Travis In Austin

Marty , Take a gander at this. premium_list.docx

It is well know that Neil Young likes horn loaded speakers and is a Klipsch owner, but I didn't realize he also loved Klipsch R6 ear buds. "Neil Young was interviewed on episode #199 of the TWIT network's Triangulation program about his Pono Music Player, the super high fidelity audio player that plays back up to 192 kHz / 24 bit, and when asked what kind of headphones he uses said that when he is on the go he prefers Klipsch R6 in-ears. He thinks they are the best, fit well, and have a good balance between bass and treble. Paul Klipsch started making loudspeakers in 1946. Thecompany, located today in Indianapolis, began making in-ear headphones and headsets in 2007." EDIT: Added the quote above, the link to the video is a post below.

If you have pets . . . . GOOD STUFF Under the laws of all 50 states, a pet owner cannot leave any part of his or her estate outright to an animal. However, the owner may leave a sum of money to the person designated to care for the pet, along with a request (not a direction) that the money be used for the pet's care. It is important for the pet owner to select a Caretaker he or she trusts and who will be devoted to the pet, because the Caretaker has no legal obligation under such a provision to use the money for the purpose specified. The owner should leave only a reasonable amount of money for the care of any pet. A large sum of money may prompt relatives to challenge the Will and the court may invalidate the bequest for pet care. The attorney may want to include an in terrorem clause in the pet owner's Will to reduce the chance of a challenge to the Will. This clause provides that if a person unsuccessfullychallenges a provision in the Will, he or she cannot then receive property under any provision of the Will. http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/petestateplanning.html

What was the movie that had the line about you have to have a license to have a dog but anyone can have a kid?

I'm pretty sure you can't be born a fascist. You can be born in a country that has a fascist government, or has a certain portion of fascists in it, but no one is born a fascist.

Yes, to your spouse without tax consequences. Either at death, or prior to death. If it is prior to death your spouse takes at basis you purchased property for, not a stepped up basis like at time of death. It is known as the US N limited Gift Marital Deduction. A gift to a Non- spouse the donor pays gift tax on amounts to an individual in excess of $14,000 ($28,000 for married couple to each individual). So a married couple could give 28,000 to each of five grandchildren per year and not have to pay any gift tax.

You have to be careful with titling a home as Joint Tenants with right of Survivorship. It can adverse tax consequences, specifically, what tax basis the survivor receives. You are trying to achieve a stepped up basis, which is usually the FMV at times of death, as opposed to what amount the decedent purchased the property for. For example, if you paid $100,000 for a house, and it is worth $250,000 at the death of the decedent, you don't want to do anything that will interfere with the basis, all or one half, from. Being given stepped up to 250,000. Switching from tenants in common to Joint Tennancy can cause a lowered basis. You want to consult a tax professional or lawyer before doing that.

I agree with the comments already provided by Jeff, Tiger and Gill. As a practical matter, a 40÷ year marriage with no children in a community property state is all going to pass, without the need for a will, to the other spouse without the need to probate it. HOWEVER, there are certain hitches and that isn't always true. It can be more expensive to fix a botched do it yourself will than if there had been no will at all. There are very strict signature and witness requirements. Some as simple as one witness leaving too soon can invalidate a will signing. The big question really isn't what is going to happen when one of you predeceases the other, it is clearly going to go to the other spouse. The big question is what you want to see happen if you should die in a common disaster, And what happens after the surviving spouse passes, what do you want to see happen. If it is going to relatives, children of relatives, the questions Jeff raised in his first response about knowing the difference between certain designations are vitally important. If it is going to more than one person you are going to want to make sure it gets distributed how you want, and the recipients dont5end up in a fight over it. If it is all going to charities then that is a separate thing entirely. Some nonprofits, like all three schools I got a degree from, send out stuff saying that if you remember them in your Will/estate planning (above a certain level they will pay for the Will). If you were planning on a charity then you might look into that. By the way, the Klipsch Heritage Museum is a 501c3 Corp authorized by the IRS to accept bequests by Will or otherwise. I will have to look into how thone services work at the universities, and see about starting a similar program for the Museum members when we get that far along. In order to answer your original question the lawyer would need to know what happens with the estate after you both are gone.

There's no rain in baseball!

I thought they moved it up an hour for the Cavs game and ringredients ceremony?? That is way news reported it here, or maybe reversed? Dang age thing..

Did PWK choose 7 sound waves in the logo for any particular reason that he may have articulated?

The one's I have been in have been vertically mounted and upside down. Sounded great, food was awesome.

