Hans Reiser Sued By Own Kids For $15 Million 265
New submitter haruchai writes "The Reiser kids, now aged 12 and 11, have had a lawsuit filed against the former Linux developer, inventor of ReiserFS and convicted murderer of the mother of his children, to the tune of $15 million. It's believed he may have hidden assets and a judgment is sought so a search for these can be conducted."
A judge denied requests that the kids testify or return to the U.S. for their own well-being.
Maniacs, all maniacs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see the validity of your lucid argument and agree with you.
Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
No no no. Her problem was she learned from ReiserFS to NEVER GO DOWN ...
Greetings From A Maniacal Free Software Fanatic! (Score:2, Informative)
And your point is?
"Mania" is no joke. A symptom of my own Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder, Mania is a euphoric state of m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can have violent criminal maniacs such as gangsters who are psychologically "normal", albeit sociopathic.
Few, if any, manic depressives are murderers. .
Re: (Score:2)
yeah proprietary vendors are so much more stable..
developers developers developers developers! developers developers developers developers! DEVELOP.....
*chairs are thrown*
Re: (Score:2)
Open source doesn't mean you need to be insane to be a contributer. The majority are actually good people. However a lot of people get into open source because they can't get a job elsewhere and needs to prove their skills.
Now many may be college kids or people who's job is just so humdrum that they want a little fun. However some may be people who are bit off in the head and give employers the creeps. You may be the best person for the job, however if you give your employer bad feelings, they won't hire y
Re: (Score:2)
This just shows that FOSS fanatics are maniacs in real life too, and can't be trusted. I mean come on, you put your business into hands of these maniacs? Maniacs!
Just like every corporation is run by the likes of Kenneth Lay and Bernie Madoff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if you are trolling, or seriously believe the shit your trying to sell....
Open source versus closed source is not an indication of a trust in a persons professional capacity or ethics. To try to say that this man's mental state is any way indicative of all mental states of open source developers is just offensive and stupid.
As for trust being placed in a high level developer of any software platform, it is actually a benefit when the source is available. You see, it then becomes inherently po
Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (Score:5, Interesting)
Open source versus closed source is not an indication of a trust in a persons professional capacity or ethics. To try to say that this man's mental state is any way indicative of all mental states of open source developers is just offensive and stupid.
And yet GP (gweihir, here [slashdot.org]) strongly implied that the OPs trolling was indicative of all "opponents of FOSS"-- and got modded +5 for it. Double standard much?
Im not saying YOU'RE wrong, its just wacky how someone can say almost anything supportive of FOSS on this site and get modded up for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the majority of the people on /. is a FOSS supporter, and acts accordingly.
Nobody forbids FOSS detractors to voice their opinion or vote down comments, it's just that there's not enough of them.
Re: (Score:2)
As has often been pointed out there is no -1 "I disagree with this person's genuinely held and sensibly expressed beliefs" moderation option for a good reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read my statement again. Hint: "If opponents..." means "If some opponents..." or "If this one opponent ...", nothing in there about "all". And no, the "strongly implied" is really just in your mind, it is neither in the text I wrote, not was it what I intended to say. What I intended to say referred exactly to this one opponent and all others that made the same statement.
True, there are people that would have though exactly what you accuse me of, but I did not and you cannot judge otherwise from what I wrot
Re: (Score:2)
And yet GP (gweihir, here [slashdot.org]) strongly implied that the OPs trolling was indicative of all "opponents of FOSS"-- and got modded +5 for it. Double standard much?
No, it's not indicative of all people who are opponents of FOSS. It's indicative of the generally useless anti-FOSS trolls you get on slashdot.
It is perfectly possible to disagree with FOSS here, you just can't expect to say "FOSS is shit" and not get modded down for it.
The over-zealousness of pro-FOSS modding down any post which doesn't wholeheartedly support FOSS is a separate issue.
