Even in Death you can't escape CS...

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

From: "C"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

Such a poor boy! $3,000 per month is way too little to meet the basic needs of
this boy.

(Hobbit471) wrote in message ...
From: "C"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

Such a poor boy! $3,000 per month is way too little to meet the basic needs of
this boy.


I could have sworn that I posted to this, but I never did see my
reply, so I'm gonna have to do it again, GOD I hate that.
Well, I said before, in my missing post, that I have PMS and am going
to have to be a bitch about this one.
Since then I have developed a nasty case of pnuemonia, and I have not
slept in two days, so someone is not going to like this, and I assert
that that is too ****ing bad.
WHY DO WE GIVE A ****? Ray Charles is dead. I'm sure he is up in
heavne worrying himself silly about that money he left behind. He
don't care. Why should we?
I think they should give the kids ALL his money.
Well, I take that back. He should get a fair share of it.
BUT SOMEONE IS HOLDING ON TO THAT MONEY.
Greedy *******s.
His kid shouldn't be getting chld support, he should be getting his
ineritance and getting on with his life.
And his inheritance should be oodles and gobs of cash.
You guys crack me up. Talk about double sided.
You think that is too much, that it doesn't take that much to raise a
kid.
I've seen just about everyone complain about how much it takes to
raise a child, fair amounts, unfair amounts, etc.
I suspect that if your support was lowered you would expet your child
to be kept up to the same statndard of living that the child is now
accustomed to, on less money.
Maybe old Ray rode his son arund in cadillacs and rolls royce. Maybe
the kid had money to burn. Maybe his dad sent him to private schools
and gave the kid a visa with a revolving $50K per month and the mom
just got the 3k from him to do what she needed to do.
Maybe that is the kind of lifestyle that he wanted for his son.
And maybe it should be kept that way whether dad is alive or not.
And you also are so friggin biased it makes me sick.
Yeah, I get the guy who makes a whole of $400 a week having to give
out 50% or more leaving him with nothing to take care of his other
obligations, like food...but come on, Rays estate would barely miss
what she's been getting for the boy...I would venture to say that his
holdings made more than that in a month from interest alone.
Child support...****, that money belongs to that kid as his fathers
legal heir anyway.
So shut up already.

"witchwirsen" wrote in message
om...
(Hobbit471) wrote in message
...
From: "C"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

Such a poor boy! $3,000 per month is way too little to meet the basic
needs of
this boy.


I could have sworn that I posted to this, but I never did see my
reply, so I'm gonna have to do it again, GOD I hate that.
Well, I said before, in my missing post, that I have PMS and am going
to have to be a bitch about this one.
Since then I have developed a nasty case of pnuemonia, and I have not
slept in two days, so someone is not going to like this, and I assert
that that is too ****ing bad.
WHY DO WE GIVE A ****? Ray Charles is dead. I'm sure he is up in
heavne worrying himself silly about that money he left behind. He
don't care. Why should we?
I think they should give the kids ALL his money.
Well, I take that back. He should get a fair share of it.
BUT SOMEONE IS HOLDING ON TO THAT MONEY.
Greedy *******s.
-------------
I imagine that if he wanted the kid to inherit a certain amount of money he
would have written it into his will. Maybe the "greedy *******s" holding
onto it are people who he chose to give it to.
-------------
His kid shouldn't be getting chld support, he should be getting his
ineritance and getting on with his life.
-------------
Well, he is certainly entitled to social security death benefits.
-----------
And his inheritance should be oodles and gobs of cash.
----------
Not if he was left out of the will. There are ways to do that.
---------
You guys crack me up. Talk about double sided.
You think that is too much, that it doesn't take that much to raise a
kid.
I've seen just about everyone complain about how much it takes to
raise a child, fair amounts, unfair amounts, etc.
I suspect that if your support was lowered you would expet your child
to be kept up to the same statndard of living that the child is now
accustomed to, on less money.
-------------
The reality is that the standard of living should not be expected to remain
the same. There are now two separate households, how can the standard
remain the same?
-----------
Maybe old Ray rode his son arund in cadillacs and rolls royce. Maybe
the kid had money to burn. Maybe his dad sent him to private schools
and gave the kid a visa with a revolving $50K per month and the mom
just got the 3k from him to do what she needed to do.
Maybe that is the kind of lifestyle that he wanted for his son.
And maybe it should be kept that way whether dad is alive or not.
-------------
If that were true why then was support set at $3000 when he was alive? I'll
bet she would never consider this crap while he was alive.
-------------------
And you also are so friggin biased it makes me sick.
-----------
No. If $3000 was ordered by the court as a fair amount of cs while Ray was
alive why should it change to more because he died? In fact they should
subtract however much the kid receives from social security from the $3000.
That is the law in most states.
------------
Yeah, I get the guy who makes a whole of $400 a week having to give
out 50% or more leaving him with nothing to take care of his other
obligations, like food...but come on, Rays estate would barely miss
what she's been getting for the boy..
---------
It doesn't matter whether the amount would be 'missed' or not. The money
belonged to Ray. If $3000 was fair before it still is now.
------------
..I would venture to say that his
holdings made more than that in a month from interest alone.
Child support...****, that money belongs to that kid as his fathers
legal heir anyway.
--------------
He can be disinherited. There are ways to do that. If $3000 a month was
enough to support the kid when Ray was alive how is it 'suddenly' not enough
now? Just because a person has money doesn't mean everyone else is
'entitled' to a piece of the pie.
--------
So shut up already.
------
So kiss my ass already.

