WendyMcElroy.com | |
An article in the Texas newspaper The Statesman reports The widow of an Internal Revenue Service employee killed when Andrew Joseph Stack III flew his plane into an office building has sued Stack's wife, saying she should have warned others about her husband. According to the seven-page lawsuit filed in state District Court in Travis County, Sheryl Mann Stack had a duty to "avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to others," including 68-year-old Vernon Hunter, who was killed Thursday. "Stack was threatened enough by Joseph Stack that she took her daughter and stayed at a hotel the night before the plane crash," the suit said. The internet is ablaze with a general outrage that seems to have pivoted in place to be directed at the "IRS widow" instead of toward Joe Stack, as it had been. What I consider to be the most interesting implications of the suit are not being discussed. Before doing so in this blog post, however, it is important to pause a moment to sort through what is known about the case and what seems merely reasonable to conclude based on evidence. The suit itself is contradictory -- or, at least, it is presented in a contradictory manner. Valerie Hunter's (the widow's) attorney Daniel Ross states in various media that the primary purpose of the lawsuit is to block the release of Vernon Hunter's autopsy report and photos, which can enter the public domain through a FOIA request. If the death is involved in a lawsuit, however, Ross can get an injunction against the release of the full report, which Valerie allegedly seeks "to protect her children and grandchildren by keeping those details private." According to Ross, "Mrs. Hunter's heart goes out to Mrs. Stack." Valerie Hunter's reasoning seems a bit odd to me. If she wishes to spare her grandchildren "severe and irreparable emotional distress," then she should realize that a highly-popular, precedent-setting lawsuit against another widow and victim of Joe Stack only invites a firestorm of rage and accusations directed at the Hunter family. Moreover, the lawsuit would seem to delay the release, not bar it altogether. I find myself wondering about other motives; for example, would the autopsy reveal embarrassing facts (e.g. a drug addiction) or facts that could impact the insurance payoff that will surely arise in the wake of her husband's death? But I am not a lawyer nor an expert on Texas law, and the actions of a grieving widow cannot (and, perhaps, should not) be held to the same standards I'd apply otherwise. Moreover, I must fight against the fact that I severely dislike this woman because she, too, is a revenue officer for IRS, working out of the same building as her husband did. I figure she screws widows and children over her morning coffee, and doesn't just a damn about driving people to suicide...indeed, she might get a good chuckle over the power rush of it all. In short, she is not an ordinary bloodsucking parasite; she is a professional. But, as I said, I must curb my antagonism so that it does not filter the facts. The contradictory aspects of the lawsuit: after stating the purpose is to block the autopsy, Ross said he would be pursuing whether or not the Stack estate has anything left. He explains that his client is interested to know whether any insurance proceeds might be available and awarded to the Hunter family as well as whatever assets might exist. According to Ross, the Hunter family is entitled to damages, which are sought in but not specified by the suit. A local TV station reported, Ross said while money is not the motivating factor behind this civil suit, it is his job to find out if the Stack estate has anything left. I can't tell you what my client is seeking. I quite frankly don't believe at this point that's really an issue that's near her mind, she hired me to do a job.That job, at the moment, is to stop the release of the autopsy. Valerie Hunter is leaving Ross as the spokesman. I do not believe a lawyer in such a high-profile, high-media case is doing/saying anything without his client's active knowledge and approval. Moreover whenever a lawyer says "it is not about the money," my ears hear "it is all about the money." This cynicism is deepened by the fact that, after the incident, Valerie Hunter allegedly and almost immediately called for people to honor her husband by sending donations to her grandchildren's college fund. In similar circumstances, I've heard of paying funeral costs or hospital bills through donations. But her children are adults responsible for educating their own kids and I do not believe the grandchildren were financially impoverished by the incident. Arguably, the opposite is true. So...Valerie Hunter creates a furor of bad publicity in order to protect her family from bad publicity. She does not care about the money bit she immediately seeks it through various avenues. (Remember, the lawsuit etc. payoffs will be over-and-above whatever she receives as a settlement for her husband's death from insurance and the IRS, whatever pension or other benefits her husband is due, any fees from interviews or other media including books and movies, money from the Crime Victims Compensation fund, etc.) Meanwhile Sheryl Stack's house has been burned down and she is left with the debts that drove him to the brink of insanity to begin with. I suspect Valerie Hunter's motives contain a desire for vengeance which may have been spurred on by the profoundly stupid statements of Joe Stack's daughter to the media re: "my father is a hero." I make no comment on the accuracy or motive behind the daughter's comments -- she, too, is a grieving family member -- but, as I said, "profoundly stupid." Although the "hero" comments were withdrawn, it doubt the lawsuit will be. So what is my main objection to the lawsuit -- the objection I consider "under-discussed?" In essence, the "wrongful death" lawsuit argues Mrs. Stack should have known or did know that her husband's state-of-mind was a "foreseeable risk of injury to others" and, so, she should have notified authorities. She should have turned him in. The specific accusations: The court action also claims Sheryl Stack could have prevented her husband from slamming his plane into an office building where Vernon Hunter worked, killing both the pilot and Hunter. The suit goes on to state that Sheryl Stack was threatened enough by her husband to take her daughter and stay in a hotel the night before the fatal crash. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no legal duty to report "states-of-mind" to the authorities in Texas; mental health professionals appear to have only an ethical duty...tho' I could well be wrong about this latter point. So any decision in favor of Valerie Hunter would set a precedent. That precedent would be that the wives or other intimates (perhaps including children) of people who rage and rave against the state or others must be reported to the authorities or they could suffer legal consequences, including the pillaging of assets upon which they live. This is different in kind from the widow Stack having active and specific knowledge of an imminent crime; it is different from her being a de facto co-conspirator. As far as I know, no one alleges that she filled the plane with gas, etc. The legal challenge to Mrs. Stack seems to rest entirely on her knowledge that her husband was deeply distressed. This decision would be a direct attack on "spousal privilege" by which many communications between spouses are exempted from being compelled; it makes the venting of anger and frustration in one's own home into a dangerous venture because the relatives who hear you may be legally obliged to report your state-of-mind. Apparently, it matters not at all that Mrs. Stack was the victim of her husband's rage in the form of domestic violence. But it does matter to the outcome of this lawsuit. I think the best chance Valerie Hunter may have to bring her case to fruitition is the fact that the state wants desperately to prosecute someone, anyone for an attack on its sovereignty; alas, Joe Stack is already dead, which leaves his family. The best chance Sheryl Stack has to deflect the prosecution is her status as a DV victim. No judge wants to set a precedent that makes battered women responsible for the acts of their batterers inside and outside the house. This is a dangerous, dangerous case. And one that reveals the mindset of IRS employees. | |
This site uses an open-source Content Management System. |