Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hans Reiser Sued By Own Kids For $15 Million

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the serious-news-for-serious-people dept.

The Almighty Buck 265

New submitter haruchai writes "The Reiser kids, now aged 12 and 11, have had a lawsuit filed against the former Linux developer, inventor of ReiserFS and convicted murderer of the mother of his children, to the tune of $15 million. It's believed he may have hidden assets and a judgment is sought so a search for these can be conducted." A judge denied requests that the kids testify or return to the U.S. for their own well-being.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Maniacs, all maniacs (5, Funny)

WhiteHover (2679613) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599903)

This just shows that FOSS fanatics are maniacs in real life too, and can't be trusted. I mean come on, you put your business into hands of these maniacs? Maniacs!

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (1, Offtopic)

WhiteHover (2679613) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599911)

This includes Google too, by the way.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40599923)

I see the validity of your lucid argument and agree with you.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (-1, Troll)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600003)

Pathetic. If opponents of FOSS stoop this low, FOSS must have already won.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (0, Troll)

DevTech (2680865) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600025)

How is it pathetic? It's just opinion about the mental state of FOSS developers, as illustrated by recent real world case of highly trusted person. It's akin to a CTO choosing Microsoft products instead of random open source products. Sure, there are bad people inside companies too, but the code is more looked at and there are real life recursions.

Open source is just released to the wild and can do anything. You can of course modify it, but who even checks the code they run? They just trust it.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600077)

I don't know if you are trolling, or seriously believe the shit your trying to sell....

Open source versus closed source is not an indication of a trust in a persons professional capacity or ethics. To try to say that this man's mental state is any way indicative of all mental states of open source developers is just offensive and stupid.

As for trust being placed in a high level developer of any software platform, it is actually a benefit when the source is available. You see, it then becomes inherently possible, to actually check the code and verify it independently. When it is closed source, trust is all the more important, because their word is all you are ever going to get.

The very fact you mention Microsoft products being chosen over random open source products takes away any claim to an impartial position. Where are the plethora of closed source software vendors in that statement?

You think closed source is more looked at? Really?

"Real life recursions". Yeah.... Open Source never, ever, does any kind of recursion testing. You got me there.

There are closed source platforms that you can add scripting to do basically anything. Some platforms are designed to be extensible, even while closed.

Who checks the code they run? If you are making any modifications, plenty of people.

Once again.. back to trust. Well Cisco is a closed source provider and they just screwed the pooch big time in the trust department when their users "just trusted them" and allowed automatic updates.

Unbelievable.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (2, Insightful)

DevTech (2680865) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600105)

Open source versus closed source is not an indication of a trust in a persons professional capacity or ethics. To try to say that this man's mental state is any way indicative of all mental states of open source developers is just offensive and stupid.

No, it's not stupid. The same logic is applied to closed source developers all the time. If half the developers would be bad apples, it would be a real problem and it would be looked at. That's not the case, of course, but Reiser was in quite high position. No one in closed source world within same position would work on code if he had mental problems. The company would had either taken care of him or let him go way before that.

As for trust being placed in a high level developer of any software platform, it is actually a benefit when the source is available. You see, it then becomes inherently possible, to actually check the code and verify it independently. When it is closed source, trust is all the more important, because their word is all you are ever going to get.

In comparison, closed source world has actual code verification and QA. There are tons of PRICY applications made for this. Large amount of people work just to test code and apps. Closed source code is usually checked really closely and actually tested with applications made for that. This part is often overlooked by open source developers either because they can't afford it or they simply don't care.

The very fact you mention Microsoft products being chosen over random open source products takes away any claim to an impartial position. Where are the plethora of closed source software vendors in that statement?

I mention Microsoft because they are 99% of the time chosen instead of open source competitors. Yes, that really is the case in real world.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600419)

No one in closed source world within same position would work on code if he had mental problems. The company would had either taken care of him or let him go way before that.

I never noticed companies are particularly good at diagnosing mental problems. I've seen destructive managers who I suspect were severe narcisists or perhaps even psychopaths. I've seen coworkers collaps with mental problems, even commit suicide. In corporate cultures that look down upon people showing their weaknesses or are too hurried to notice anything everyone behaves as if those weaknesses don't exist, and problems related to them aren't recognised until it is too late. Are you saying that closed source companies are somehow different [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (4, Interesting)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600253)

Open source versus closed source is not an indication of a trust in a persons professional capacity or ethics. To try to say that this man's mental state is any way indicative of all mental states of open source developers is just offensive and stupid.

And yet GP (gweihir, here [slashdot.org] ) strongly implied that the OPs trolling was indicative of all "opponents of FOSS"-- and got modded +5 for it. Double standard much?

Im not saying YOU'RE wrong, its just wacky how someone can say almost anything supportive of FOSS on this site and get modded up for it.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (1)

r1348 (2567295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600547)

Apparently, the majority of the people on /. is a FOSS supporter, and acts accordingly.
Nobody forbids FOSS detractors to voice their opinion or vote down comments, it's just that there's not enough of them.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (2, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600647)

Read my statement again. Hint: "If opponents..." means "If some opponents..." or "If this one opponent ...", nothing in there about "all". And no, the "strongly implied" is really just in your mind, it is neither in the text I wrote, not was it what I intended to say. What I intended to say referred exactly to this one opponent and all others that made the same statement.