~AZ~

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ...
"witchwirsen" wrote in message
om...
(Hobbit471) wrote in message
...
From: "C"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

Such a poor boy! $3,000 per month is way too little to meet the basic
needs of
this boy.


I could have sworn that I posted to this, but I never did see my
reply, so I'm gonna have to do it again, GOD I hate that.
Well, I said before, in my missing post, that I have PMS and am going
to have to be a bitch about this one.
Since then I have developed a nasty case of pnuemonia, and I have not
slept in two days, so someone is not going to like this, and I assert
that that is too ****ing bad.
WHY DO WE GIVE A ****? Ray Charles is dead. I'm sure he is up in
heavne worrying himself silly about that money he left behind. He
don't care. Why should we?
I think they should give the kids ALL his money.
Well, I take that back. He should get a fair share of it.
BUT SOMEONE IS HOLDING ON TO THAT MONEY.
Greedy *******s.
-------------
I imagine that if he wanted the kid to inherit a certain amount of money he
would have written it into his will. Maybe the "greedy *******s" holding
onto it are people who he chose to give it to.
-------------Riiight...and maybe it's probate who tends to suck down the lions share of every estate and leave the family with nothing. Large estates such as this tend to take yeeeeeeeeeeears to tie up in probate, by thetime they get done there won't be much left for ANYONE, I hope that she gets the child support order and it comes fromt he estate BEFORE probate property division.
His kid shouldn't be getting chld support, he should be getting his
ineritance and getting on with his life.
-------------
Well, he is certainly entitled to social security death benefits.
-----------So?
And his inheritance should be oodles and gobs of cash.
----------
Not if he was left out of the will. There are ways to do that.
---------Uh huh. Paint me a picture of a dad who ut his child out of his will...I know you are just dying to...go ahead. You're full of ****. You know it too.
You guys crack me up. Talk about double sided.
You think that is too much, that it doesn't take that much to raise a
kid.
I've seen just about everyone complain about how much it takes to
raise a child, fair amounts, unfair amounts, etc.
I suspect that if your support was lowered you would expet your child
to be kept up to the same statndard of living that the child is now
accustomed to, on less money.
-------------
The reality is that the standard of living should not be expected to remain
the same. There are now two separate households, how can the standard
remain the same?
-----------Hmmmm, good question. Not.
Maybe old Ray rode his son arund in cadillacs and rolls royce. Maybe
the kid had money to burn. Maybe his dad sent him to private schools
and gave the kid a visa with a revolving $50K per month and the mom
just got the 3k from him to do what she needed to do.
Maybe that is the kind of lifestyle that he wanted for his son.
And maybe it should be kept that way whether dad is alive or not.
-------------
If that were true why then was support set at $3000 when he was alive? I'll
bet she would never consider this crap while he was alive.
-------------------I'll also bet that he did a whole lot more for the chid AND mother when he was alive than what would ever be reflected in his child support payemnt amount. SHe probably didn't HAVE to consider it when he was alive.
And you also are so friggin biased it makes me sick.
-----------
No. If $3000 was ordered by the court as a fair amount of cs while Ray was
alive why should it change to more because he died? In fact they should
subtract however much the kid receives from social security from the $3000.
That is the law in most states.
------------Maybe it wasn't ordered. Maybe it was just a number agreed upon by both parental parties. Courts DO let you do that. Well, unless you are a deadbeat. Then you just get ordered.
Yeah, I get the guy who makes a whole of $400 a week having to give
out 50% or more leaving him with nothing to take care of his other
obligations, like food...but come on, Rays estate would barely miss
what she's been getting for the boy..
---------
It doesn't matter whether the amount would be 'missed' or not. The money
belonged to Ray. If $3000 was fair before it still is now.
------------There is your KEY WORD "BELONGED'.
.I would venture to say that his
holdings made more than that in a month from interest alone.
Child support...****, that money belongs to that kid as his fathers
legal heir anyway.
--------------
He can be disinherited. There are ways to do that. If $3000 a month was
enough to support the kid when Ray was alive how is it 'suddenly' not enough
now? Just because a person has money doesn't mean everyone else is
'entitled' to a piece of the pie.
--------*I* didn't say everyone else was entitled...I said his KIDS. 3K wsa probably enough when dad was alive, he was probably a pretty generous soul who did a whole lot more than pay the 3K and leave it at that. Now the boy is probably missing all the extras that his dad provided him...hard to fathom someone doing MORE than their fair share?
So shut up already.
------
So kiss my ass already.

