• Would it be a crime to kill this person? While using a gun or knife might qualify as mutilating a corpse, how about poison?

  • Perhaps he should consider the social security he was looking for as having been advanced to his children 19 years ago. Was he really going to make restitution? I doubt it. He seems to want it both ways. He wants to be a deadbeat dad and collect SS without any repercussions. As he had odd jobs and he was listed as dead, it seems a safe bet that those jobs were off the books or there would have been an issue with his SS#.

  • As he must have 19 years of having not filed tax returns, plus back taxes, plus $26,000 in child support, in addition to probably committing all manner of fraud to stay off the grid, stayin dead is probably in his best interest.

  • “I’m not dead yet” – Monty Python

    And, no, he can’t have it both ways, Cap’n Hal…

  • @Igor:
    “And, no, he can’t have it both ways, Cap’n Hal…”

    Why not? Dead men tell no tales, don’t wear plaid, and can’t be sued.

    To paraphrase Chevy Chase: “Donald Eugene Miller, Jr. is still dead.”

  • To kill a “deceased” man will still be a cognisible crime called ‘murder’. The body will be the evidence. The name of the victim will be John Doe.


  • To quote Mark Twain???, “The news of my death is highly exaggerated.”

    Why not give him a new identity and be done with it? Like they do for whistleblowers under the witness protection programmes. Just call him Donald Eugene Miller III.

    In India, we would most probably given him a government job where he would have been lost forever.