Re: (Score:3)
But this is the problem - some FOSS *is* shit, but some people will continue to insist that all FOSS is silver and gold with no concern with what the real world is like. There are definitely a lot of bright shining jewels such as Apache and of course the Linux kernel itself, but there are just too many people that aren't willing to accept that there are some commercial package
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree with you. (And the AC that keeps insulting me proves repeatedly that he cannot read): There are FOSS zealots and to them, everything FOSS is golden. Nothing could be further from the truth, there is quite a bit of bad FOSS out there, some of it high profile.
As to availability, that cuts both ways. You can still tell that much of the FOSS culture comes from high-reliability server operations, not desktop. Hence things like Apache and the Linux kernel on one side and Photoshop and gaming on
Re: (Score:3)
Mac OS X is not really Unix in many ways. It has a BSD kernel and you can expose its Unix side, but most people only see the window manager and tools and they are Mac, not Unix in a very real way.
Re: (Score:2)
In comparison, closed source world has actual code verification and QA. There are tons of PRICY applications made for this.
Not sure if you meant PRICEY or PRICKY there...
Either way, saying that paid-for proprietary software must be better because you pay more for it, is simply begging the question.
Re: (Score:2)
In comparison, closed source world has actual code verification and QA.
A lot less than you think.
Re: (Score:3)
If QA had infinite resources and time, they'd be happy, but they don't, so there will always be things that can't be found until after release. That's NOT based on your type of sourcing.
For that matter, fixes are also something that varies. I've seen real issues (non-cosmetic) go for years
Re: (Score:2)
You're fucking idiot. It's Bazaar, asshole, not bizarre.
Re: (Score:2)
Has the no-warranty clause in a standard EULA
Re: (Score:3)
Reiser was never "highly trusted". Some people did trust his filesystem, but most did not. It never really made it out of beta and had some real issues until the end as he refused to play with the community. You comparison to Microsoft is deeply flawed, and either you are trolling or you have no clue. ReiserFS is more like add-on software, made by some obscure company. Yes, it was/is in the kernel sources. But that does mean something completely different than it would mean for Microsoft. You are free no no
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you're a shill.
I think you're a troll parodying a shill.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you're a shill.
I think you're a troll parodying a shill.
Well said. Too many people here have knee jerk reactions as soon as someone mentions FOSS in a negative way. Feeding a subtle troll is still feeding a troll.
"sued by own kids" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure...
His kids don't know what the heck is going on. As always, the kids are just tools in the machinations of the adults.
Re:"sued by own kids" (Score:5, Funny)
In America, you sue kids?! ;)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
yes [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
In America, you sue everybody!
Re: (Score:2)
You do if you do if you're the RIAA [foxnews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
A kid is merely an adult who we haven't chosen to blame yet.
If children had the rights of adults, that would be true, instead of just nonsense left anonymously and cowardly.
Re: (Score:2)
just follow the money....
Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, I guess the guardians can't wait that long. Besides, what are they going to do if he doesn't cooperate, throw him in jail?
Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
They're after hidden assets - which are going to be hard to claim after his death when no-one knows it exists (in a related note, I do sometimes wonder indeed what happens to such hidden Swiss bank accounts, where only the account holder knows of, when this person dies). They don't know whether he has any money, they think he does, and are trying to find that out.
Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
I see. I know many countries have laws that stipulate that such unclaimed heritage goes to the government, which then can use it for the general good. Sounds very reasonable to me; better than having it go to the profit of some private business.
Re: (Score:2)
better than having it go to the profit of some private business.
- why? It would be better if this money was used by the bank to loan it to start a new business, maybe some form of VC, giving money to government is always the wrong way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
why? It would be better if this money was used by the bank to loan it to start a new business, maybe some form of VC, giving money to government is always the wrong way to go.
No, it would be foolish to give banks a powerful motivation to never reconnect with the account holders. They need to be free to serve their customers' best interests without a bunch of distracting $100K carrots dangling in front of their noses.
"See, Mr. Auditor, I sent a letter to the account holder. How was I to know that it was sent to the wrong address?" (Gets large bonus later.)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now the banks on their own volition hold the account open for a long time (actually in one of my banks the account will stay open for 99 years) until it's considered 'lost'. The bank doesn't care what's in the account individually, because the bank uses fractional lending to create counterfeit money anyway because of government insurance, it basically doesn't matter to the bank whether the money in it is your or 'banks', it treats the money in the same rotten manner with all these gov't moral hazards
Re: (Score:2)
The money given to the bank, whether or not they are put into a new loan, becomes pure profit. Usually banks earn a couple cents for every dollar deposited, now they earn the whole dollar.
