Comments on: Leona Helmsley Leaves Billions To Dogs
NY Times: Late Hotel Queen Wants $5B-$8B Trust Used For Care And Welfare Of Pooches
Add a Comment See all 112 Comments
- After all, you did not bring property into the world and you will not take it out; you do not have an inherent right to control your property in perpetuity.
Posted by richnj1 at 11:41 AM : Jul 02, 2008
I disagree. People leave money and property with "strings attached" all of the time, mostly in the form of foundations which are for specific purposes. This is really no different. If she left this money to a university or for say UNICEF would anyone object then? If the court took that money and decided it was too much to that charity it''d be criminal. - Reply to this comment
- "The bottom line is that human society has evolved over countless millennia with at least one established belief: human life is the most precious life of all. We generally live with this belief and our laws reflect it as well.
Posted by shoebox119 at 11:33 AM : Jul 02, 2008
Exactly. Humans are so full of themselves that nothing else matters.
"Lately, there has been a growing trend among a very vocal minority that strongly believe in more or less terms that ''animals are people'', too. I shudder to think of the consequences should we, as a society, venture down this road too far."
The consequences could be a "more humane society".
- Reply to this comment
- This judge should have never overturned the decedent''s wishes. All of her money should have been disbursed between the ASPCA and other animal related organizations. There are hundreds of thousands of dog shelters that need attention. This is where the money should be going, not to disinherited grandchildren. These grandchildren were intentionally removed from her will. That was her right, not the judge''s to overturn her wishes. THIS IS A TRAVESTY. What is the purpose of a will if it is not going to be honored?
- Reply to this comment
- richnj1
By not honoring her wishes that her money be left to dogs, as in shelters, etc., the court would be stealing from her as it was her money to decide how to disperse, not the courts. People leave money to the Humane Society all of the time and it''s not questioned. The only difference here is the amount. - Reply to this comment
- SgtRDS-E4 said: "A person who is rich or poor has no obligation whatsoever to leave their money to their descendants or to society...If a judge takes this money away and reassigns it elsewhere then that is nothing more then stealing. "
I understand your perspective, but there are different fundamentals at work here:
1. From whom would society be "stealing"? I love dogs, but they have no legal standing with regard to property. If I "steal" my dog''s chew toy, I may get bitten, but I can''t be jailed.
2. Property is a legal construction. Laws determine what you can or cannot own. It is particularly justifiable for a legal system to assert that property rights end at death. After all, you did not bring property into the world and you will not take it out; you do not have an inherent right to control your property in perpetuity. If she really cared about dogs, she should have given the money to specific charities while she was alive rather than leave it to a trust. - Reply to this comment
- Dear CBS,
If the news directors had their children off to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, what would be news to you? I''m truly disgusted at the way the news media reports the war whether one is for it or not. Thanks for watching out for the rich while my sons risk their lives for your sorry selves. Shame on our own people for sitting on their hands and not being outraged as well. What happened to our watchdogs of democracy? - Reply to this comment
- I see animals as loving creatures. What harm do they do? Can you say the same for humans? Humans destroy everything they touch.
Posted by erasmus81
_________________
You''re over generalizing on both accounts. No one claimed animals are doing anyone any harm and while humans have created most of their own problems, their history is full of accomplishment.
The bottom line is that human society has evolved over countless millennia with at least one established belief: human life is the most precious life of all. We generally live with this belief and our laws reflect it as well.
Lately, there has been a growing trend among a very vocal minority that strongly believe in more or less terms that "animals are people, too."
I shudder to think of the consequences should we, as a society, venture down this road too far. - Reply to this comment
- lolll...leona helmsley, the neocon''s neocon...
And who mourns her passing? Her rich dogs? Ya think? Or would they focus their love on another person at the drop of a hat - as long as they treated them better than leona treated humans? - Reply to this comment
- CBS this is old news.
The Judge should be booted off the bench, he can''t make up his or her own rules and decide where the money is used best. It''s not his money.... - Reply to this comment
- I see absolutely nothing wrong with Her decision to leave the money to the dogs - it was HER money. The Children were not "disinherited" for nothing.
