cmarshall

Why on earth would a credit card issuer care about your child support payments?

Are you sure that it is a true joint account and not your account with access for your wife? If you ask them whether your wife would have access to the funds after you die what would they say?

I think Matlis is actually a Canadian working in the UK. She flayed him alive.

Sure you can have your SS check direct deposited to SDFCU. In fact, if you do you will be eligible for their "emeritus member" status which has one very good benefit: a domestic wire transfer will cost only $6. Now this is of value to an expat in Thailand only if his Thai bank is Bangkok Bank, since that is the only Thai bank which is also as US bank with an ABA number. I do my monthly transfers as a domestic wire transfer from SDFCU to BKK Bank. It costs the $6 plus BBK Bank's receiving charge which is about $15 in my case. And it always arrives first thing in the morning of the next business day. Unlike ACH transfers there are no limits on amount or frequency. And they always show up as foreign transfers on BBK Bank statements. Also, SDFCU has credit cards with good rebates and no foreign transaction fees.

The chances that the credit card issuer would come after your Thai assets are vanishingly small. Even in the US, what they typically do is send a nasty letter to the heir/spouse demanding payment. However, the spouse has no obligation to pay your debts. So, the bank can come after your estate. But even in the US this rarely happens. They just write it off. How likely are they to retain a Thai law firm to seek a judgment against your estate about the value of which they know nothing. The Treasury and the IRS do not share information about a taxpayer without a court order. I am a little puzzled by the OP's reference to probate. Since he has a Thai will, presumably he is referring to probate in a Thai court if there is such a thing. If he does not have a US will then there will be no US probate. Unless he has US assets he has no need of a US will. Even if he does have US assets, but only in TOD bank and brokerage accounts then he still has no need of a US will. I could be wrong, but I don't think a joint Thai bank account passes automatically to the surviving account holder. In fact, I don't there is such a thing as a joint bank account. What you probably have is an account to which your wife has been added with some kind supplementary access, which will not survive your death. She will have to go to court to get access to the funds. When he shuffles off his mortal coil here in Thailand the Thai authorities will notify the US Consulate who will notify the Social Security Administration. Don't know if they notify any other part of the US government, but they don't notify banks. Actually, you might consider advising your wife to continue to use your US credit cards after your death. They are far more valuable than Thai credit cards since they have fraud protection. The card issuers will never notice your demise. I have read online accounts of survivors who have used their dead spouse's credit card for ten years. As long as she pays her bills she should be able to use them for years.

Normally, an American lawyer would take a case like this under contingency, which means that his only compensation would be a cut of any settlement. The cut is typically a third, but for a lawyer of Boies's calibre could be a lot more. In this case, Boies has earned it. I wonder whether the donqtion to charity would also be subject to contingency fees.

You guys are just never able to process the legal concept of the age of consent which means that seventeen-year-old Giuffre had exactly as much authority under the law to give consent as a two-year-old. Her legal incompetence to consent to sexual activity does not depend on anything she says or does or how she dresses. She is under no obligation to protest, fight back, scream for help, kick him in the nuts, or call the cops then or later. None of that matters, because in the eyes of the law she is a child just exactly in the same legal sense that a two-year-old is a child. Children are not obliged to protect themselves. The law protects them. I am delighted that Giuffre and her lawyer David Boies were able to squeeze the old parasite for the 12 million pounds. He deserves prison, of course, but we can at least be satisfied that he won't be able to dress up in his little admiral suit in public anymore.

However, only a fool would confine his understanding of events and crimes to what has been established by the decision of some court. Our old friend Adolf Hitler was never charged with any crime either as you will recall.

Not immaterial. While having sex with a minor is indeed a felony, it is also a tort against the minor herself for which compensatory damages can be awarded as a result of a successful civil lawsuit.

You completely ignored the British study that investigated false accusations of sexual violence in favor of your general feeling that some unnamed men somewhere have had their lives ruined by such false accusations. Is this really the way you think about social problems, i.e. without any reference to known data?

Sex with a minor is statutory rape.

What's interesting is that without any evidence at all you start from an assumption that false accusations of sexual violence by women are likely or common or a big problem. But, in fact, that question has been studied. For example, The evidence on false allegations fails to support public anxiety that untrue reporting is common. While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4 per cent of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2 per cent and 6 per cent. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/false-sexual-violence-assault-rape-allegations-truth-rare-international-day-for-the-elimination-of-violence-against-women-16-days-a8077876.html So, if we used these statistics to establish prior expectations in an exercise of Bayesian reasoning (look it up) we have to decide out of hand at the start of our inquiry that we overwhelmingly expect that Giuffre's accusation against the Windsor lad is very, very likely true. At that point we could apply additional facts as known to modify our expectations and could consider possible incentives to lie, etc. That works for me.