- and this is a problem how? The more profit the bank makes by loaning this money out, the more of this money can be reused as investment capital. Give it to government and watch no investment into productive uses, only waste. Sure, they can fund more wars and more welfare, but none of it creates new business. These are SAVINGS, not TAXES, the taxes were paid already, the government got what it wanted, using the money to grow business will also generate more taxes, just handing money to government for no
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get all bent out of shape -- giving money to the government is exactly like giving money to banks, though the reverse is not true. But so what, as long as the money winds up in the pocket of a billionaire so he can hire a few more maidservants -- everything is great. I mean, charity for the rich, that's how you make jobs right?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll care about that type of point of view when the new businesses start going to the poor for loans.
Of-course today it's impossible to get a business loan in all these countries that devalue their currencies, and you are right - banks and government are essentially one and the same (and military industrial complex, etc.), but that link doesn't have to exist, that is precisely why Government must be shackled by the chains of Constitution and prevented from meddling in the economy and money, prevented from p
Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bank didn't "earn" that money either. The only earned whatever fees and/or interests contracted with the account holder. If they hold it for 30 years, then they have 30 years of fees to subtract from the account, nothing more.
Yes, they did. (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason the bank protected peoples' money for many years in the first place, and why Switzerland draws so many international deposits, is because they have a long record of effective government, an independent legal system and bank controls. Moreover, given that most modern governments guarantee deposits up to a certain level (100k CHF in this case), much of the depository risk is borne by the government and ultimately the tax payer, not the bank. And the bank has already made its (legitimate) profit by having access to the principal to lend against for many years. But hey, when you can ignore those inconvenient facts to privatize profits while socializing the risk, you gotta do it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
. Moreover, given that most modern governments guarantee deposits up to a certain level (100k CHF in this case), much of the depository risk is borne by the government and ultimately the tax payer, not the bank.
Banks pay premiums for that insurance based on how many deposits the government has to take over. The reason government does it is that it's the only counterparty big enough to assume that risk -- no private insurer has enough assets to make it a credible backstop.
So the inconvenient facts here are the same as in any insurance scheme -- a small trickle of cash in exchange for a assuming the risk of large but rare events. The taxpayer here is not being had any more than any other insurer in this arrangement.
Re:Yes, they did. (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason the bank protected peoples' money for many years in the first place, and why Switzerland draws so many international deposits, is because they have (IMO) a long history of completely ignoring illegal deposits and are complicit in money laundering. They are the first bank of criminal enterprises that want guaranteed security without fear of disclosure or seizure. Why else do you think they were the bankers of the Nazi's? Why else do you think most of the worlds wealthiest citizens and biggest despots store "hidden" money in swiss accounts?
The Swiss have always been the bankers for the evilest people in the world and they have been because they don't care who you are or where your money came from. According to the lawsuit the US government is undertaking against the Swiss banks they not only solicited but actively assisted US citizens in hiding assets. Investigations by other countries have revealed the same pattern of behavior. There is a bit of purity in not caring about where the money came from, but a lot of that money is covered in blood and the Swiss have never cared.
Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
So if you hold my money for years, then I want it back, you have to give it to me and get nothing extra. But if I die without instructions then you get to just keep it? Seems like that gives you the wrong sort of incentive.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you hold my money for years, then I want it back, you have to give it to me and get nothing extra. But if I die without instructions then you get to just keep it? Seems like that gives you the wrong sort of incentive.
Well, duh! Why do you think we have all these bank assassins walking around? Yes, that one over there carrying an umbrella, despite it being sunny! And the guy in the pinstripe suit on the park bench. Don't tell me you haven't noticed!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the private business that safeguarded it for all that time?