Youa re ALL ass...I don't have the time to dawdle. Thanks for the
invitation anyway.

~AZ~

"witchwirsen" wrote in message
om...
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
"witchwirsen" wrote in message
om...
(Hobbit471) wrote in message
...
From: "C"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

Such a poor boy! $3,000 per month is way too little to meet the
basic
needs of
this boy.


I could have sworn that I posted to this, but I never did see my
reply, so I'm gonna have to do it again, GOD I hate that.
Well, I said before, in my missing post, that I have PMS and am going
to have to be a bitch about this one.
Since then I have developed a nasty case of pnuemonia, and I have not
slept in two days, so someone is not going to like this, and I assert
that that is too ****ing bad.
WHY DO WE GIVE A ****? Ray Charles is dead. I'm sure he is up in
heavne worrying himself silly about that money he left behind. He
don't care. Why should we?
I think they should give the kids ALL his money.
Well, I take that back. He should get a fair share of it.
BUT SOMEONE IS HOLDING ON TO THAT MONEY.
Greedy *******s.
-------------
I imagine that if he wanted the kid to inherit a certain amount of money
he
would have written it into his will. Maybe the "greedy *******s"
holding
onto it are people who he chose to give it to.
-------------Riiight...and maybe it's probate who tends to suck down the
lions share of every estate and leave the family with nothing. Large
estates such as this tend to take yeeeeeeeeeeears to tie up in probate, by
thetime they get done there won't be much left for ANYONE, I hope that she
gets the child support order and it comes fromt he estate BEFORE probate
property division.
-------------
It's pretty much hard to tell by what info was given. We could insert our
own ideas about the situation and still be wrong. For instance, maybe this
kid was the product of a one night stand and Ray never knew it existed until
it was a teenager. Maybe he had never laid eyes on it. And in the article
she claims she needs the money to provide "the lifestyle he enjoyed before
his father's death June 10". But if the appropriate amount was $3000 before
he died it's hard to believe that it suddenly increased to justify getting
$2,889,600 a year or even the $720,000 a year she would accept if she had
to. Cs is always based on the lifestyle the kid enjoyed before the break up
so evidently the $3000 was based on this to begin with. I doubt that if
this was not the case that she would agree to that amount for 16 years when
she knew she could get a lot more. She's just got brazen because he's not
there to tell her to **** off.

