Maybe the first documented zombie sighting, verified by a court.

You're still legally dead, judge tells Fostoria man
by RYAN DUNN - staff writer - Tuesday, October 08, 2013

Donald Eugene Miller Jr. walked out of Hancock County Probate Court on Monday as legally dead as ever. In 1994, the court ruled that Miller was legally dead, eight years after he disappeared from his Arcadia rental home. The same judge, Allan Davis, ruled Monday that Miller is still dead, in the eyes of the law. Miller's request for a reversal came well after the three-year legal limit for changing a death ruling, Davis said.

Miller, 61, now of Fostoria, spoke softly in court and offered few details about his past. Miller said he was an alcoholic who was unsure what to do after losing his job. "My paycheck was being taken away from me and I had nothing left," he said. "It kind of went further than I ever expected it to," Miller said. "I just kind of took off, ended up in different places," he said. He said he briefly worked odd jobs in Atlanta and Marathon, Fla., after leaving Hancock County sometime before 1990.

His parents informed him of his "death" upon his return to Ohio in about 2005, he said.

Miller told Judge Davis he neither sought alcohol treatment nor contacted his children in the time after he left. Miller said he would like to start his life again, or "whatever's left of it." 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.

Miller may still be able to challenge the Social Security Administration in federal court. However, his attorney, Francis Marley, said Miller does not have the resources to do so. "My client's here on a wing and a prayer today," Marley said.

Miller's ex-wife, Robin Miller, had asked for the death ruling so Social Security death benefits could be paid to their two children. Donald Miller was last reported in Arcadia around 1986 and was declared dead in 1994, she has said. Robin Miller declined to testify on Monday. She said after the court hearing that Donald Miller left the state with hefty child support bills. He was scared of a jail term, she said. He owed about $26,000 in overdue child support by 1994, she has said. Robin Miller opposed his request for a change in the death ruling, because she does not want to repay the Social Security benefits. She does not have the money, she said. Robin Miller said it would be fine if his Social Security number was reinstated. She said she sympathizes with him, but points to his decisions.

Judge Davis referred to Donald Miller's case as a "strange, strange situation." "We've got the obvious here. A man sitting in the courtroom, he appears to be in good health," Davis said.

Miller made a decision to leave the state to avoid paying child support, Davis said. But the three-year time limit on the death ruling is clear, Davis said.
"I don't know where that leaves you, but you're still deceased as far as the law is concerned," Davis said.

From:: http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2013/O ... Oct,08&c=n

. . . . . .

_________________
"Crime is contagious....if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law."
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

Seems like some people would welcome that sort of thing. That said, it's kind of ridiculous on it's face.

Ah yes, the point where law and logic diverge.

With that being said, there really isn't any practical way to (preemptively) accommodate every possible caveat to a law -- which is why such decisions can be appealed in court. In this case, the man cannot afford to do so...but that doesn't mean the process is broken, just imperfect (like everything else, ever). I'm betting there is good reason why a 3-year limit was written into law after declaring someone dead. And while I personally am not familiar with what that reason is, I'm betting the circumstances that called for it occur more often than the circumstance this man is finding himself in.

A way to clear this up. The man should commit a crime and when he goes in front of the judge use his death as proof he could not be found guilty for the crime due to his death.

_________________
Duco Ergo Sum



Hall of Fame Forum


Forum Rules Link

Love this answer!

And an excellent quote to have from a ZS mod next time they tell people we don't condone illegal activity.

_________________
BullOnParade

Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

Urban BOB/Range (& Bailout) Bag/EDC/Vehicle Kit

A dead man cannot commit an illegal act.

_________________
Duco Ergo Sum



Hall of Fame Forum


Forum Rules Link

That was my first thought.

He could also argue that that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over him, given his unfortunate condition.

_________________
Failure to plan means planning to fail.

You know I was thinking a little more about that.

Do your civil rights expire when you die? I think they do and your body then becomes "personal moveable property" subject to the laws of your state. I do not think a corpse has rights (except maybe the right to remain silent ), the owner of the corpse has the rights...(a court ordered habeas corpus notwithstanding ).

If you plead death as a defense, the judge could in theory lawfully order you buried or worse cremated since you are legally dead.

It does pose an interesting problem.

_________________
Duco Ergo Sum



Hall of Fame Forum


Forum Rules Link

Happened all the time in WWII.
You'd have to be declared legally alive and get a new social security number.
Don't know how you'd prove 'you were you and still alive' now though.

_________________
In my day, we didn't have virtual reality.
If a one-eyed razorback barbarian warrior was chasing you with an ax, you just had to hope you could outrun him.
-
Preps buy us time. Time to learn how and time to remember how. Time to figure out what is a want, what is a need.

I don't know if the judge could order you cremated, because not everyone chooses to have their remains dealt with the same way. Although I suppose he or she could order that you either be cremated or buried. Hmm. . .It would be interesting if this person had his final wishes memorialized in a legally binding sense. . .

_________________
Failure to plan means planning to fail.

If only Doc Daneeka had known that was an option.

This guy should contact the Uttar Pradesh Association of Dead People, for tips on what to do.

_________________

OTTB wrote:

"What's that you're wearing?"
"This? Oh, just my rabies hat."

shrapnel wrote:

Darling, I would never fondle your sphenoid.

Dr. Cox wrote:

People aren't chocolates. Do you know what they are mostly? Bastards. Bastard-coated bastards with bastard fillings.

JamesCannon wrote:

Shrapnel, if you were a superhero, you'd be Captain Buzzkill Peener Pain.

Depending on state law of course, you're getting into a double jeprody meets Schrödinger's cat scenario. Could a dead person change their mind on how they wish their remains are dealt with?

_________________
BullOnParade

Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

Urban BOB/Range (& Bailout) Bag/EDC/Vehicle Kit

No. Dead people cannot change legal documents, only their representatives (e.g. Executors) can do that.

_________________
Failure to plan means planning to fail.

Now we are getting somewhere. The judge could appoint an executor (a.k.a. conservator) for the estate of the deceased. The estate could then apply for a Tax ID Number (TIN) and the estate (dead guy) could then work using that TIN number until he could sort this out. The executor in the mean time could lawfully contract as required by circumstances for the dead guy.


That said I do think it would be funny if the dead guy had properly and lawfully filed documents indicating his wishes for disposal and they included spreading his "remains" out over the ocean.

_________________
Duco Ergo Sum



Hall of Fame Forum


Forum Rules Link

This reminds me of "The Trial" by Kafka, which, in the interest of full disclosure, I must admit I have never read. Or maybe it would be better as a dark comedy. I could see some immoral, greedy, would-be "heirs" who want the man to actually die and to collect their inheritance. Perhaps they file a motion to compel the Court to have their "Dear Old Dad's" last wishes carried out and his idealistic young attorney has to try to save his life and his fortune from the depredations of his family and from a nightmarishly bureaucratic system. Hopefully justice would prevail and they would all learn something in the process and be better people for it. The young lawyer would learn that the law isn't infallible, the man would learn the heartbreaking lesson that some things are thicker than blood, and the conniving would-be heirs would learn that their pursuit of money has turned them into monsters. Do they have any hope of redemption? Find out in the sequel. . .

_________________
Failure to plan means planning to fail.

A dead man cannot commit an illegal act.

_________________
Duco Ergo Sum



Hall of Fame Forum


Forum Rules Link

I wonder if he would have trouble with something as simple as getting a tattoo--would that be considered desecrating a corpse?

Either way, this is a thoroughly entertaining thread.

_________________