Ordinarily I would take the side of the private sector against government, but in this case you really don't want to give the entity holding the money a strong motivation to not reconnect with the account-holder. The bank needs to be free to work in the best interests of their customers. If they were claiming $100K accounts left and right you know their corporate strategies would be tweaked to optimize that income stream.
I don't trust the government very much either. The MAX_WAIT_TIME should be very, very l
Re: (Score:3)
No, they're mainly the recipients of charity, public charity, but not often, since they can't be bothered to lift a sack for mere billions.
It's not just me. I see you took flak from numerous parties over this post. Well, surprise, slashdot hasn't yet descended to the level of FOX News where "abracadabra private sector sweat equity hocus pocus confiscatory government alacazam redistributive charity" completely shuts done brain blood supply to the critical faculties.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds very reasonable to me; better than having it go to the profit of some private business.
You mean the private business that safeguarded it for all that time?
You know banks arent charities, right? That they arent safeguarding your money and providing interest for the general good?
Seems perfectly fair if I agree to hold people's money and take liability for it for many years, and you disappear with no will or anything else, that I should keep the money (assuming no heirs or next of kin) rather than the government-- after all, the government already gets a big piece of the pie, but THIS piece they didnt earn.
You want the bank to be paid twice? They're already being paid from the deposit (by gambling with the money in the account, and/or by charging a yearly fee).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the government which gets it ultimately. It's the people.
That's not what the previous poster was describing. Split the proceeds between everyone and I'll agree that it is going to the people. Get spent by a government, even a democratic one, and well, I won't agree.
My view on this is that a bank is as good a place as any, but being allowed to keep your funds under certain conditions is a conflict of interest. You don't want banks offing people because they could get a lot of money out of the deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After a few decades, the inactive account/deposit becomes state's property. That's how Switzerland became THAT rich: offer capital safeguarding during Wolrd Wars, aware that there's always someone who won't come back to claim it.
Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (Score:5, Informative)
According to wired [wired.com], the lawyers are working pro bono on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that actually mean they expect to get a cut?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Pro bono" is short for the Latin phrase pro bono publico, meaning "for the Public Good". Implying that the work will be performed for free as the profit is a better world for everyone.
As opposed, to "Pro Sunny Bono", which means that you can sue people for copyright infringements on works your great-great grandparent did and to which you contributed nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, working Edward de Bono would seem more appropriate.
Hidden assets. (Score:5, Funny)
It's believed he may have hidden assets and a judgment is sought so a search for these can be conducted.
Probably in an vnode. Try "reiserfsck".
Re: (Score:2)
this will involve lawyers.
try 'man clusterfsck' for more info.
Re: (Score:2)
try 'man clusterfsck' for more info.
error: man page not found.
Did you mean glusterfsck?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's an info page?
Re: (Score:3)
Odds are good you'll have to dd him into a larger volume before recovery can work.
Re: (Score:2)
"Gonzalez also said Reiser – who was Linux software developer – may have intellectual property rights to some of the projects he was working on."
ReiserFS could be bought/licensed by Microsoft ...
"FAT64FS"
Re: (Score:2)
Probably in an vnode.
Heh. Wherever the assets are, they're probably not in one place - scattered all over creation would be more likely.
Children that sue? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder who really initiated the suit. Not likely the kids: what do they know about money, at that age, let alone law suits? Why would those children suspect the existence of hidden assets? They probably don't even know what the word means.
So other than these two children, who's going to benefit? Is this initiated by some lawyers that do the suing on behalf of the children? Is it initiated by their legal guardian who hopes to get access to (part of) that money?
Re:Children that sue? (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder who really initiated the suit. Not likely the kids: what do they know about money, at that age
The lawsuit was initiated by the children's grand mother (Nina Reisers mother) who is their legal guardian and with whom the children now live in Russia.
I don't pretend to know anything about her motives, but I don't see anything wrong with a grand mother trying to secure her grandchildren's future. Especially after all they have been through.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think a 12 year old doesn't know what money is and want it, you've never had a 12 year old...
Posting anonymously because I'm moderating.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder who really initiated the suit.
His wife? Google tells me she may still be alive... although strangely nothing dated since he confessed and lead the authorities to where he buried her and the body was positively identified as Nina... I've never known facts to stop the conspiracy nuts so abruptly.