That's my take on it.

~AZ~
His kid shouldn't be getting chld support, he should be getting his
ineritance and getting on with his life.
-------------
Well, he is certainly entitled to social security death benefits.
-----------So?
And his inheritance should be oodles and gobs of cash.
----------
Not if he was left out of the will. There are ways to do that.
---------Uh huh. Paint me a picture of a dad who ut his child out of
his will...I know you are just dying to...go ahead. You're full of ****.
You know it too.
You guys crack me up. Talk about double sided.
You think that is too much, that it doesn't take that much to raise a
kid.
I've seen just about everyone complain about how much it takes to
raise a child, fair amounts, unfair amounts, etc.
I suspect that if your support was lowered you would expet your child
to be kept up to the same statndard of living that the child is now
accustomed to, on less money.
-------------
The reality is that the standard of living should not be expected to
remain
the same. There are now two separate households, how can the standard
remain the same?
-----------Hmmmm, good question. Not.
Maybe old Ray rode his son arund in cadillacs and rolls royce. Maybe
the kid had money to burn. Maybe his dad sent him to private schools
and gave the kid a visa with a revolving $50K per month and the mom
just got the 3k from him to do what she needed to do.
Maybe that is the kind of lifestyle that he wanted for his son.
And maybe it should be kept that way whether dad is alive or not.
-------------
If that were true why then was support set at $3000 when he was alive?
I'll
bet she would never consider this crap while he was alive.
-------------------I'll also bet that he did a whole lot more for the
chid AND mother when he was alive than what would ever be reflected in his
child support payemnt amount. SHe probably didn't HAVE to consider it when
he was alive.
And you also are so friggin biased it makes me sick.
-----------
No. If $3000 was ordered by the court as a fair amount of cs while Ray
was
alive why should it change to more because he died? In fact they should
subtract however much the kid receives from social security from the
$3000.
That is the law in most states.
------------Maybe it wasn't ordered. Maybe it was just a number agreed
upon by both parental parties. Courts DO let you do that. Well, unless you
are a deadbeat. Then you just get ordered.
Yeah, I get the guy who makes a whole of $400 a week having to give
out 50% or more leaving him with nothing to take care of his other
obligations, like food...but come on, Rays estate would barely miss
what she's been getting for the boy..
---------
It doesn't matter whether the amount would be 'missed' or not. The money
belonged to Ray. If $3000 was fair before it still is now.
------------There is your KEY WORD "BELONGED'.
.I would venture to say that his
holdings made more than that in a month from interest alone.
Child support...****, that money belongs to that kid as his fathers
legal heir anyway.
--------------
He can be disinherited. There are ways to do that. If $3000 a month
was
enough to support the kid when Ray was alive how is it 'suddenly' not
enough
now? Just because a person has money doesn't mean everyone else is
'entitled' to a piece of the pie.
--------*I* didn't say everyone else was entitled...I said his KIDS. 3K
wsa probably enough when dad was alive, he was probably a pretty generous
soul who did a whole lot more than pay the 3K and leave it at that. Now the
boy is probably missing all the extras that his dad provided him...hard to
fathom someone doing MORE than their fair share?
So shut up already.
------
So kiss my ass already.

Youa re ALL ass...I don't have the time to dawdle. Thanks for the
invitation anyway.

~AZ~

Subject: Even in Death you can't escape CS...
From: (witchwirsen)
Date: 8/19/2004 1:21 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(Hobbit471) wrote in message
...
From: "C"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

Such a poor boy! $3,000 per month is way too little to meet the basic needs
of
this boy.


I could have sworn that I posted to this, but I never did see my
reply, so I'm gonna have to do it again, GOD I hate that.

WHY DO WE GIVE A ****? Ray Charles is dead. I'm sure he is up in
heavne worrying himself silly about that money he left behind. He
don't care. Why should we?
I think they should give the kids ALL his money.
Well, I take that back. He should get a fair share of it.
BUT SOMEONE IS HOLDING ON TO THAT MONEY.
Greedy *******s.

