Posted on 05/31/2003 8:41:50 AM PDT by runningbear
YOu are repeating yourself - are you ok?
Beats me - who's name was the vehicle registered under? His? Hers? Both? And why not ask that of Scott Peterson, he's the jerk who sold it...
You ARE kidding, right? He's alteady been convicted by most here... Why bother with a trial at all?
Why do that, when calling some with whom you disagree 'a lunatic' is easier than debating?
But hey, don't let facts get in your way or anything, as I'd hate to see you inconvenienced in any way...
Pay attention. You look less foolish that way...
Community property means that all income earned within the marriage is owned equally by the spouses, and all property bought with CP funds is also CP. There is a presumption that property owned by a married person is CP, but that can be overcome by a showing that it was owned before the marriage, or given to a spouse by someone as their separate property (like an inheritance).
When a married person dies without a will, their property (which is a 1/2 interest in their community property) passes to their heirs. When a married person dies childless, their only heir is their spouse, and all the CP would therefore pass to the spouse.
If Scott becomes ineligible to inherit from Laci because he is proven to have killed her, then the succession would go to Laci's parents, then her siblings, and then you get into cousins, uncles, etc.
Police are immune from suit for most things, but I think you could get to a jury on a cop intentionally allowing a person to rob another person.
Weiford noted that if a death certificate lists the cause of death as unknown or involving violence, the title and sales process is halted and the situation investigated.
Under the state Probate Code, if a joint tenant feloniously and intentionally kills another joint tenant, "the killer has no rights by survivorship."
I think what they mean is that the title company would not issue clear title and thus no normal sale could proceed until the issue of guilt or innocence is established, if the issue is contested. Thus, the property automatically goes to the survivor unless someone raises an objection. I imagine that the objection would have to be raised in court, and then the court would put a lien of some kind, perhaps a lis pendens, on the property while the determination is being made.
However, no one has, to my knowledge, gone to court to contest Scott's right of survivorship. As of now, he is 100 percent owner of the house, by law.
Scott would still be half owner of the house, the only issue would be Laci's 1/2 interest in the house and who it went to. Also, Scott would be the only person right now with the right to possess the house, and he could designate who can go in and who cannot. All others, such as the Rochas, are trespassers.
That's a legalistic view of it. I feel for the Rochas, and understand their desire to collect some things of Laci's to keep. It's the job of the cops to intervene between emotions and the proper way of doing things, and the cops let us down in this instance. They should have told the Rochas to go get a court order. Their conduct means that any of us in any kind of dispute could have our homes invaded by someone claiming that it's a "civil matter" and if the cops are on their side, they can take our property and force us to sue to get it back.
I already answered that question - several times. Nice try though - and by the way, common courtesy would have dictated that you ping me, when discussing me... Thanks in advance :0)
I am playing catch up having been gone for over a week, but just wanted to comment on this phenomenon, Jackie.
For the same reason dems get away with their outrageous lies, defense attorneys and their clients are presented via some in the media to their viewers and readers and granted an air of credibility: Certain members of the media actually ADMIRE overt deceit.
Remember during the clinton reign certain press types would openly marvel at the spin put out by the administration and the clintons, themselves. Same with criminals. I watched Menendez and OJ and was aghast as one made-up scenario after another was discussed and then the in-studio commentators didn't laugh at it---they actually would discuss how this could add up to "reasonable doubt" for certain jurors. They were right. (Thank goodness in Menendez it wasn't the whole jury and the non-televised retrial reached the correct guilty verdict.)
There is a certain segment of the population that wants to buy into spin and lies.
P.S. One of the worst reporters in the WH press briefings is Terry Moran. Before ABC hired him he was with Court TV and one of the most eager to take a defense line and run with it.
Perhaps, but even if they had started such proceedings, they would not have a right to possession of anything of Laci's until after Scott's guilt is proven in a court of law. That is Scott's property, unless and until he is found guilty. They used the Modesto Cop Self Help Remedy to obtain by force what they could not have legally.
I was convinced 99.9 percent of the guilt of the guy who supposedly killed Elizabeth Smart. I was horrified when I read about the boys who killed their sister in Escondido. Then it turned out that these people didn't do it. I agree that it looks pretty darn bad for Scott, but I stick by my prediction that he won't be convicted unless the prosecution comes up with evidence tying him to the bodies. Placing him in the bay won't be enough by itself, not with burglars casing the neighborhood, not in the absence of blood in the house, not with an autopsy that could be interpreted as some kind of ritual killing, not with a dog wandering and a neighbor who claims he saw a pregnant lady walking a dog.
When they come up with that additional evidence that I haven't heard about yet, I'll be one of the first to jump on the bandwagon, believe me. I think he did it, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Give me a fingerprint on the duct tape, and I'll be ready to hang. But right now, it's a little premature. And it remains his property that was taken from his house.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.