Re: (Score:3)
I know where the assets are hidden! (Score:4, Funny)
It's stuffed in the back seat of his car!
If Hans offers to drive his children to where the money is hidden, I hope they will have the sense to take a cab instead.
Re: (Score:2)
And then he didn't put it back!
Re: (Score:2)
That Han wouldn't have fucked up so badly. Also the cops would have been reduced to shooting at random while he lifted off and made the jump into hyperspace.
What was the business worth? (Score:2)
IIRC Reiser was trying to sell his company after he was arrested, but I doubt he got 15*10^6 USD for it, and a lot would have gone to lawyers.
he changed IT culture... (Score:3, Funny)
Before Hans Reiser when debating one man projects they would always say "what if the lead developer gets hit by a bus?" now it's said "what if the lead developer gets arrested for murder?"
The ego the size of the plamet. (Score:5, Informative)
It's five in the morning here and I am in no mood to be charitable.
The lawsuit was initiated by the children's grandmother. Their legal guardian. Her lawyers are working pro bono.
No fees. No slice of the pie. Got that?
Moving on.
Reiser is defending himself.
In a way, he is always defending himself. Reiser, it seems, can do no wrong.
He is the one who asked the judge to drag the kids into court.
"Why?" you ask.
What he wanted to do was to draw them into a grandiose scheme to promote his new and improved conspiracy theories and defense for the murder. The judge isn't playing along.
He claims his wife was abusing the kids, that she had Factitious disorder by proxy --- often referred to as Munchausen syndrome by proxy --- where a caregiver harms or even kills someone they are in charge of in order to gain sympathy and attention. During the 2008 trial, Reiser alluded to that as well, accusing his wife of having the disease when she wanted to get their son surgery for severe hearing loss.
In the unlawful death case, he now says why: ''I defended my children from harm.'' He added that, by murdering his wife, ''I stopped multiple felonies by doing so.''
In his papers, he accuses the courts, the prison system, county children's services, his trial attorneys and others of conspiring against him, during his murder trial and now in the civil case.
''There are extensive legal grounds under multiple arguments for defending an innocent child when the state will not, at the cost of a non-innocent party's life,'' Hans Reiser wrote.
Convicted of Murder, Linux Guru Hans Reiser Returns to Court to Fight Civil Suit [wired.com]
"Wired" has it all, in Reiser's own handwriting.
More.
The beginning of Monday's trial was marked by impatience from the judge and the children's legal team. The complaint against Reiser was originally filed in August 2008 by the children's maternal grandmother and legal guardian, Irina Sharanova. The case has been stalled as Reiser filed various motions to delay proceedings and claimed that he has not had adequate access to his legal documents while at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga.
''This trial has been pending for a really long time,'' said Judge Dennis Hayashi about the pretrial claims. ''I also made it clear that I'm not delaying this any further. ... We need to move on.''
Reiser, dressed in his orange prison uniform and appearing antsy at Hayashi's denials, has subpoenaed his children to appear in court.
They are living in Russia with Sharanova and are not expected at the trial, [Sharanova's attorney] said.
"I personally don't think it would do the children any good to come here and testify in this trial,"
"They'd have to relive what they went through as very young children."
Both of the children were at their father's house in the Montclair district when the killing is believed to have taken place.
Jury selection begins in Hans Reiser civil trial [mercurynews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this. :-/ It's an unhappy set of facts, but I think it's an accurate reading.
I had hoped that Hans would give up on the self-justifications. It seemed like his over-inflated ego collapsed when he admitted to the murder, but it seems back in full-force now. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
On October 10, 2006, following the second search of his home, Oakland police and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) investigators removed a number of items. HSI had been investigating Reiser for money laundering. Police announced that they were now treating the disappearance as a homicide case, and Reiser was arrested for the murder of Nina Reiser.
Hans Reiser [wikipedia.org]
Ya well we already knew that (Score:5, Interesting)
His mouth was what got him convicted in the first place. The prosecution's case against him was circumstantial. It was fairly good, but as I said circumstantial, no physical evidence, not even any evidence his wife was dead. While they can and do get convictions on that (they wouldn't bring it to trial if it never worked) it is harder.
