Death and Taxes - The Blog

"Shakespeare's Will"

I previously posted here about the Will of William Shakespeare (aka "Will's Will").  Yesterday, my pocket guide to the 2007 Stratford Festival of Canada arrived, and I noticed this listing:

Shakespeare's Will
by Vern Thiessen
Opens July 7
June 23 to September 20

On the eve of William Shakespeare's funeral, a solitary woman considers the poet's last will and testament.  What emerges in this one-woman Canadian play is a fascinating story of Anne Hathaway, wife to the world's greatest  playwright - and a woman hiding dark sorrows of her own.

More details are here.  I hope I can attend; if you do, let me know how you liked it!

Leopold Bloom, Frustrated Beneficiary

I finally finished reading James Joyce's Ulysses yesterday, and boy, is my brain tired!  It's not always fun to read, but I think it's a great book, and a book that really rewards in-depth study.  Let me give an example relating to (appropriately) probate and Wills.  (Page numbers below are to The Gabler Edition of the text.)

The story centers on two characters, Leopold Bloom and Stephen Dedalus.  Throughout the book similarities between the two characters often become apparent (such as: each has rejected the religious beliefs of a parent; each is in some sense homeless because he is without his key and has been rejected by his "roommate"). 

Bloom and Dedalus finally meet near the end of the book, and in the Ithaca chapter, written in a style Joyce referred to as a "mathematical catechism", we (and they) learn of another link between the two (page 556):

Did their conversation on the subject of these reminiscences reveal a third connecting link between them?

Mrs. Riordan (Dante), a widow of independent means, had resided in the house of Stephen's parents from 1 September 1888 to 29 December 1891 and had also resided... in the City Arms Hotel... where, during parts of the years 1893 and 1894, she had been a constant informant of Bloom who resided also in the same hotel....

Apparently Bloom performed "special corporal work of mercy" for Mrs. Riordan: "[h]e had sometimes propelled her on warm summer evenings... in her convalescent bathchair with slow revolutions of its wheels as far as the corner of the North Circular road opposite Mr Gavin Low's place of business...."  (pages 556-557) We also find out that one of Bloom's memories of Mrs. Riordan is of her "suppositious wealth."  (page 557)

Was Bloom attempting to ingratiate himself with Mrs. Riordan so that he might be named as one of her beneficiaries?  It certainly seem so.  Here's Molly Bloom, Leopold's unfaithful wife, talking about Mrs. Riordan in her famous soliloquy in Penelope, the book's last chapter (page 608 -- I've added forward slashes to make it easier to read):

Yes/because he never did a thing like that before/as ask to get his breakfast in bed with a couple of eggs/since the City Arms Hotel/when he used to be pretending to be laid up with a sick voice/doing his highness to make himself interesting for that old faggot Mrs Riordan that he thought he had a great leg of/and she never left us a farthing/all for masses for herself and her sould/greatest miser ever was...

A couple of notes here:

1. "Faggot" is being used here as a term of abuse or contempt applied to a woman.

2. "Had a great leg of" apparently means something like "had the favor of."

The book is more explicit about Bloom and Mrs. Riordan in the Circe chapter.  This chapter is written like a play and, according to Vladimir Nabokov (pretention alert!), represents not the dreaming of any one character but instead shows that the book is dreaming.  In the chapter Bloom is put on trial for his various "crimes" (mostly perversions), and Mrs. Riordan makes a brief appearance:

MRS RIORDAN

(tears up her will) I'm disappointed in you! You bad man!

Ulysses and Shakespeare's Will

I'm working my way through James Joyce's sometimes impenetrable Ulysses with the help of a class at the Newberry Library and Don Gifford's Ulysses Annotated.  It's a struggle, but my pace is fairly light (10 pages a day), and the novel really does have a lot to offer.  Besides the portrait of Dublin on June 16, 1904 and the rather obvious references to The Odyssey and other classical works, there is a surprising number of references to Shakespeare.  In Chapter 9 ("Scylla and Charybdis"), one of the novel's main characters, Stephen Dedalus, talks about his theories on The Bard, Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare's wife), and Hamlet.  He even works in a mention of some probate issues starting at line 686:

You mean [Shakespeare's] will.
But that has been explained, I believe, by jurists.
[Hathaway] was entitled to her widow's dower

At common law.  His legal knowledge was great
Our judges tell us.
Him Satan fleers,
Mocker:
And therefore he left out her name
From the first draft but he did not leave out
The presents for his granddaughter, for his daughters,
For his sister, for his old cronies in Stratford
And in London.  And therefore when he was urged,
As I believe, to name her

He left her his
Secondbest
Bed.

Of course, not much in Ulysses is straight-forward.  Here Dedalus is talking about Shakespeare's relationship with his wife (which Dedalus felt was poor), and about the reasons why the only gift Shakespeare made to her in his Will was of "my second best bed."