Maybe Mr. Charles left his money in a trust for his son until he reached a
specific age. But the "Greedy *******s" are the mom and her lawyer.

The point is she is sueing a dead man for more CS.

His kid shouldn't be getting chld support, he should be getting his
ineritance and getting on with his life.

Maybve he already has gotten it, and what was left to him was not much. So
greedy mom wanted more...

And his inheritance should be oodles and gobs of cash.

You read Ray Charles' will?

You guys crack me up. Talk about double sided.
You think that is too much, that it doesn't take that much to raise a
kid.
I've seen just about everyone complain about how much it takes to
raise a child, fair amounts, unfair amounts, etc.
I suspect that if your support was lowered you would expet your child
to be kept up to the same statndard of living that the child is now
accustomed to, on less money.

Speaking for myself alone, I expect the custodial parent to put their fair
share of $$ in towards supporting their child[ren] and not depending solely
upon the dad to support both her and the kid[s].

Child support...****, that money belongs to that kid as his fathers
legal heir anyway.

Then mommy has NO legal right to ask for more $$.

(Hobbit471) wrote in message ...
Subject: Even in Death you can't escape CS...
From: (witchwirsen)
Date: 8/19/2004 1:21 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(Hobbit471) wrote in message
...
From: "C"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

Such a poor boy! $3,000 per month is way too little to meet the basic needs
of
this boy.


I could have sworn that I posted to this, but I never did see my
reply, so I'm gonna have to do it again, GOD I hate that.

WHY DO WE GIVE A ****? Ray Charles is dead. I'm sure he is up in
heavne worrying himself silly about that money he left behind. He
don't care. Why should we?
I think they should give the kids ALL his money.
Well, I take that back. He should get a fair share of it.
BUT SOMEONE IS HOLDING ON TO THAT MONEY.
Greedy *******s.

Maybe Mr. Charles left his money in a trust for his son until he reached a
specific age. But the "Greedy *******s" are the mom and her lawyer.

Could be. Maybe not. Who knows?

The point is she is sueing a dead man for more CS.

Are you having a lapse of sanity? You cannot sue a dead PERSON. Only
the estate of a deceased.
His kid shouldn't be getting chld support, he should be getting his
ineritance and getting on with his life.

Maybve he already has gotten it, and what was left to him was not much. So
greedy mom wanted more...

Or maybe not. Maybe it hasn't come along yet, maybe it's still in
probate, maybe maybe maybe.

And his inheritance should be oodles and gobs of cash.

You read Ray Charles' will?

Did I somehow imply that I did? If I had that kind of cash laying
about I would think that my kids would get oodles. Maybe yours
wouldn't so that is why you are making an issue of that statement?

You guys crack me up. Talk about double sided.
You think that is too much, that it doesn't take that much to raise a
kid.
I've seen just about everyone complain about how much it takes to
raise a child, fair amounts, unfair amounts, etc.
I suspect that if your support was lowered you would expet your child
to be kept up to the same statndard of living that the child is now
accustomed to, on less money.

Speaking for myself alone, I expect the custodial parent to put their fair
share of $$ in towards supporting their child[ren] and not depending solely
upon the dad to support both her and the kid[s].

Child support...****, that money belongs to that kid as his fathers
legal heir anyway.

Then mommy has NO legal right to ask for more $$.

I will agree with you when the child reaches maturity and can legally
act on his own behalf. Until then the mother has a right to look
after the sons interests. Win or lose, makes no difference in my
opinion.

We could come up with all kinds of scenarios to justify our thoughts
on the possibilities, but lets face facts, we don't know the whole
story, we don't know what is going on, just what was posted in some
little news clipping.

Some would just assume that a mother is out to sue a dead man.
Nothing more to it, nothing less. It's pretty sick if you ask me.

I would like to think if it were the same situation for me (if I had
died and left all that money) that my x would file too and get all
that he could for himself and my kids before the state took it all.

And I would do the same were he the one deceased.