- Reply to this comment
- The will should be left intact, as wished by the deceased. Her children had no business getting a penny. i wonder how much the Manhattan Judge will indirectly get...(snic)... this is bull - and I hope a higher court overturns his ruling. if She wants the money to go to dogs - so be it. Put the money in a trust and allocate it to various dog orginizations, like the SPCA, and other Dog shelters - this would relieve the cost of operating such programs, many of which are privately funded with little public money.
- Reply to this comment
- I hope the humane societies actually get some of the money before it''s eaten up by lawyers. Also, there are a lot worse things she could have given that money to, such as right wing churches, GOP and cats.
- Reply to this comment
- Really really really OLD news.
CBS, get real here! - Reply to this comment
- "Dogs are pets, and having pets are fine. But when they are elevated to or above the status of humans, I have a problem with that kind of thinking." Posted by shoebox119 at 11:07 AM : Jul 02, 2008
Why? I see animals as loving creatures. What harm do they do? Can you say the same for humans? Humans destroy everything they touch. - Reply to this comment
- Another reason why people treat their pets better than they treat themselves.
- Reply to this comment
- SgtRDS-E4 said: "A person who is rich or poor has no obligation whatsoever to leave their money to their descendants or to society...If a judge takes this money away and reassigns it elsewhere then that is nothing more then stealing. "
I think a judge can reasonably conclude Helmsley was insane to prefer her money be given to dogs rather than people. And I''d also conclude such of anyone who agreed with her, or who felt that it was her business alone. The woman is dead. She''s lost the only thing of real value, and following her last wishes only buys into the mockery she made of life while she was alive. What happens to her money is now a matter for the living. They should consider her last wishes, but doing so blindly buys into the fiction that the dead have some ''hold'' over the living on how society should be structured. In Helmsleys case, in particular, that''s just inflating her insanity to infect the rest of society in general. People will starve (but dogs will not) if her wishes are followed. Any society that would find that preferrable is insane, but I wouldn''t put it past modern American society at this point. - Reply to this comment
- What a wonderful thing that perhaps she would have left money to be used for the care of homeless animals as the need, especially now, is so great. Perhaps she found as most animal lovers know, that dogs are the only thing that truely offer unconditional love. I hope that this money is put to good use and made available to so many smaller rescues out there that are so burdened with trying to help as many dogs as they can and try so hard to stretch the small amount of money that they have to care as best as they are able for the many dogs that come into their care due to neglect and cruelty. For a woman who lived such a selfish, greedly life, how ironic that her last act was one of selfless giving. At least the money will not go to some relative that will just **** it away on luxury and greed.
- Reply to this comment
- Dogs are pets, and having pets are fine. But when they are elevated to or above the status of humans, I have a problem with that kind of thinking.
Posted by shoebox119 at 11:07 AM : Jul 02, 2008
If she had left all of this money to her personal pets then I could see a problem with that. However since it''s dedicated for the car of all dogs in shelters or strays then I have no problem with it at all. It''s certainly a problem that could be helped by this money. Besides I still think most dogs are better then most people. - Reply to this comment
- By the way, didn''''t I see her in a Batman movie?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by payasyougo at 10:44 AM : Jul 02, 2008
I usually don''t have a problem with what the rich and eccentric do with their money. But when someone makes a decision such as this I wonder if they were thumbing their nose at society... - Reply to this comment
- A person who is rich or poor has no obligation whatsoever to leave their money to their descendants or to society. It''''s their money and it''''s their wishes for it that must be considered. If a judge takes this money away and reassigns it elsewhere then that is nothing more then stealing.
Posted by SgtRDS-E4
____________________
True, but her decision reflects an individual who probably screened herself from the problems and needs of everyday people. More than likely, she was clueless as to how the bottom third of our society struggles just to feed themselves everyday.
Dogs are pets, and having pets are fine. But when they are elevated to or above the status of humans, I have a problem with that kind of thinking. - Reply to this comment