This site gives a nice, short overview of what such a gift might mean.

More on Wills and East of Eden

I've already blogged once about a Will-related aspect of John Steinbeck's East of Eden, but it turns out that the book is full of references to Wills and inheritance.  I guess that makes sense, given that one of the book's main themes is the extent to which our actions and personalities are inherited from our parents.

SPOILER ALERT!

At one point, a prostitute (unduly?) influences her boss to make her the sole beneficiary under the boss's Will, and then poisons the boss to death.  Later on in the book, this same character executes her own holographic Will (that is, a hand-written Will with no witnesses), leaving all of her property to one of the sons she previously abandoned.  This character's husband also faces a dilemma when he learns that he and his wife are each 1/2 beneficiaries under his brother's Will.  Does he inform his brother's lawyers that his wife is still alive, even if this means his wife's identity -- as the owner of a brothel -- is revealed?

Whether or not you are interested in Wills and inheritance, I highly recommend East of Eden.

Update #1: The Wire

Last week I blogged about The Wire, and called it "the best show currently on TV, maybe one of the best TV shows ever."  Jacob Weisberg goes a step further in this Slate article, describing The Wire as "the best TV show ever broadcast in America."  He continues:

...[n]o other program has ever done anything remotely like what this one does, namely to portray the social, political, and economic life of an American city with the scope, observational precision, and moral vision of great literature.

Slate is also running a TV Club discussion of the show each Monday (see this), with Oak Park's own Alex Kotlowitz among the participants.

Maybe all of the positive press the show has received is finally starting to translate into viewers -- the show was (according to this article) just renewed for a fifth season.

Inheritance, Ethics and Classic Lit, Part 2: Persuasion

I've spoken on occasion (here and here) about whether you should accept an appointment as executor of another's estate.  I have suggested that there are situations in which you may not want to act in this capacity.  In Persuasion, Jane Austen talks about a situation where a person (Mr. Elliot) declines to act as executor of the estate of a friend (Mr. Smith).  Ms. Austen takes a notably dim view of this declination to act (See Chapter 21 -- it's page 215 of my Penguin edition):

[Mr Smith] had died just in time to be spared the full knowledge of [his debts].... With a confidence in Mr Elliot's regard, more creditable to his feelings than his judgment, Mr Smith had appointed him the executor of his will; but Mr Elliot would not act, and the difficulties and distresses which this refusal had heaped on [Mrs. Smith], in addition to the inevitable sufferings of her situation, had been such as could not be related without anguish of spirit, or listened to without corresponding indignation.

I think it's worth noting that Ms. Austen's dim view of Mr. Elliot's actions (or inactions) is based on two factors:

1. Mr. Elliot was wealthier than Mr. Smith, and had led Mr. Smith "into expenses much beyond his fortune."  Sound like any credit card companies you know?

2. Certain property owned by Mr. Smith in the West Indies "might be recoverable by proper measures; and this property, though not large, would be enough to make [Mrs. Smith] comparatively rich.  But there was nobody to stir in it.  Mr. Elliot would do nothing, and she could do nothing herself," because of health and financial issues.  I'm sure there's an element of chivalry that comes into play here, of not assisting a woman in her time of distress.

Inheritance, Ethics and Classic Lit, Part 1: East of Eden

I'm reading John Steinbeck's East of Eden right now, and stumbled across the following passage, in Chapter 7 (page 60 in my Viking Press edition).  The passage discusses the aftermath of the death of Cyrus Trask:

The attorneys... were sorry -- offered their condolences.  And they were pretty excited too.  When they had made Trask's will they thought he might have a few hundred dollars to leave his sons.  That is what he looked to be worth.  When they inspected his bankbooks they found that he had over ninety three thousand dollars in the bank and ten thousand dollars in good securities.  They felt very different about Mr. Trask then.... It was enough to start a dynasty. The lawyers congratulated [Cyrus' sons] Charles and his brother Adam. Under the will, they said, it was to be shared equally.

The only problem with this windfall is that, to Charles at least, it seems like a bit too much of a windfall.  Did their father -- who had lied about his stint in the military -- steal the money, or otherwise come by it dishonestly?  And, if so, how should the brothers rectify the situation?  Those are the questions Charles and Adam try to resolve later in the chapter.

James Joyce's Literary Executor

This month's New Yorker has a fascinating article by D. T. Max (available online here) devoted to the subject of James Joyce's grandson, Stephen Joyce.  Stephen Joyce controls his grandfather's literary estate, and has angered many academics with his aggressiveness on copyright issues.  The article is rather lengthy, but it's extremely interesting, and does a pretty good job of presenting both sides of the issue.  It also talks a good deal about the present state of copyright law, and about other "difficult" literary executors.  Of course, as the article points out,...

