Dan Anderson
Master of Arts
David,
Duck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yours,
Dan Anderson
David,
Duck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yours,
Dan Anderson
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I only need to say 2 things regarding your post.....
1. I seem to be misunderstood. This often happends on the net. I admit, I often do not think when I post; this should be evident in my gramatical and spelling errors. Let me make myself more clear.
In my post I was not trying to discount what I am sure was a very powerful and emotional family reunion. I am not trying to be hurtful towards Remys children or grandson; although I realize that with little adages like "false prince," (however creative and fun they may be to say) are probably not appropriate given the circumstance.
All that I was showing in my example with my little brother was how Professor would often say something to someone, and it would get twisted around to fit an agenda of some sort. I am sure that Professor said a lot of heartfelt things to Nanoy. I am sure it was a very emotional time. I am sure that Professor would love for his children, and his grandson to carry on his legacy. His children have been doing just that, in their own way, and I think that is great.
I also would think that it would be great if Nanoy became a Modern Arnis Grandmaster. I am sure that Professor expressed this as well. Like you, I would show him everything I know if given the opportunity. However, I think that considering that Nanoy has had very little time to develop his art, it would be a bit premature to say "Professor intended for Nanoy to be his successor." "A" successor I can see, but "the" successor I cannot. Especially when considering the fact that many heartfelt things regarding "succeeding the art" were said to non-family members as well.
So, once again, we have a case of Professor saying one thing, and others twisting this around to mean something different. This is all I need to say regarding the matter.
2. Internet posting is quite a bit different then article writing. One is a clearly thought out process with clear intent; the other is not. I want you to download the 1st issue of the E-zine "MartialTalk Magazine" here, and read my introduction to my interview with Manong Ted Buot. The actual interview will follow in the next few issues, with a conclusion in issue #4. This is a 4 part series.
You will see how I write there, and this will allow you to judge my ability to write an article better then reading my posts here. You will see that when I write about modern arnis, my intent is to clearly show different viewpoints that are out there, and I allow the reader to make their own conclusions. When I write on the internet, I often already have MY CONCLUSIONS formulated, which I then attempt to express and discuss. There is quite a difference between the two.
The "Interview with the Datu's" series is one that will not be complete without you. My intent in the series is to get a diversity in expression and point of view from the 6 Datu's; the article will be designed to be positive in nature, however "the interviewee" will determine through their own expression how positive they would like to keep it. This will lend the chance for all of the Datus to get their voices heard in print.
So, please do not let "internet disagreements" or "disputes" prevent us from doing a positive thing for the art. This series will be a positive thing, I think.
Hopefully I have made my self a bit more clear, in a less beligerent manner.
Your friend in the arts,
Paul Janulis
1. I seem to be misunderstood. This often happends on the net. I admit, I often do not think when I post; this should be evident in my gramatical and spelling errors. Let me make myself more clear.
In my post I was not trying to discount what I am sure was a very powerful and emotional family reunion. I am not trying to be hurtful towards Remys children or grandson; although I realize that with little adages like "false prince," (however creative and fun they may be to say) are probably not appropriate given the circumstance.
All that I was showing in my example with my little brother was how Professor would often say something to someone, and it would get twisted around to fit an agenda of some sort. I am sure that Professor said a lot of heartfelt things to Nanoy. I am sure it was a very emotional time. I am sure that Professor would love for his children, and his grandson to carry on his legacy. His children have been doing just that, in their own way, and I think that is great.
I also would think that it would be great if Nanoy became a Modern Arnis Grandmaster. I am sure that Professor expressed this as well. Like you, I would show him everything I know if given the opportunity. However, I think that considering that Nanoy has had very little time to develop his art, it would be a bit premature to say "Professor intended for Nanoy to be his successor." "A" successor I can see, but "the" successor I cannot. Especially when considering the fact that many heartfelt things regarding "succeeding the art" were said to non-family members as well.
So, once again, we have a case of Professor saying one thing, and others twisting this around to mean something different. This is all I need to say regarding the matter.
2. Internet posting is quite a bit different then article writing. One is a clearly thought out process with clear intent; the other is not. I want you to download the 1st issue of the E-zine "MartialTalk Magazine" here, and read my introduction to my interview with Manong Ted Buot. The actual interview will follow in the next few issues, with a conclusion in issue #4. This is a 4 part series.
You will see how I write there, and this will allow you to judge my ability to write an article better then reading my posts here. You will see that when I write about modern arnis, my intent is to clearly show different viewpoints that are out there, and I allow the reader to make their own conclusions. When I write on the internet, I often already have MY CONCLUSIONS formulated, which I then attempt to express and discuss. There is quite a difference between the two.