"witchwirsen" wrote in message
om...
(Hobbit471) wrote in message
...
Subject: Even in Death you can't escape CS...
From: (witchwirsen)
Date: 8/19/2004 1:21 AM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:

(Hobbit471) wrote in message
...
From: "C"
Date: 8/14/2004 5:32 PM US Mountain Standard Time
Message-id:


http://canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...4/CPE/32439025

Mother of Ray Charles's son asks court to award more child support

Such a poor boy! $3,000 per month is way too little to meet the basic
needs
of
this boy.


I could have sworn that I posted to this, but I never did see my
reply, so I'm gonna have to do it again, GOD I hate that.

WHY DO WE GIVE A ****? Ray Charles is dead. I'm sure he is up in
heavne worrying himself silly about that money he left behind. He
don't care. Why should we?
I think they should give the kids ALL his money.
Well, I take that back. He should get a fair share of it.
BUT SOMEONE IS HOLDING ON TO THAT MONEY.
Greedy *******s.

Maybe Mr. Charles left his money in a trust for his son until he reached
a
specific age. But the "Greedy *******s" are the mom and her lawyer.

Could be. Maybe not. Who knows?
-----------
You were the one who started with this spin crap.
---------

The point is she is sueing a dead man for more CS.

Are you having a lapse of sanity? You cannot sue a dead PERSON. Only
the estate of a deceased.
His kid shouldn't be getting chld support, he should be getting his
ineritance and getting on with his life.

Maybve he already has gotten it, and what was left to him was not much.
So
greedy mom wanted more...

Or maybe not. Maybe it hasn't come along yet, maybe it's still in
probate, maybe maybe maybe.
------------
Why are you being so snotty? You were the one starting with the 'maybe's'.
-----------

And his inheritance should be oodles and gobs of cash.

You read Ray Charles' will?

Did I somehow imply that I did? If I had that kind of cash laying
about I would think that my kids would get oodles. Maybe yours
wouldn't so that is why you are making an issue of that statement?
-------------
If you had that kind of cash lying around you could give it to your kids or
not. In this case the money is not yours. Just because you are related to
somebody doesn't mean you can't be cut out of the will.
------------

You guys crack me up. Talk about double sided.
You think that is too much, that it doesn't take that much to raise a
kid.
I've seen just about everyone complain about how much it takes to
raise a child, fair amounts, unfair amounts, etc.
I suspect that if your support was lowered you would expet your child
to be kept up to the same statndard of living that the child is now
accustomed to, on less money.

Speaking for myself alone, I expect the custodial parent to put their
fair
share of $$ in towards supporting their child[ren] and not depending
solely
upon the dad to support both her and the kid[s].

Child support...****, that money belongs to that kid as his fathers
legal heir anyway.

Then mommy has NO legal right to ask for more $$.

I will agree with you when the child reaches maturity and can legally
act on his own behalf. Until then the mother has a right to look
after the sons interests. Win or lose, makes no difference in my
opinion.
-------------
If the kid has been disinherited then their is no interest to look after.
You lose.
----------

We could come up with all kinds of scenarios to justify our thoughts
on the possibilities, but lets face facts, we don't know the whole
story, we don't know what is going on, just what was posted in some
little news clipping.
---------
Why are you playing the game then?
---------

Some would just assume that a mother is out to sue a dead man.
Nothing more to it, nothing less. It's pretty sick if you ask me.
-----------
And they would have as much of a chance at being right as you are. Women
who insist that everything is owed to them by virtue of being a moomy is
sick if you ask me.
----------

I would like to think if it were the same situation for me (if I had
died and left all that money) that my x would file too and get all
that he could for himself and my kids before the state took it all.
---------------
If you had a lot of money and died intestate, well, first off you would be
stupid. Then your estate would be split up according to the law. If you
had half a brain and cared about and wanted to be sure your kid got a
certain amount of your estate you would have a will. It doesn't sound like
Ray died intestate so either he didn't include her kid in the will or he did
but she wants more. Either way she is a greedy bitch. If $3000 a month was
adequate the month before he died then it's adequate the month after he
died.
------------

And I would do the same were he the one deceased.
-----------
Of this I have no doubt.

~AZ~