Riggs v Palmer Case

I am confused because in debate #2 you clearly stated "That any reasonable person would agree with Elmer not getting the property", but then when I bring to your attention that that assumption disregards/excludes the reasonable person that practices religion because the basic foundation of above listed religions practice forgiveness, you then claim you never said that in debate #3. That isn't the only inconsistent claim I see in your argument. You then go on to say that he has already been tried in criminal court for murder and convicted and now its down to civil court to determine who the property of the wills rightful owner is, yet you keep on bringing up the fact that he murdered as one of the main defenses as to why he shouldn't be entitled. I'm not disputing if he murdered or if murder is right or wrong I'm dealing with the laws that regulate a will because the case in civil court (as you rightly distinguished) to be answered is "Can the courts change an existing will?". You say they should because of law and moral consideration because he murdered and precedent cases, but you have not recognized that unlike the other contracts you are trying to compare the will to, the wills basic fundamental function is to transfer estates based on the testators wishes and to safeguard such documents from the intervention of the courts . Here I am not going by intent or broadening of a rule, that is the exact law listed by the lawmakers. The contracts you listed to be compared give the government more leeway to interpret them according to rules and laws, whereas a will is regulated before its made but once made and legally recognized the courts only duty then is to execute the testators wishes and make sure the owner listed in the will gets the property. There is no room left for the courts to interpret when the testator is the only one that can change or void the will. I can"t focus on intent and the broadening of a scope of law when the law explicitly states in regards to a will only a testator can change such and if a will is a will at the time of the testators death it must stand as his last wishes. Those pertinent provisions are not found in the contracts you are trying to compare it to. Therefore, I"m not convinced by your argument because it lacks relevant cases to compare, it focuses more on the murder aspect which isn't what civil courts duty is to decide, and it fails to even acknowledge the fundamental difference of the function of a will against courts intervention in respect to the contracts you listed in the precedent cases. Had you done that you would see a will doesn't allow for courts interpretation after it has been legalized only to execute the wishes and make sure someone else other than the one listed in the will doesn't get the property. My judgement stands that Elmer is entitled to the estate 1) legislation has already said how and when a will can be altered and revoked when they have fully complied in-keeping with laws in a way that leaves no room for the courts to intervene over the matter. (516.1.2) 2)On August 13 1880 Francis B Palmer made a will leaving a small portion of his estate to his daughters Plaintiffs Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston, and the rest to his grandson Defendant Elmer E Palmer. (508.1.1) 3)Wills are binding contracts regulated by law. (509.2.4) 4)The will made before Francis" death was made valid by law therefore, the contract should be enforced by law. (509.1.3) 5)The way the court is trying to alter the will in Elmer"s" case is not one written by law. (517.3.10) 6)Only a testator, can legally change or take back a will by law. (517.2.6-7) 7)Laws list the only way a will can be altered.(517.3.8) 8)There"s no written law in a will that says you can"t get the estate if you murder someone and where there"s no such law, courts can"t make changes to wills.(517.1.2) 9)The court is bound by the existing rules at the time, made by legislature, not appeal to conscience.(515.3.9-10) 10)If the law chooses who gets his property they will be writing a whole new will and existing laws do not justify this action by courts. (518.2.10-11) 11)Elmer was found guilty of murder and any estate coming from this is affected so Elmer is banned from using anything left by the testator for his benefit since he murdered his grandfather and the property will be given to the widow and Elmer"s mother. 12)To rule in favor of appellant gives additional punishment to the respondent. (518.3,12) 13)Elmer was already tried found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to time in jail for committing the murder. (518.3.13) 14)The law has punished him enough and further punishment is banned. (518.3.14-15) Therefore, the courts have no power to add any additional punishment by taking his property away.(520.1.2)