I'm not finding anything definitive on that. Churchill isn't clear, and seems to be a great deal of debate with modern historians. There are more clear examples, William Rufus, James II, etc. Not sure who has made a compelling case one way or the other.

We're they true first cousins, or first cousins once removed (child of a first cousin, like Jerry Lee Louis to Myra)? I knew they were cousins, but I can't remember the details who was who'should aunt or uncle etc. I think we had about 6 or 7 charts we were using to try and track all of this stuff. What was really interesting to me is that if there was no heir apparent (Succession crisis) how creative they got (going to children of mistress, etc.) and how in depth they looked at what religion a potential heir was raised in. Likewise, if you became a potential heir to the throne you could end up being locked up, or worse, as in the case of The Two Princes. It is a fascinating history especially the legal and constitutional side of it. Travis

If you want to understand exactly where the House of Windsor originated from you have to go back to Alfred the Great and the end of the 9th Century (the original 'royal house' for what is today Great Britain). Alfred's family tree was the House of Wessex. I believe there were at least nine royal houses with crown head's between the House of Wessex and the House of Hanover. That includes Royal Houses which includes the York's, Tudor's, Plantagenet's, Stewart's, Stuart's, Lancaster's, etc. etc. The crown heads of Europe mostly married to seal alliances and all of them are related in one or way or another if you go back far enough (i.e. after the fall of Rome). Even the English House of Plantagenet (think Richard II and the War of the Roses) has some of their distant bloodline represented in today's Europeon Royal Families. With the advent of World War I, Great Britain and Russia were at war with their royal cousin in Germany. If you want to understand exactly where the House of Windsor originated from you have to go back to Alfred the Great and the end of the 9th Century (the original 'royal house' for what is today Great Britain). Alfred's family tree was the House of Wessex. I believe there were at least nine royal houses with crown head's between the House of Wessex and the House of Hanover. That includes Royal Houses which includes the York's, Tudor's, Plantagenet's, Stewart's, Stuart's, Lancaster's, etc. etc. The crown heads of Europe mostly married to seal alliances and all of them are related in one or way or another if you go back far enough (i.e. after the fall of Rome). Even the English House of Plantagenet (think Richard II and the War of the Roses) has some of their distant bloodline represented in today's Europeon Royal Families. With the advent of World War I, Great Britain and Russia were at war with their royal cousin in Germany. This stuff has always fascinated me. As I mentioned earlier, we were only required to go back to William 1 (the Bastard, or The Conqueror). QE 2 is a direct lineal descendant of W1. She is his 22nd great-granddaughter (or there about) of William 1. The reason why we only looked back to William is while the crown heads did try to seal alliances, the other way to become a legitimate monarch is by the Right of Conquest, which is how the Danish/French William did it and because William instituted the original law reforms, courts and codes which was what we were most concerned with. Prior to the house of Wessex the Vikings were creating havoc all time and I only know a smidgeon of that complex history. From the House of Wessex, (the descendants of the Angles, from which "England" gets its name and the Saxons, two Germanic tribes), you have the House of Denmark, by conquest, and one of my favorites, Swen Forkbeard, back to Wessex, than back to House of Denmark and King Cunut for awhile, and Wessex (restored, part deaux) and then the Norman Conquest. From there they went to France and tapped the House of Anjou which morphed into the Plantagents (and the previously mentioned War of the Roses), Then came the illegitimate grandchildren of Edward III and the Battle of Bosworth field, launching the Tudor dynasty, Henry the VIII separating from the Catholic Church and ended with Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen (yeah right) (by 3rd Succession Act) and started the House of Stuart ending with Charles !. Parliament figured out they could fire their King (with extreme prejudice, "behold the head of a tyrant") and tended to make and approve their choices based on religion from that point. Then the long Interregnum where they were ruled by a Protectorate (dictator), the Cromwells, which led to the Stuart's (restored) until they fired James II. That led Parliament to invite William and Mary to give it go. BUT, they didn't have any kids and all of the rest of the Stuarts were Catholic. That resulted in the Act of Settlement of 1701 (which was still in effect until 3 years ago). The law on succession came more and more under the power and approval of Parliament. Succession had more and more to do with religion. Parts of that history, from the Norman invasion up to the present time, are essential to understanding constitutional theory, especially ours as it derives from England/GB. The Act of Settlement of 1701 provided that the monarch be Protestant and marry one, and gave preference to a male heir. Then something happened, the Montbatten heirs (as the dynasty will be probably be named upon QEII's death), started getting married, notably Prince William. There was a great amount of talk about what if he should have a daughter before having a son. This led to a surge for an amendment to the Act of Settlement, which required all of the Constitutional Monarch's to agree to, including Australia and Canada. This was finally approved in 2013, and so from that point forward a British monarch can now marry a Catholic, and no preference is given to males or females as heir to the throne. The Montbatten heirs that will probably take the throne are: : Charles, Prince of Wales and heir apparent Prince William, Duke of Cambridge Prince George of Cambridge

