Adding A Codicil To Your Will Please Take This Form To Your: Fill & Download for Free

I have great admiration for my step-father, may he Rest In Peace. He was a foreman for Reith-Riley Construction. He built bridges all over the eastern half of the United States, from New York to St. Louis. When he met and married my mom, he stipulated to the company that he would no longer travel outside of Indiana, and we settled in the central part of the state within 30-50 miles of Indianapolis.Still, most of his jobs were far enough away and working hours too long to make the daily drive back and forth practical, so he would stay there during the week and come home on weekends. Construction jobs like that usually have a “trailer office” on-site where he’d sleep or rent a motel room week-by-week. It's demanding and physical work, but his weekends were just as busy with the “manly” household chores, paying bills and family time.He was a good man, a great provider, and fiercely devoted to the two children who weren't his own, as well as his in-laws, my grandparents. He singlehandedly remodeled their house during those weekends, built mini-barns (glorified sheds, big enough for a boat and complete with a hayloft as a hangout for us kids) at the two main homes we lived in, and still found time to take us out to eat, go to drive-in movies, took us fishing and on glorious vacations.I think the first impressive thing I remember was not beating my brother to death when he (my brother) nearly blinded me by throwing a fishing pole at me that punctured my eyeball. Besides the fact that my mother had threatened him (my step-dad), that if he ever laid a hand on us, he’d never see us again - even though my brother might have deserved it…just think about it…they were left alone together while my mom hauled me off to the doctor’s house as I'm holding a dish towel against my eye to stanch the bleeding (it was a Sunday, and we lived in a very small town) - it had to have taken great restraint not to punish him for injuring me like that. Dad loved us way too much to risk losing us by defying her.Then there was the time he stood up to a neighborhood bully to defend my brother. My brother…bless his heart…he's got a big mouth. I think he goads people. He always seemed to get beat up when we were in grade school. He was like the 98-pound weakling. There's a grade between us. We had neighbors who had three children. One was a grade above me, one was in my brother's class, and the other was above them.My brother's classmate took a disliking to him for some reason, and he got his older brother to get some friends to gang up on mine. One night they “jumped” my brother, and he came home a bloody mess. Their father was a prominent businessman in town. When Dad got home that weekend and saw the shape my brother was in, he drove us over to the neighbor’s house and confronted their dad in the driveway. Basically, he told their dad that if his sons and their friends wanted to fight, they could come over to our house, and Dad would lock them in the garage one at a time and they could have at it. Dad flat-out told him that if he EVER found out about a five-on-one attack again, he’d personally come over there and rip them and all their friends limb-from-limb! They never bothered us again.It wasn't a happy marriage. My mom and stepdad didn't sleep together for 11 of the 13 years they were together. We lived in a 3-bedroom house. That meant when Dad was home, I slept on the couch and mom took my room. When I was in 8th grade, Dad bought a 4-bedroom house so we’d all have our own room. He promised my grandparents that he’d stay with mom until we were out of school.I love my mom dearly, but she was a difficult and angry woman. Dad wanted to make sure we were safe. He did everything he could (as in, what mom would allow) for my brother and me. The stress of living with mom nearly killed him. They divorced between my sophomore and junior years of high school. That winter, he slipped and fell on ice in the parking lot of a local business, shattering his hip. Crawling to his truck and honking the horn didn't raise any attention, so he drug himself back to the business to get help.After he got out of the hospital, he tried to go back to work, but he could no longer walk the beams of the bridges he was building, so he had to retire from construction. He was pretty wealthy, so he invested in property and classic cars, bought, rented and sold houses, and opened a used car lot. The building on the lot used to be a grocery store, so he remodeled it to include the mechanic’s shop, storage, the office and two large efficiency apartments. He lived in one of them, and the other was unfinished…until he got sick.By this time, I was in my mid-20s. I had been working in nursing homes and hospitals for years. When he found out he had a brain tumor and was facing surgery, not knowing how physically capable he would be to take care of himself, he began making arrangements to have someone run the business while he recuperated. He reached out to me to inquire if I would be willing to be his caregiver during this time. Of course I would. How possibly could I not…after all he had done for us???I was fortunate, in that my employer at the time had a policy that would still carry insurance on people working only one day a week. Dad would pay me $50 a week, but he couldn't provide health insurance, which was something I needed. His brother or sister would stay with him on those days I had to go to work at the hospital.He had the empty apartment outfitted with appliances, and I moved in. They were joined through a locked bathroom door, and a beeper system was installed in case I was next door and he needed me. We were completely separated, and I had my own private space, but was right there all the time. His recovery was slow but steady. He continued to supervise his business, because it was right through