Well, it depends upon the standard that is applied to the decision. For example we may imagine ourselves as jurors deciding the criminal charge of statutory rape against the little Windsor boy. If we consider the evidence that is already publicly available, to which might be added further evidence at trial of which we now know nothing, if I were a juror voting to condemn or acquit I would vote to acquit even though I do believe that Dukey Boy did indeed commit the statutory rape upon Virginia Giuffre, because I would have to recognize that the evidence available to date is not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if the case were a civil case brought by Giuffre against Windsor claiming damages for the tort that he committed upon her of having had sex with her while she was legally too young to give consent, then I would vote in favor of the plaintiff that the tort did occur and that she should receive compensatory damages. I would so vote, because in the civil case the standard that would apply would be that the tort more likely than not did occur, which is a lower standard that the standard to decide criminal guilt. But since I am not a juror in either case, I have no obligation whatsoever to regard him as in any way innocent. I am fully entitled to draw the inference from Windsor's agreement to pay the substantial settlement and to express that his previous accusations against her of lying were without merit do imply his guilt, even though it is a theoretical possibility that public pressure and not guilt have been sufficient to make him amenable to the settlement.

Quite correct. This point is seldom understood. Other than certain members of the court such as the judge, the jurors, and bailiffs, no one else is under any obligation to treat anyone accused of a crime as innocent until proven guilty. However, in the civil case under consideration, no criminal charge has been laid on the Windsor lad. Instead, he had been accused by a plaintiff of committing a tort upon her for which she was claiming the right to be paid for damages. So, virtually none of the restrictions that apply to criminal cases have any bearing on the civil case. Of course, he ought to have been charged with a crime at the time, but Epstein knew how to skate.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. The royals themselves do think that the discussions around His Randiness concern the institution, which is the reason for the settlement after all.

The aspect of modernity to which you have not sufficiently adjusted is that none of the rest of us owes any respect at all to your pets.

I understand the expectation, just as you understand that it doesn't always work out as expected. An American who retired in 1965 invested in the US stock market, which has the best historical performance, would have had flat nominal returns for that period ending in 1982. However, adjusted for the high inflation of the 1970's he would have been severely underwater in terms of purchasing power.

Possibly, but it looks far too risky to me. What conservative portfolio returns 3% net of inflation? UK inflation is currently running at 5.5% meaning his putative income would be under water at the moment. The current level of inflation may well not persist, but for a future of thirty years or more, some periods of relatively high inflation are likely. A comparison to the Brit codgers currently in residence in Thailand is not very reassuring, since things are likely to end badly for them here.

Of course there is evidence that he had sex with underage Giuffre. Her sworn testimony is evidence. You are not more obliged to believe that I am to believe Little Andy's poor memory, but in a court of law both testimonies are undeniably evidence. See how people covertly discount the testimony of women?

300k British pounds is not enough to retire at 60. The OP should continue working in the UK if he can and for as long as he can. He might last another thirty years or more by which point his 300k will be long gone. At that point he will be a candidate for the trifecta: old, sick, and poor. Keep in mind that in Thailand he will be paying for healthcare out of pocket. He should continue to work and save for as long as he can. But even if he is able to do that for another ten years his nut won't provide much security. His only option will be to buy an immediate annuity with most of his savings, which will provide guaranteed payments that he can't outlive. With that and his NI, he has to find somewhere where that will be enough. Because of the lack of health care coverage for him here, I wouldn't recommend Thailand.

"Conviction" is not a possible outcome in a civil suit in a US court. The jury or sometimes the judge might find "for" the plaintiff, i.e. that a tort, not a crime, has occurred.

It's not surprising that little Andy Windsor is a degenerate. His family tree is full of degenerates, after all. What is a little surprising is how stupid he is, from his association with a convicted sex offender, to his thinking he could buffalo Emily Matlis, who is leagues smarter than he, to refusing to settle the Giuffre case earlier on when even the fact of a settlement would not have been public. Giuffre's lawyer, David Boies, totally outplayed Dukey Boy. But then a royal upbringing seems more or less designed to produce psychopaths.

Giuffre's lawsuit was not brought in a court in the UK.

I am always amazed at people on here springing to Windsor's defense. I could understand their defending him if their own self-interest were involved, but none them are themselves princes.

Evidently the choice between a jury trial and a bench trial in a New York state court civil case rests with the plaintiff, not the defendant.