Re: Editorial cartoon
Originally Posted by Lost in the Woods
I will assume you are correct about the funds in question being a trust. So, then there must have been an agreement/legal contract for the trust. For CB to have stolen the money he would have had to violate the agreement.
The summary of the Supreme Court judgement said that the original agreement would not have allowed the removal of surplus funds -- but that the "current" agreement that they were adjudicating permitted removal of the surplus funds. In effect they seem to have "set aside" the current agreement -- meaning that that opens the door to reneging on any contract and claiming that previous versions (or portions of them anyway) are "the real agreement" -- not the "current contract". (Just sayin')
The final settlement was a "50-50" split of the funds. That tells me that there was an accepted issue where it was not clear who owned the funds. If there had been "theft" surely charges would have been laid and a jail term served -- by someone.
Does anybody have a link to the original contract?
If there was theft, why no charges?
Why the form of final settlement where a "50-50" split was negotiated?
“There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” —- Mark Twain