The "Interview with the Datu's" series is one that will not be complete without you. My intent in the series is to get a diversity in expression and point of view from the 6 Datu's; the article will be designed to be positive in nature, however "the interviewee" will determine through their own expression how positive they would like to keep it. This will lend the chance for all of the Datus to get their voices heard in print.
So, please do not let "internet disagreements" or "disputes" prevent us from doing a positive thing for the art. This series will be a positive thing, I think.
Hopefully I have made my self a bit more clear, in a less beligerent manner.
Your friend in the arts,
Paul Janulis
Yes the will exists. To my knowledge there were 3 made. Ive seen 1 & 3, but not 2. They where written by the following:
1. David Pajak (sp) - Buffalo, NY
2. Brett Salafia - Newington, CT
3. Kevin Black - Buffalo, NY
They way I got to see them is that the Presas family showed them to me while I visited with them at thier home in October of 2001. In addition the 3rd will was started in my house and finished in Michael Bates home. I didnt get to see them until after Remys passing, but he did announce the International Board at the 2001 Orlando Camp.
As I recall there was about 30 names of people who would form a corporation after Remys passing and this would be the governing body for Modern Arnis. Im summarizing but for the most part that was it.
1. David Pajak (sp) - Buffalo, NY
2. Brett Salafia - Newington, CT
3. Kevin Black - Buffalo, NY
They way I got to see them is that the Presas family showed them to me while I visited with them at thier home in October of 2001. In addition the 3rd will was started in my house and finished in Michael Bates home. I didnt get to see them until after Remys passing, but he did announce the International Board at the 2001 Orlando Camp.
As I recall there was about 30 names of people who would form a corporation after Remys passing and this would be the governing body for Modern Arnis. Im summarizing but for the most part that was it.
Dan Anderson
Master of Arts
And then there is the question of which is in force?
Yours,
Dan Anderson
Yours,
Dan Anderson
It would be the 3rd one.
Dan Anderson
Master of Arts
Where is it/who has it? Is an American notarized will legal in Canada? Who is the executor? Has it been followed?
Note: In reality, none of this is my business but I thought I'd post the questions before anyone else did.
Personally, I have no feelings about the will, one way or another, outside of curiousity in something which does not involve me.
Yours,
Dan Anderson
Note: In reality, none of this is my business but I thought I'd post the questions before anyone else did.
Personally, I have no feelings about the will, one way or another, outside of curiousity in something which does not involve me.
Yours,
Dan Anderson
Cruentus
Grandmaster
but based on my work with estate planning, it was my understanding that Professors "American" will was not legal due to these reasons compiled together:
1. Professor was a Canadian Citizen (I could be wrong, but I believe had duel citizenship).
2. He died in Canada (a minor factor if you had dual citizenship)
3. He was legally married in Canada to a Canadian citizen (Ivette I believe was Canadian. A legal marriage in Canada makes #2 a more important factor). It was the marriage and 2 children that made the American will obsolete, I believe. I believe Canadian Law would have been looking at the best interest of the children (Ivettes).
Now, I could be wrong because I don't know all the facts. I can't work backwards on stipulation. If I have all of the facts, I could find out from my estate planning attorneys in a heartbeat. Because I am not directly involved, I have not had the urge to do so.
PAUL
1. Professor was a Canadian Citizen (I could be wrong, but I believe had duel citizenship).
2. He died in Canada (a minor factor if you had dual citizenship)
3. He was legally married in Canada to a Canadian citizen (Ivette I believe was Canadian. A legal marriage in Canada makes #2 a more important factor). It was the marriage and 2 children that made the American will obsolete, I believe. I believe Canadian Law would have been looking at the best interest of the children (Ivettes).
Now, I could be wrong because I don't know all the facts. I can't work backwards on stipulation. If I have all of the facts, I could find out from my estate planning attorneys in a heartbeat. Because I am not directly involved, I have not had the urge to do so.
PAUL
norshadow1
Orange Belt
It's not the straight shooters that are hindering the process, Dan. It's the people with the blinders on that I'm referring to. Don't feel left out because you don't fit any of those negative patterns.
Lamont
Cruentus
Grandmaster
If my elephant memory serves me correctly 
rolleyes: ), I believe you are an attorney. Am I correct?
If you have any experience in estate planning, perhaps you could enlighten us about the law better then my attempt. I know it's kind of a tricky situation being that we are dealing with an "international" situation (Canada and U.S.), but hey, its worth me asking.
Sorry to call you out....I just noticed that you were browsing this forum when I typed my last post!
