Comments on: Leona Helmsley’s will

By: Making pets into millionaires

Making pets into millionaires — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:05:14 +0000

[…] Ted and I have covered this phenomenon in the context of Leona Helmsley’s eccentric will, and now […]

By: Clarice

Clarice — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:26:06 +0000

Queen of Mean to people but loyal to dogs. A few million to fullfill her vague request to “help dogs” shouldn’t be out of the question. United States Humane Society is established and could put it to good use, versus humans who want money out of greed. Dogs/animals have no ego so money means nothing to them but what it can do for them, is a humane solution.

By: Rich Bitch

Rich Bitch — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:17:44 +0000

As an aside, the grandchildren probably had no use for Leona and probably hated her, so it is says a lot about the kind of people they are that they felt somehow entitled to her money. Leona and Harry didn’t have any biological children of their own did they? If all the grandchildren are from Leona’s late son Jay then that would seem to make them even less entitled considering Helmsley wasn’t Jay’s father and Leona’s money is really Harry Helmsley’s. But it was still incredibly despicable how she reportedly treated the two who were disinherited.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:04:42 +0000

Paul,

Both the tax charge and the trading with Iran were arcane matters. To whom would Marc rich argue? We saw what happened in the Martha Stewart case. She was only painted as a cheater. Mr Rich was painted as a traitor, too. I recommend the book “Until proven innocent” about the Duke Rape case. The boys worked hard to avoid a jury trial, and they succeeded, even though they were indited.

By the way, Dick Cheney also traded with Iran. It was a ridiculous charge for both men.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:34:33 +0000

Marc Rich was also indicted for illegally trading with Iran.

Whether or not he was “right” about his taxes, his cowardly decision to avoid facing the charges and argue his side is enough to make me think he’s certainly no civic role model.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:45:33 +0000

For Steve Hodges,

My memory is that a $1 million dispute generates a required imprisonment. I just spent some time trying to verify my memory, but to no avail. Is my memory wrong?

You are absolutely right. A difference in a 2% range on a complicated tax filing should be handled with fines and penalties. Putting Mrs. Hemsley in an unfavorable light sold papers and magazines. It was a shameful event in our history.

Marc Rich also faced a disagreement over taxes, which disagreement was made a criminal matter. For that fellow, Martin Ginsberg, the tax expert’s tax expert, said that Mr. Rich was right.

By: Steven Hodges

Steven Hodges — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:38:23 +0000

My recall is that Helmsley’s tax bill in the year
in question was in the neighborhood of $51M, the
feds wanted $52M. Her jailing was of a similar
character to Martha Stewart’s, done because they
could when a variety of options were available.
It is ‘justified’ because she was not a nice
person. Hubby was let off because of senility
though it was a joint return.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:26:41 +0000

To be fair, Dershowitz didn’t reveal anything confidential: he recounted an incident that occurred in a public place, one having nothing to do with a legal matter.

The story is quite consistent with other accounts of Helmsley’s poor behavior. Why is it so incredible?

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:13:31 +0000

Was Mrs. Helmsley really discriminated against because she was rich or simply given a greater punishment for a greater tax fraud? Compare this to simple larceny. Petty larceny in many jurisdictions has a maximum sentence of one year in jail, with jail time rarely actually given. In the same jurisdictions, grand larceny typically calls for a minimum sentence of one year in prison. So, for what is basically the same crime, offenders typically receive jail time when the amount is large, no jail time if the amount is small.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:31:44 +0000

Mrs. Helmsley signed off on an Income Tax Filing that included a questionable deduction for work on her mansion. We of humble abode would have settled such a matter with payments for the taxes, interest, and penalties. Mrs. Hemsley dispute amounted to more than a million dollars, as I remember it, so she had to do time. She was discriminated against because she was rich.

More worrisome was the public opinion that the State should imprison people for their personalities – “Rhymes with Rich.” As it happened, the more scurrilous claims against Mrs. Hemsley were from disgruntled former employees. There were other problems, too, such as compression of time. Selective listings of events that cover decades can make a normal person a devil or a saint. And reporters paid attention to those with juicy gossip.

These biases were very prononced in the Martha Stewart case, as the reporters so obviously tried to make mountains out of molehils to paint Ms. Stewart as a witch. There was a fellow who ran a college level legal program who opined that it would be OK for the Martha Stewart jury to penalize her for being Haughty-Taughty.

I just don’t believe the Dershowitz story. He is a real creep.

I am pleased that this post argued that Mrs. Hemsley, as a person, deserved respect for her wishes with respect to her estate. I would go further: A Mother deserves the respect of her children with mighty few exceptions (mass murder, …)