Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnRTroy" data-source="post: 9178691" data-attributes="member: 2732">Unfortunately, that's not really something you will get a clear answer for, unless she decides to share it.  You can analyze these documents over and over, but you'll never be able to read the minds of the people involved.  You can only speculate that part.To be honest, this thread is a lot better than others I've seen on the forum, particularly that large one about NuTSR, which seems a lot more invasive even if there's a lot of criticism about the individuals involved.But you are right, the key reason people are interested in this is mostly the hope that material that has been locked away will be published, I doubt it would matter otherwise.  Which I've accepted, but it does bother me people seem more concerned about that than anything else.Paul Stromberg also does work for the Gygax Memorial now, and is also doing the current auctions.  I think he's more of a witness for RJK as he was a historian of Greyhawk and he's worked with him on his auctions.The court orders for this is based on the fact that the whole point of this is to pay off the debts and the legal fees.  So that's the primary goals here.  This is probably also involving the auctions to pay the debts that are going on.  One thing to remember is Koch is a temporary representative, so at some point the Estate will get distributed, at that time Koch will be out of the picture.   I've attached the order...you can see that the Estate can't enter into any agreements to license or sell property other than what is allowed in that order.The one good thing about Transparency is that it allows you to get to the facts, rather than people's speculation, which works on both sides.  Of which will be helpful in an argument.Just a few notes about this.Trigee was a legit company, everything Gary published from it was done through that, so it wasn't "unlawful".  I am curious why they saw it as  being "disbanded in California", as it was used up until his death and after.  I think the only thing they decided here was that is was a licensing arrangement and not a permanent condition.There's not a lot of penalty for "will fraud" -- it's a misdemeanor $500 fine and up to 1 year in Jail.  I doubt that is happening.  The judge is probably taking a few other things into account.To clarify this, I am going to post both Wills.  Considering that there is more personal information like addresses on the court record, that the NuTSR thread gets a lot more personal with information shared, and that the two wills don't reveal anything deeply personal like addresses or financials, I'm not sure why Alzrius considered them private, and to make a few points I need to share these documents which I paid the fees for.First of all, both wills declare Gail to get priority.  There are only a few major differences between the Wills.The 1999 will has a statement saying he excludes his Children -- that means he's letting the court know that it is his attempt to override what they might go to a judge about, making it clear he wrote the will as he had it.The 2006 will mostly allows the IP to be passed on to the kids only after Gail is dead.  It also allows a few select items to be given over to the Children, mostly gifts that have more sentimental meaning, but note that anything else of value in the Estate is not given to the kids, that includes most of the auctionable property.It's also something the court will look at -- but something that can be revealed is Gary did not want any of his Children other than Alex as a backup as executor, nor is any one child favored above another.  In 1999, Alex wasn't of legal age, so Gail's sister is designated.   This implies he did not trust his other children to execute the will.Despite Gail's actions, the court is going to keep this in mind and probably limit anybody like Luke or the other kids from asking for too much power, to make sure this isn't some sort of coup-d'eat.  I'm not sure what the judge's final decisions will be, but this will be taken into account.  (We don't know what the judge is thinking -- considering how the 2006 will is worded, I think he might be more surprised at why Gail chose to not file the will after death -- but rather than malice he could consider diminished capacity or something else).This is why I think it's good decisions like that they become part of the record, because there's too many people thinking up their own ideas of what Gary wanted, or they just listen to one side and believe everything said.  At least having some form of objective documentation prevents people from adding too much narrative spin.</blockquote>

Verification