Paul Janulis
P.S. I would ask "Icepick," AKA Kevin Black who is a member here but who hasn't been on this forum in a while, considering that not only is he an attorney, but he is THE attorney who wrote up that 3rd will. But I am afraid that now that he is in the CIA, if he told us he'd have to kill us!
:rofl:
rolleyes: ), I believe you are an attorney. Am I correct?If you have any experience in estate planning, perhaps you could enlighten us about the law better then my attempt. I know it's kind of a tricky situation being that we are dealing with an "international" situation (Canada and U.S.), but hey, its worth me asking.
Sorry to call you out....I just noticed that you were browsing this forum when I typed my last post!
Paul Janulis
P.S. I would ask "Icepick," AKA Kevin Black who is a member here but who hasn't been on this forum in a while, considering that not only is he an attorney, but he is THE attorney who wrote up that 3rd will. But I am afraid that now that he is in the CIA, if he told us he'd have to kill us!
:rofl:norshadow1
Orange Belt
Now there you go being reactive rather than proactive; OK, you didn't say "it doesn't matter". Someone closely associated with you did, and at times you implied it without spelling it out. Please consider that what you feel is a clear answer to a question may not be so clear to others, and may lead to more questions. In that case perhaps instead of addressing and redressing an issue you might try to LISTEN to the questions that are being posed and consider why they are being asked. Take the time to find out why the "dogs are barking". The Professor had a way to deal with barking dogs. He wouldn't always address an issue directly, but he would throw them a bone to quiet them down. You wouldn't be casting pearls before swine by being open and approachable. You would be helping others understand more and in the process you would be showing others how a leader carries himself and shares of himself with others; just like Remy did.
And please, cal me Lamont.
Lamont
norshadow1
Orange Belt
Fair enough, David. I'll get off your back. Hope you didn't take offense at anything I had to say.
Lamont
Originally posted by PAUL
P.S. I would ask "Icepick," AKA Kevin Black who is a member here but who hasn't been on this forum in a while, considering that not only is he an attorney, but he is THE attorney who wrote up that 3rd will. But I am afraid that now that he is in the CIA, if he told us he'd have to kill us!
It was the FBI not the CIA. Both Modarnis and Icepick did legal work for Remy. Both are restricted to say anything due to client/attorney confidentiality. Even though Remy has passed, the will still has not been executed. Also there would be some ethical issues for them to release information on the will to people other than those who were named in it. As much as it may shed light onto the situation, please respect their position and not pester them for this information. If there is time that they can share the information, it is up to them and them alone.
I have to say that Renegade is certainly correct on this issue and that it would probably not be fair to put Modarnis or Icepick on the spot. It would behoove those on this forum to wait until Datu Hoffman comes forth with his information.
Take care,
Brian
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I had no idea Modarnis was personally involved in any of the "will" stuff. I don't know his real name off hand. I was inquiring for a broad opinion, not realizing that he was directly involved.
Sorry modarnis! Didn't mean to put you on the spot. Big Oops!
In terms of Kevin Black: CIA, FBI, whatever....same thing. 2 Government orgs who are currently working with UFO's on Dominating the world, and trying to cover it up.
I've seen X-files....I know waas-up! :xwing:
Seriously, I understand that Kevin has Attorney/client privilage issues and couldn't ACTUALLY post something regarding the will; even if it was deemed as "invalid" it would cause ethical issues.
I was only kidding about Kevin! You guys take me way too seriously!
Probably stupid for me to kid regarding an issue that could jeprodize someones position. I stand corrected, as I often do!
Sorry modarnis! Didn't mean to put you on the spot.
Big Oops!In terms of Kevin Black: CIA, FBI, whatever....same thing. 2 Government orgs who are currently working with UFO's on Dominating the world, and trying to cover it up.
I've seen X-files....I know waas-up! :xwing:
Seriously, I understand that Kevin has Attorney/client privilage issues and couldn't ACTUALLY post something regarding the will; even if it was deemed as "invalid" it would cause ethical issues.
I was only kidding about Kevin! You guys take me way too seriously!
Probably stupid for me to kid regarding an issue that could jeprodize someones position. I stand corrected, as I often do!
modarnis
Purple Belt
Tim is correct. Attorney client privilege precludes me from divulging information, even after a client is deceased. Attorney client privilege is absolute. In this case it is further compounded by the fact that the Professor trusted me with his personal affairs, something I cherish more than any rank I ever earned from him. As Tim also pointed out, the Professor divulged the full contents of the Modern Arnis plan at the Orlando Wintercamp in 2001. I will speak generally about trust and estate law though.