the front door, but he didn't spend an inordinate amount of time in the office. He was still weak and had to take nutrition through a nasogastric tube. He didn't want people to see him like that.I cooked and cleaned for him, ran errands and drove him to his doctors and treatment appointments. I encouraged him to do as much as he could for himself, because I knew he would never be content if he became dependent. He took that to heart and made great strides. We had such comaraderie. He talked about “the vultures that come out of the woodwork when people think you're dying.” Apparently, when news got out that he had cancer, friends and acquaintances started calling, asking to buy his business or property or classic cars. He was disgusted.He told me time and time again, “your mother would never let me take care of you kids when you were growing up, the least I can do is take care of you when I'm gone,” which I insisted was a long way off. Eventually, his brother and sister - family who had once welcomed us with open arms - began to resent my presence. During this time, my Grandpa was also dying of cancer. I was cracking under the strain. I ran out of fight. I moved out.A few months later, I found out he was in Hospice. I asked my sister-in-law to take me to visit him. I felt an urgency to see him. When we got there, it looked like he was asleep…but he wasn't breathing. I think he ran out of fight, too. There wasn't anyone in sight - no family, no staff, nobody. For half an hour, I roamed the halls, was in and out of his room. We never saw a soul. He died 20 minutes before we got there. Now it was my turn to be disgusted. How could nobody be there with him, for him, and stay there until he was taken care of?!? It just made me sick.After the funeral, I went to the courthouse and requested a copy of his will. He had willed my brother and me 10% apiece of his estate. I was dumbfounded. That's what he meant about taking care of us after he was gone. I’m speculating he was worth upwards of a million dollars. Three days before he died, a codicil was added to his will, specifically to write us out. He had been in Hospice for at least two weeks, on high-dose narcotics. To top it off, it wasn't his signature AND it was co-signed by a hospice nurse - clearly unethical.Remember, I lived with him. He signed my paychecks. I knew his handwriting. I confronted his attorney - actually stormed his office - walked in without an appointment, gave him a piece of my mind. I think Dad would have been proud. But I had no intention of fighting them anymore. If my brother was interested, I might have; but he was too far out in left field (drugs) to comprehend. I was done.What really makes me sad is, that same brother and sister who sat with Dad while I was at work simply liquidated Dad’s business, signed over deeds and titles, and robbed Dad’s grandsons of their inheritance. As disgusted as Dad was of his “vulture” friends and acquaintances, I don't think he would have EVER suspected his own family would have - could have - been capable; and these were relatively well-off people. Dad’s mechanic was buying a house from him. His will stipulated that, upon his death, the house was to be signed over, free and clear. That's the only thing they didn't get their hands on. Oh, that pleases me very much. He was a good man.TLDR: The man who raised me was the Badass archetype. I loved him very much. I lost him to cancer. I miss him, and I think he’d be proud of the children he tried so desperately to take care of, and very disappointed in his own flesh and blood.

No ? Kelly…I myself unfortunately have what is considered a lifetime of first hand experiences and knowledge of disordered personality individuals.I myself have been on the receiving end so too speak.With that said what I read here online about it all, does in fact more times than not confirm what I already know about it all .One codicil added.I am the type of person that thru-out my lifetime I tend to learn something new everyday, so in turn I have along with confirmation of what I already lived and know, I read something about it and I still learn from it.Also maybe I gain a new perspective, it has happened. Or I am reminded of something that was in my back file in my brain and I get that light bulb moment (for me simply a no kidding? Huh did not know that was part of it. )A big thing is not to forget what you went through with someone and this (after all is worked out, and healthy again ) serves as a reminder. Lest a repeat of past mistakes…No Dwelling.I myself have always shared my experiences with others that I possibly might help because I have been where they are…That is what life is all about. Helping others if you can.I reinterate If you can. (no fanatic here. ) This is how it works for myself, the reading, talking I mean. Sometimes, something just is frazed a certain way, or just a thought about something, or a totally different story, text, that catches me and helps me. I end up learning something new everyday that helps me too.I am most likely forgetting something. But think I said enough.Except I hope you get your answers Kelly, and I am also the type that does not click on anything at any time on line. (old habit now, leary js. ) I found I am not missing anything at all... If it is important bullet points would of been added to your question. That's the way I look at that type of thing, and texts from people and the famous call, no answer, leave no voice mail, etc. Please do not take that personally in other words.Be safe Kelly, good question.Awe heck, your answer is yes, that is exactly what I have now my own blueprint ,that I myself keep adjusting slightly and perfecting…Again good question Kelly.(thank you,now you just helped me. )