I thought Revenge of Geography was a very interesting read, it was controversial, but had some interesting thoughts about foreign policy being ultimately determined by the fate of geography. Here is a mixed review by the WSJ. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443686004577633490631541260 Robert D. Kaplan is the bestselling author of sixteen books on foreign affairs and travel translated into many languages, including Asia's Cauldron, The Revenge of Geography, Monsoon, The Coming Anarchy, and Balkan Ghosts. He is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a contributing editor at The Atlantic, where his work has appeared for three decades. He was chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor, a visiting professor at the United States Naval Academy, and a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Foreign Policymagazine has twice named him one of the world's Top 100 Global Thinkers.

I misunderstood. I thought your post was in reference to someone else's prior suggestion of returning to the rule of George III, and presumably his lineage. That lineage is most definitely German, and George III was most definitely made to understand by his parents he was German. His wife, Queen Charlotte, was born in Germany and only spoke German when they were married. George III inserted himself, at the urging of Queen Charlotte, asserted England into the affairs of Germany, most notably the War of Bavarian Succession. Going back to George III doesn't take you back to the "English" to do that you have to go back to 1065, just prior to William the Bastard and the Normans taking back control. In 1066 the King's "English" became French. My point was addressing the previous post, which I may have mistakenly assumed you were referring to with your thread. Going back to the monarchy of George doesn't bring you back to the English. Maybe he should have selected Henry VIII as the example? That still doesn't get you to the language of English, the King's English in the Tudor Era, especially in the courts of law was, French. You simply can't go back. You can move, relocate, learn a new language, whatever. People are people, and there are more important factors than what language they speak or where they happen to be born. Moving somewhere to be something else, or to remain something, is as silly as going back to rule under George III.

It is only because my Masters in Law Degree focused on American Constitutional History, and to understand that you have to know British Constitutional History back to the Great Charter. I can't tell you much about Allepo or Mexico. I am just now getting an understanding of the historical overlap of the Inca, Mayan and Aztec cultures and history. I do love history as well, mine has just been a narrow sliver. Trying to remedy that.

George III was German, both his parents were born there as I recall, and that line remains to this day. Hanover to Saxe-Gotha to Windsor to hide the German reference during WW1 So technically it would be if you want to German,, than go there. If the Jacobite's regain power, who were at least Scottish, then we would be speaking . . . well, German, as Franz of Bavaria is the heir if the Jacobitesite regain power. So if you want to go back to hapoy days under GIII you go to the German line, and you had better not be Catholic, but that's a whole 'nother story inappropriate for here. They have lost, or given up most of their empire, some of which remain Constitutional Monarchies like Belize, Canada, etc. They did manage to hang on to some pretty cool islands, and of course Gibraltar. So if I had to "go back" to be English and I could get Bermuda, or Cayman Islands or Monserat I think I might take that deal, as long as I had access to an American dentist. Have you seen their teeth?

Um not really. Just hang around here for awhile. Great vintage systems are like buses here, another one comes along about every 15 minutes, or so it seems. But HERE for the most part you are going to know what you are getting and if there is any fluff in the seller's statements. Travis

P.S. I'm glad to see you in here. Maybe you will consider doing your thesis (or dissertation, as appropriate) on something related to PWK or the museum. To my knowledge you would be the first academic to have acess to the papers and archives that will be transfered to the museum. Just a thought.

But, also references to things like 7 years of famine (did he struggle from 47 to 54? I bet he did), seven days in the wilderness, 7 days to create everything, plus a day to kick back and enjoy. Seven major musical notes. He played Coronet. I know Jim has a definitive answer on that, not sure if he has one on the 7 and the RF.

7 had special significance to PWK, not sure if that is why RF-7 is "7" or not, but I will try to find out. The original lPWK logo has sound waves depicted and there are drawings in Paul's own hand of the initial mock up of that logo. He chose to use 7 waves. Jim has some documentation on Paul's reasoning and thoughts behind the original logo, and IIRC, some discussion on why he chose 7 waves. I believe it may be Biblical. However, that is why we have this section, so your can get the straight scoop. Travis

Mike, Great question, I will make sure JRH the Historian sees this. As you know, Roy is one primary source on this, but Jim never cease to amaze me on documents he has stashed away. Travis

We will check on that for you.