh Association of Dead People (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_the_Dead)

Maybe he didn't have the money to try to appeal this in court. The original article makes it seem that money was a factor here.

I guess it makes sense, but weird that you need to pay a nice chunk of money for someone to determine you are indeed actually alive...

I would guess that the limit is so people don't cheat the system. Someone could "disappear" for three years, let their loved ones collect life insurance or in this case SS benefits, then come back and say it was all a mix up. That's the only reason I could think of. It makes me wonder if something happened in a past case that prompted them to create the three year limit.

That should be covered by 'fraud' related laws and he would have to be jailed and pay his dues to the society. Not by keeping him still labelled as 'dead'.

Recovery of the defrauded money (life insurance, social security benefits etc) from the family/beneficiaries is a tricky one. The law/judge would have to look into the knowledge/involvement of the family regarding the fake 'death' situation. Also any benefits they would have received from state (like child support obtained from state in lieu of a paying spouse, unemployment benefits that the spouse would have earned for the family had he been 'present' and unemployed rather than fakely dead etc) if the person were not fake dead but rather just "unemployed and/or unable-otherwise to pay child support" should not be recovered from the family.

Life insurance payments are to be considered 'windfall' and would have to be recovered from family to as much extent possible without making them any worse off than they were just before the person fake died.

Imagine all the crimes you could get away with.

"What is your defence sir?"

"I'm dead, so I couldn't conceivably be guilty of doing any of these things"

On the other hand, if you're dead they wouldn't really have to bother with a trial, would they?

If someone kills him, is it not murder?

That depends on how far the state is willing to entertain the farce that you were "dead" to begin with. They may just declare you "guilty in absentia" or just say "nope, turns out you're not dead, goofball."

Nah, that's just "fixing the glitch" :-)

Why assume that the testimony of dead people has any legal force?

"Get back in the ground, zombie."

You know, if they treated me like that, I'd almost be tempted to dress up in full zombie costume and makeup and respond to all questions simply with the long, drawn-out moan of "BRAINS..."

This is an extremely weird and interesting case, and it'd be especially curious if he's no longer afforded the Constitutional protections of a natural, living citizen.

The closest legal analogue I can think of is the (now outdated) concept of "outlawry," whereby an "outlaw" was someone legally excommunicated from a society. An outlaw could be deprived of property, liberty, and even life by any legal citizen of that society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw

"He asked the court to reverse its 1994 death ruling so he can reinstate his canceled Social Security number and driver's license.

The court said no."

I don't think he's legally dead, I just think he's not going to be able to get his old identification back.

Sounds like a civil rights problem, as this man is being refused access to his own identity and rights.

In particular, I think if he commits a crime, like spitting on the judge right after his announcement, he'd certainly be found "alive" enough to incarcerate, so really the only thing the judge is doing is preventing him from accessing the services of government, although he's imminently liable for abiding by the strictures of government.

Heck if I wouldn't be tempted to break a law if I were him. Then appeal it as undue process because the officers of the court refused to identify him.

I am definitely not a lawyer, but I feel certain this man is not legally dead in the way most people think of it.

> Heck if I wouldn't be tempted to break a law if I were him. Then appeal it as undue process because the officers of the court refused to identify him.

Of course, the simple solution there would be for the cops to just shoot him. File in the police report that the suspect was "Dead on Arrival".

There's not enough information in the store to tell, but I think that he is not being held liable for abiding the strictures of the government. There was no comment about him being asked to pay the back child support he owed. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's been working off the books and not paying into Social Security (hence remaining dead for so long).

I'm not saying that this ridiculous legal status is a good thing. I've been on the reverse side of this - we're still getting various agencies to recognize my father's death, despite his cremation. However, my suspicion is that he'll find legal resurrection far less enjoyable than his current state.

Not the first time a dead person as been put on trial...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

This is why I'm an engineer instead of a lawyer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com