All right. Going to write this one more time, if the computer cooperates. I am, tested, by The Political Compass, a centrist libertarian. I am neither right nor left wing, I come out nearly precisely in the center, on the extreme end of the libertarian scale.One could potentially improve the above political spectrum test by adding a third axis, the use of force along the z-axis in a cube. Convert the libertarian/authoritarian axis to one of ‘many laws, few laws’ and add the z-axis as ‘preemptive force’ versus ‘responsive/defensive force’ and you’d get a clearer picture of the spectrum. (One might also have to look at their own beliefs a lot.It would be an interesting experiment to see that particular ‘cloud’, I may have to try to code it at some point.Libertarians are on opposite ends in general to the popular conception of ‘anarchists’ on that scale, who prefer no laws, but prefer the application of force to be at their own will and unrestrained. (though even that isn’t necessarily accurate with those within the ‘Zero Aggression Principle’ group of anarchists. I should be careful or someone might start thinking these classifications might be nonsense!)People tend to look at such things as a monobloc, just as much as they look at ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ as a monobloc, when they are just as varied as any other group of us strange, often illogical humans.I am a minarchist, but I simultaneously believe in laws and that the application of those laws should not have exceptions or codicils. It should be enforced against any and all that transgress those laws, it should be clear in its application. The largest part of those laws should engage against the cloud of ideas that are considered ‘malum en se’, wrong in and of themselves.Again, I am no anarchist, nor am I strictly conservative nor strictly liberal. I believe that people should have the right to choose who to marry, the right to choose who to associate with, and the right to be in love with those of their choosing. I don’t really care who that is as long as they are capable of consent, (including the power to withdraw that consent). I also do not believe that people should mandate against abortion. I have no right over a woman’s body or choices. I have no right to coerce others into my beliefs, or to behave in any particular manner. In many ways I am at best agnostic, at worst approaching atheist.It is simple principles, really, that no religion can mandate its beliefs into law, without allowing all others to do the same against them. One could consider it a legislative ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ doctrine. If we can ban Islam, we can ban Christianity or any other religion just as easily.The prevention of these very actions were already implicit in article 1, sections 9 and 10, in a semi-fallow clause called the ‘attainder’ clause, which also included bills of pains and penalties. These were a form, civil or criminal, of targeted legislation which accomplished the deprivation from a person of rights, immunities, property, or life. Such deprivations might be absolute, or they might be able to be expurgated by oath, affirmation, license, or payment.This form of legislation was seen as the only way to accomplish the deprivations of those article 4 privileges and immunities, a form of right that did not originate with the constitution, but were carried foreward from our time as a British colony, under the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and English Bill of Rights 1689. They were protected as well under the Articles of Confederation.‘Bills of attainder’ are far too large a subject to cover here. The following court cases are enlightening, if you can dig through them.There’s a lot of history to this, surrounding the civil war and the “Red scare” under McCarthyism.Cummings v. Missouri 71 U.S. 277 (1867)Ex parte Garland 71 U.S. 333 (1866)United States v. Brown 381 U.S. 437 (1965)The prohibition of attainder is a form of preserving the separation of powers, disallowing congresses (at state and federal levels) from making judgements, targeting classes or persons, and depriving them of rights. The prohibition was an absolute one, the states could not even do so via amendment of their own constitution, or the amendment of the federal, as such amendment attempt would still be an official state act.It was to preserve to the people, that which was their own, their rights, their property, and yes, even their sovereignty. While I know that many have been educated into the thought that sovereignty belongs to both the state and federal government, this is what the supreme court had to say on the issue.Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)“ When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed Page 118 U. S. 370 to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision, and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws, and not of men." For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. There are many illustrations that might be given of this truth, which would make manifest that it was self-evident in the light of our system of jurisprudence. The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.”Our laws are bound to be general in their scope, proactive in their reach. They cannot be vague, they cannot be arbitrary. They cannot determine, via legislative or executive action, those upon whom they are to be applied. The prohibition isn’t “unless the states and federal government really really want to”.That insanity led us into the Jim Crow era, and has been preserved for over a century. The party, then in power, claimed too that the right to keep and bear arms belonged only to the states, and to their militias and officers. The fourteenth amendment was passed in response, to limit that power, and was gutted whenever the party could get away with it.District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)McDonald v. Chicago 561 US ___ (2010)Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 US ___ (2016)The law remains on the books. Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of LawIt requires no animus against color, only a recognized right, and the deprivation thereof under law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom. It was passed in 1871. It is still fully applicable today, and the liberals are perfectly welcome to enforce it, if they dare. The ‘conservatives’ have failed to avail themselves of it as well. That law was the reason for the 14th, and for the wording of the law and the 14th, it comes from Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856), specifically at pages 416–417.“ For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police Page 60 U. S. 417 regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.”I became libertarian by reading our history, and learning about the rights involved, the limitations of power, the nature of punishment. I spent fifteen years at it trying to understand the civil rights movement, to learn what the truth was behind the arguments about firearms and all the other ways which our government attempts to limit us today. I spent a great deal of my own time and money to become educated. I decided I wanted to know the truth rather than to spend my life accepting everyone the ideas of others without challenge.The philosophy boils down to the idea that individuals, not society, are responsible for individual acts. It is the idea that individuals have the duty to be bound by the law for those acts done against the rights of others. That we as a people have a duty of self-restraint to not engage laws that affect the rights of others, and to engage in our own defense, as we have no right to be defended by the government as individuals, even if we have a restraining order against the other party.Castle Rock v. Gonzales 545 U.S. 748 (2005)The most true anarchy is ‘democracy’. We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic with democratic features, wherein the minority was supposed to be protected from the majority. Nor would an absolute democracy be desireable, as was the concern by Madison.Founders Online: From James Madison to James Monroe, 5 October 1786Taking the word “interest” as synonymous with “ultimate happiness,” in which sense it is qualified with every necessary moral ingredient, the proposition is no doubt true. But taking it in the popular sense, as referring to immediate augmentation of property and wealth, nothing can be more false. In the latter sense it would be the interest of the majority in every community to despoil & enslave the minority of individuals; and in a federal community to make a similar sacrifice of the minority of the component States. In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and in more specious form force as a measure of right, and in this light the western settlements will infalliably view it.”I am a libertarian. I am not an anarchist. I am neither left-wing nor right-wing. I believe the best way to accomplish the goals of society is minarchy, not anarchy.Attempting to explain the philosophy and how I got here would take more time than I have available. It involved the discussion, exploration, and investigation of the entirety of the civil rights movement, including the ugly parts that those on both sides would rather forget.By and large, I think though that the philosophy of libertarianism is anti-authoritarian, and minarchist. It does not prevent officers from being appointed, it does prevent them from having immunities or powers not vested as well in others. It makes monopoly supported by government impossible, makes anti-competitive acts impossible.I repeat, no officer of the law can or should have immunity to the law not shared by the general population. They can have extra rules within their office binding them, but they can’t have extra privileges beyond the powers of the office.Libertarianism does not allow pick and choose those upon whom the law is to be applied. It does not allow play for purely arbitrary power, or enforced classes of persons. Libertarianism does not seek for, nor endorse fear as a political goal or means. Libertarianism tends to not engage in violence except in response to violence. It tends to preserve to the people the right, and authority to maintain control over their own government, and to apply corrective measures via the least aggressive means, by preserving to them the potential of using the most forceful response.Libertarianism preserves the rights of recourse against governmental bodies. It tends to adhere to the right to sue the individual in the office for violation of those rights. Libertarians tend to reject the idea that the majority should have the power to choose who in the minority should have rights via licensing or any other means. If they’re that dangerous, the state is perfectly at liberty and within their powers to keep them in prison forever, so long as the jury finds that appropriate.The problem comes in that people tend to get quite convinced of terms, and ignore the variety within the classification. We could blame Linnaeus, but it’s part of humanity itself.But then, I can’t even speak for all libertarians. I come in ‘centrist’ but ‘libertarian’ on the philosophy charts. Your mileage may vary. Your libertarian may lean more left, or more right. The only guarantee is that they will be less authoritarian. One can’t even guarantee that they have labelled themselves properly, or that I am labeled properly.Notice: This opinion is mine and mine alone. It is not to substitute for legal advice, medical advice, or to serve as an emergency flotation device. No substitutions, exchanges, or refunds. Do not attempt to read this document under a gravity well of over 20k meters per second squared, under liquid helium, or while in quantum entanglement with another individual. If you are in any of the conditions described in the prior sentence, my sympathies to your next of kin.