Most prickly literary estates are interested in suppressing unflattering or intrusive information, but no one combines tolltaker, brand enforcer, and arbiter of taste as relentlessly as Stephen [Joyce] does, and certainly not in such a personal way.

A Rebuttal From Greg Magnesen

After I reviewed The Investigation (here and here), I had a few e-mail exchanges with Greg Magnesen (the author's son) and Robert Deiro (the author's key witness).  While my review wasn't the most positive, Mr. Magnesen and Mr. Deiro have always been very cordial.   

After my post on Wednesday about the return of Melvin Dummar, I received another e-mail from Greg Magnesen, who graciously agreed to allow me to post it as a rebuttal:

I noticed a new blog on your site.  I suppose it is not too surprising given the new developments.  Just thought I would comment on the points you brought up in the latest installment. 

As to #1- Mutually exclusive ways to put Hughes on the road--
The outing to the Mizpah and subsequent search was a completely separate occasion of Hughes leaving (with employees and aides- thereby making their assertions in court that Hughes never left his penthouse perjury, and the destroying of the records from that time period evidence tampering).  The event when Melvin picked Hughes up was when Deiro flew Hughes to the Cottontail Ranch- a completely separate event (also proving there were witnesses to him leaving).  Deiro has also said that he took Hughes out flying on other occasions, not only to brothels, but on practice approaches in scouting locations for a supersonic airport Hughes was thinking of building in Southern Nevada.

#2- Deiro's story
Deiro was like most other people in thinking that Dummar's story was comical at best.  It was not until the Las Vegas Review Journal published an article mentioning the connection between the Dummar-Hughes incident and the proximity to the Cottontail Ranch that he started to realize his own role in the events. He was told that Hughes left with someone, so he flew a few circles in his plane, and went home.  Whether or not taking his boss to a brothel is appropriate is beside the point.  When Hughes said jump, his employees lept with all they were worth or would find themselves in a much less lucrative position.  (Just a quick example- Employees found out Baskin Robbins was discontinuing Banana Nut Ice Cream- Hughes favorite at the time- so they bought up as much as they could out of fear of the repercussions, only to have him change his favorite to vanilla shortly thereafter).  You did not question Mr. Hughes if you were in his employ.  He was weird, and did whatever he wanted.  Why did Deiro circle?  Since Hughes did not come with anyone but him, he may have thought they were mistaken and Hughes did not leave with someone else.  He did not see him anywhere nearby in the desert, so headed home- thinking maybe he did leave with someone else.

#3- '67 incident=validity of will
As I stated in a previous email- the '67 incident only adds to the evidence supporting the validity of the will.  In his investigation, my dad spoke with one of the living jurors who did not remember tesitimony from an aide about Hughes actually leaving.  The foreman of the jury had typewritten notes each night and handed them out the next day, and this testimony was left out of the typed notes as far as he could remember.  This juror said the jury's decision was based almost entirely on whether or not Melvin could actually have picked the old man up in the desert.  As the notes from the foreman were what they were working from, and the notes said the aides were all lock-step on the fact that Hughes never left, they found the will to be a forgery. He said that if the jury had heard enough evidence that Hughes was out of the Desert Inn at any time, they would have found in favor of the will.  That is the reason the '67 incident was so crucial to the case.  As far as the will itself being legitimate standing on its own, Stein says they are prepared with evidence to argue that as well.  Stay tuned--

And now- you state that: "The article ends by stating that, if Mr. Dummar is successful with his lawsuit, Mr. Magnesen will collect 10% of the court award.  That fact raises a significant question about Mr. Magnesen's motives in writing his book -- is he uncovering The Truth, or a moneymaking endeavor?"  The original intent of this book was to help a man suffering from cancer and years of vilification as a liar to be able to have his story told after so many years, and before he dies.  My dad was interested in trying out his "sea legs" in the investigative field again, and the story interested him.  He is a born investigator.  We as a family have seen his endeavors and the excitement when he came up with new findings.  Seriously, you should have heard how almost giddy he was when he found out Hughes owned the mines at the end of the road Melvin picked him up on and many others in the area after pouring through tomes of lists of claims.  When he finally did get a publisher to take a chance on a brand new writer, he has never wanted to talk about money.  He did not even want to know from the publisher how many books he has sold.  I still do not know, as he does not want to find out.  He has said on multiple occasions that, and I quote, "I just hope I get back enough in book sales to cover my expenses."  Up until recently, his only thought about the legal ramifications of his findings were that the statute of limitations on the estate ran out long ago.  Then he contacted Stuart Stein after the radio show, and they got to talking.  They contacted Melvin, and he was initially hesitant to get back into the legal course of things, as it did not go well for him the first time.  Finally he decided he had little to lose, and the show got on the road.  It has always been about the justice that Melvin had stolen from him 30 years ago.  Call it karma or the universe realigning or whatever.  This stolen justice would have originally entitled Melvin to a fortune, and justice still does.  My father did not ask for anything, but Melvin said that it was all because of his investigation that any of this was even occurring, so he offered the 10%.  I don't know a person who would turn that down.  If you worked hard to build someone else a house on your own dime, then found out later there was possibly a large cache of oil under it, and the new owner offered to share with you, I think we all know we would accept it.  I know I would.