While Tim was correct that myself and others in the past constructed wills for Professor Presas, he was in fact the author. It is the testator (fancy word for the guy who's making the will) who directs the disposition of his assets through the legal process. This is carried out through an executor. The executor is a person named in the will to carry out these wishes.
The last properly executed will is the one which has legal effect. You could execute a will every day or every month or every year, and the last one properly executed is the one that is binding. Depending on the jurisdiction, a will needs 2 or 3 impartial witnesses who can attest that the person executing the document is of sound mind.
In the trusts and estates world, sound mind relayes to knowledge of a persons tangible assets and a desire to disperse them. It is not a high level competency exam as in criminal law. A person must also be free from undue influence. Undue influence is the holding a gun to someone's head to make them sign a document example.
The Canada versus US thing is an interesting twist, kind of like a law school exam. Probate courts give huge emphasis to testator intent. Testaor intent is what would the person have wanted to have happen with his property. Even absent a properly executed will, some documentation that gives rise to this intent would influence a probate court's decision.
In our specific example of the Professor, assuming for the sake of argument that either 1. none of the 3 wills were properly executed, or 2. that the will is invalid in Canada, courts would likely find a high degree of testator intent from the Professor attemting to create a dispositive document.
Of course if the courts disregard this entirely, he would have died intestate (without a will). Most US states have an intestate plan that probate courts use to disperse assets. Here in Connecicut, spouse first, then children. Absent spouse or children, then parents. Absent parents then siblings...and so on until there is nobody left, then the state keeps it.
Time will sort the probate matters out. Until then, I am content to do what the Profesor would want me to do: train hard and be happy.
Respectfully,
Brett Salafia
While Tim was correct that myself and others in the past constructed wills for Professor Presas, he was in fact the author. It is the testator (fancy word for the guy who's making the will) who directs the disposition of his assets through the legal process. This is carried out through an executor. The executor is a person named in the will to carry out these wishes.
The last properly executed will is the one which has legal effect. You could execute a will every day or every month or every year, and the last one properly executed is the one that is binding. Depending on the jurisdiction, a will needs 2 or 3 impartial witnesses who can attest that the person executing the document is of sound mind.
In the trusts and estates world, sound mind relayes to knowledge of a persons tangible assets and a desire to disperse them. It is not a high level competency exam as in criminal law. A person must also be free from undue influence. Undue influence is the holding a gun to someone's head to make them sign a document example.
The Canada versus US thing is an interesting twist, kind of like a law school exam. Probate courts give huge emphasis to testator intent. Testaor intent is what would the person have wanted to have happen with his property. Even absent a properly executed will, some documentation that gives rise to this intent would influence a probate court's decision.
In our specific example of the Professor, assuming for the sake of argument that either 1. none of the 3 wills were properly executed, or 2. that the will is invalid in Canada, courts would likely find a high degree of testator intent from the Professor attemting to create a dispositive document.
Of course if the courts disregard this entirely, he would have died intestate (without a will). Most US states have an intestate plan that probate courts use to disperse assets. Here in Connecicut, spouse first, then children. Absent spouse or children, then parents. Absent parents then siblings...and so on until there is nobody left, then the state keeps it.
Time will sort the probate matters out. Until then, I am content to do what the Profesor would want me to do: train hard and be happy.
Respectfully,
Brett Salafia
Well said, Brett.
Take care,
Brian
Take care,
Brian
Dan Anderson
Master of Arts
Brett,
Very well stated for those of us without legal background, explaining enough for us to get the idea without overdoing it. Train hard and be happy - good way to put it.
Yours,
Dan Anderson
Very well stated for those of us without legal background, explaining enough for us to get the idea without overdoing it. Train hard and be happy - good way to put it.
Yours,
Dan Anderson
Yes, I was being reactive. The situation begged a reaction. As for LISTENING, I had been. As for my answer not being clear, with regards to the situation I was referencing, I answered more than a couple times, another person answered him in an similar manner. This was not enough so another suggestion was made. I have discussed this with the person involved and it being handled. How did this happen. CLEAR communication, on the phone, complete with listening and discussion and everything. I am willing and able to entertain questions and discussion. Sometimes I am reactive, sometimes proactive. soemtimes I just play around. As for barking dogs, I don't consider them so untill an issue has been addressed, redressed and I have tried to help. After that if there is still antagonism, it sounds strangely like barking. Those who know me well know how very open and sharing of myself I can be. But I won't be abused. As this part of this thread is getting ugly. I am finished with it. I hope we can discuss intelligently in times to come.
MAO
MAO