There is a reasonable chance he may have gotten off had he kept his trap shut and let his legal team work. They did have an at least somewhat plausible theory: That his wife had run off to Russia. While that isn't without issues to poke holes in, it might just have been plausible enough, combined with the lack of physical evidence, to generate reasonable doubt.
However he insisted on taking the stand and that was the end of him. Between his completely arrogant attitude and his logical inconsistencies, the prosecution was able to just skewer him on cross examination, sealing the outcome.
The problem is he has a sever case of something many geeks seem to have: Smartest Motherfucker in the Universe Syndrome. He really believes he is WAY smarter than everyone else and he's not afraid to let everyone know it. While he may consider that he's doing people a favour by "enlightening" them to his superior intellect, most people see that as being an arrogant prick and don't like him for it. Also, it leads him to believe he can get away with shit like, say, murder. He can do as he pleases because he's so much smarter than everyone, there's no way those poor dummies can ever catch up with him.
Hence, this bullshit. He still thinks he's smarter than the courts, the police, the lawyers.
Can this be used to get a re-trial? (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, but it seems plausible that this can be used as an evidence of fraud in Hans' marriage/divorce/custody, what substantially changes the circumstances of killing Nina Reiser, invalidating the whole previous trial.
Errr... no. (Score:2)
Firstly, lots of people have bad divorces. That's never going to fly as circumstances for reducing a murder charge.
2nd, he already tried the "Munchhausen by Proxy" defense in the original trial. It was sad, pathetic, bullshit by a raving lunatic then, and it still is. (Just read the first-hand trial accounts...)
Last, Hans has already admitted to the crime and voluntarily waived all appeals. (He revealed the location of the body in return for a sentencing reduction.) This act of fighting the wrongful de
Nope (Score:2)
In most cases, all the suing party will have to do is submit a copy of his guilty plea. The arguments will be about damages.
A civil trial doesn't require much in the burden of proof ("50% plus a feather"), so his guilty plea in open court will meat the is he liable portion. Then its about damages.
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't: They had demonstrated that he had means, incriminating physical evidence, opportunity, and a coverup attempt. The motive isn't all that important under those circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow there are still idiots who think he's innocent even after leading the police to the body?
Why would you think it could? (Score:2)
First off it is complete bullshit. Reiser is just making up shit. None of his accusations have a basis in reality.
However even if they did it doesn't matter. Killing someone is justifiable in only a very limited set of circumstances. The specifics vary state to state and you can look them up if you wish but it is serious things like preventing yourself or another from being murdered. Also one thing that is always consistent is it is only justifiable to prevent something immediate. So if someone is threateni
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Reiser is the author of reiserfs. A filesystem in the linux kernel.
Re:How is this tech/science/... related? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, man, you know perfectly well why the story was posted: because it's going to get upwards of 200 comments and a whole lot of pageviews because we're all morbidly interested in the nextgen filesystem developer turned murderer.
Now, what you really meant to say is: Fellow geeks, we ought not to take interest in this story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Olsen Twins have a *dad*
I always thought they were some kind of fungus.
Re: (Score:3)
while noting your location with a GPS
Yeah but what happens if you forget the coordinates? You write it down. Then what happens if the police find a WGS84 coordinate in your stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The children's guardian (grandmother) initiated the lawsuit, in looking out for the best interest of the children. Were I in a similar situation, I would also use the full force of the law to ensure the assets were located and set aside for my wards.
That's just being a good guardian.
The lawyers are working pro bono, which you would know if you had read the article. It never ceases to amaze me that some people are willing to spew out hundreds of words, while jumping to some asinine conclusion, without taking
Re: (Score:2)
It means that it's just a little more obvoius that the lawyers are lying scumbags. If you believe they are working for free, I have bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
So you’re saying that Reiser is to Linux as Gates is to Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that 60% cut off the pro bono fee is going to be humongous.
Re: (Score:2)
Money does not cure mental illness or emotional instability.