Anyway- thanks again for the attention you have given the book (which sales are the only sure money in this whole thing anyway), and for the healthy skepticism.

Sincerely-

Greg Magnesen

Melvin Dummar Returns

In two posts last year, I reviewed Gary Magnesen's book The Investigation (part 1 and part 2 of my review can be found here).  The book's subtitle gives an accurate description of what its author is trying to do: A Former FBI Agent Uncovers the Truth Behind Howard Hughes, Melvin Dummar, and the Most-Contested Will in American History.

Evidently Mr. Magnesen's work has reignited Mr. Dummar's interest in proving that Howard Hughes' so-called "Mormon Will" (which named Mr. Dummar as a 1/16th beneficiary) is authentic.  Yesterday's Wall Street Journal contains an article by Jonathan Karp entitled "Mr. Dummar Is Back, Taking Another Shot At the Hughes Estate."  The article -- which can be found here (subscribers only) -- states that Mr. Dummar has filed a lawsuit against two of Mr. Hughes beneficiaries (William Lummis and Frank Gay), and "alleges fraud, unjust enrichment and racketeering during the probate case... contend[ing], among other allegations, that Mr. Dummar was cheated out of a fair trial because Messrs. Lummis and Gay allegedly concealed evidence of Mr. Hughes's movements."  Many of Mr. Dummar's allegations are based on comments made by Robert Deiro in Mr. Magnesen's book.

My review of The Investigation details some of the problems with Mr. Dummar's (and Mr. Magnesen's) position:

1. Mr. Magnesen presents two potential (and mutually exclusive) ways to put Mr. Hughes on the road where Mr. Dummar allegedly rescued him (I refer to this rescue, which supposedly took place in 1967, as the "'67 Incident").  If Mr. Hughes was picked up in the desert after fleeing the Cottontail Ranch, then he couldn't have been picked up after leaving the Mizpah Hotel.  Similarly, if Mr. Hughes was picked up in the desert after leaving the Mizpah Hotel, then he couldn't have been picked up after fleeing the Cottontail Ranch.

2. Mr. Deiro's comments also raise some questions -- for instance, Mr. Deiro says he only recently learned about the '67 Incident from an AP newspaper article.  More importantly, Mr. Deiro's comments about Mr. Hughes' departure from the Cottontail Ranch strike me as bizarre -- consider this passage from pages 237-238:

"[Mr. Deiro] explained he wasn't very concerned [about Mr. Hughes leaving the Ranch] because, if his memory is accurate, he was told that Hughes had left with someone.  He doesn't recall who it was.  He explained he was more concerned about the possible loss of his job.

Deiro took off in the Cessna as the sun was breaking in the east. He circled the area a few times gaining altitude, but he didn't see Hughes wandering in the desert.... As a good-bye, he buzzed the brothel while laughing to himself as he knew the noise would stir those inside.

Deiro didn't know what to think about Hughes disappearing, but he never heard a word about the incident.  It turned out to be the last time Hughes spoke with him or flew with him.  Deiro says he didn't think much about the cold shoulder because most everything he had done for Hughes was strange and out of the ordinary.  He felt, "No news was good news."

If you took your boss to a brothel (which I don't recommend!) in the middle of the desert and awoke to find him gone, wouldn't you do a little more follow-up?  And if you were told that your boss had left with someone, why would you bother flying over the desert to look for him?

3. Mr. Magnesen believes that, if he can prove the '67 Incident actually occurred, then the Mormon Will must be authentic.  I'm not sure the two events should be connected in this way.  If the '67 Incident didn't occur, then perhaps we can assume that the Mormon Will is a forgery, since Mr. Hughes would have had no other way of knowing Mr. Dummar.  But I don't know if the converse is true; that is, I think that you still have to prove that the Mormon Will is authentic even if you have already proved that the '67 Incident occurred.

According to Mr. Karp's article, Mr. Dummar is represented by Albuquerque estate planning attorney Stuart Stein, who hosted Mr. Dummar and Mr. Magnesen on his radio show in January.  The article ends by stating that, if Mr. Dummar is successful with his lawsuit, Mr. Magnesen will collect 10% of the court award.  That fact raises a significant question about Mr. Magnesen's motives in writing his book -- is he uncovering The Truth, or a moneymaking endeavor?