True, there are people that would have though exactly what you accuse me of, but I did not and you cannot judge otherwise from what I wrote. The mod system is funky though and you have to look at the dynamics as well. Currently my posting is at 0,Troll. This may mean the MS shills are on me, or that I have hit a nerve.

There are both FOSS and anti-FOSS zealots here. I am neither. I just prefer good FOSS (there is a lot of bad FOSS around too) to bad or mediocre commercial software. And I have to say that wile Win7 is halfway decent, the abomination that is MS Office seems to get worse and worse with each release. Fortunately I have to use it rarely, but I use Office 2003, 2007 and 2010 Word and PowerPoint on occasion, and what I sees is a dumbing down, features vanishing or being harder and harder to find (e.g. explicit formatting display in Word, which is essential to make documents look consistent) and generally being an incredible pain. By now I think for any type of professional editing, LaTeX is easier to learn than current Word or PowerPoint, and that says a lot. Of course, if you have very low quality standards, Office does cut it, but so does LibreOffice and it does it better.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (0)

john29 (2676023) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600535)

yeah proprietary vendors are so much more stable..developers developers developers developers! developers developers developers developers! DEVELOP.....*chairs are thrown* http://price-specifications.com/ [price-specifications.com]

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (2)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600567)

Reiser was never "highly trusted". Some people did trust his filesystem, but most did not. It never really made it out of beta and had some real issues until the end as he refused to play with the community. You comparison to Microsoft is deeply flawed, and either you are trolling or you have no clue. ReiserFS is more like add-on software, made by some obscure company. Yes, it was/is in the kernel sources. But that does mean something completely different than it would mean for Microsoft. You are free no not compile it in or not load the module. In fact that is the default. Your "CTO of Microsoft" comparison would maybe apply if this had been Linus or one of his inner circle of kernel people. Even then that would have been doubtful. Reiser was never in there.

Also, extrapolating from one developer of a component that is entirely optional to a whole movement is a deeply flawed argument, and I am pretty sure you are aware of that.

These two things are what makes your "argument" pathetic, i.e. so far besides reality that it is completely clueless, either intentionally so or because you really have no clue how FOSS works. That is fine though. People without a clue should stick to commercial offerings. At least that way they can always use the excuse "but I payed for it, I do not have to understand it".

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600671)

I don't think you're a shill.

I think you're a troll parodying a shill.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600459)

Pathetic. If opponents of FOSS stoop this low, FOSS must have already won.

It's called a joke, fucking get over yourself.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (5, Funny)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600113)

What? His wife committed adultery. She preferred ext4.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (0)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600231)

Lame...

Greetings From A Maniacal Free Software Fanatic! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600199)

And your point is?

"Mania" is no joke. A symptom of my own Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder, Mania is a euphoric state of mind that, while it can feel good, is very very dangerous. Manic people are extremely creative, but when manic, have no way of distinguishing really good ideas from really bad ones.

For example, a man with Bipolar Affective Disorder - Manic Depression - drank eighteen beers one day then knocked over a bank. He carried his loot across the street, sat under a bush then quietly waited for the police to arrive.

I pull stunts like that myself from time to time, but fortunately for me Mania is quite rare. I'm the opposite kind, in that I spend much of my life contemplating suicide.

Good Day.

Michael David Crawford [dulcineatech.com] , who invites his critics to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600381)

yeah proprietary vendors are so much more stable..

developers developers developers developers! developers developers developers developers! DEVELOP.....

*chairs are thrown*

Re:Maniacs, all maniacs (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600433)

Open source doesn't mean you need to be insane to be a contributer. The majority are actually good people. However a lot of people get into open source because they can't get a job elsewhere and needs to prove their skills.

Now many may be college kids or people who's job is just so humdrum that they want a little fun. However some may be people who are bit off in the head and give employers the creeps. You may be the best person for the job, however if you give your employer bad feelings, they won't hire you.

"sued by own kids" (5, Insightful)

mfwitten (1906728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599939)

Sure...

His kids don't know what the heck is going on. As always, the kids are just tools in the machinations of the adults.

Re:"sued by own kids" (1)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599943)

In Russia, Kids sue you!

Re:"sued by own kids" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600011)

In America, you sue kids?! ;)

Re:"sued by own kids" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600093)

yes [yahoo.com]

Re:"sued by own kids" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600033)

A kid is merely an adult who we haven't chosen to blame yet.

Re:"sued by own kids" (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600565)

A kid is merely an adult who we haven't chosen to blame yet.

If children had the rights of adults, that would be true, instead of just nonsense left anonymously and cowardly.

Re:"sued by own kids" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600675)

I agree with this AC, some countries legal barriers to children have either been lowered, sometimes insanely, or have been dropped completely.

Re:"sued by own kids" (0)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600499)

Sued by mother in law, kids used as excuse.

Re:"sued by own kids" (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600657)

just follow the money....

Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (5, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599941)

Hmmm, I guess the guardians can't wait that long. Besides, what are they going to do if he doesn't cooperate, throw him in jail?

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40599983)

Yes, but then the greedy lawyer would not get his 60%

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (4, Informative)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600151)

According to wired [wired.com] , the lawyers are working pro bono on this.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600177)

Does that actually mean they expect to get a cut?

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600263)

Pro bono should mean that they are not taking any cut ( vs "no win no fee" - that either get a fixed cut, or charge their cost against won amounts)

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

sander (7831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600585)

No, it means that the lawyers are working on the case for free.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600393)

In this case, working Edward de Bono would seem more appropriate.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (4, Informative)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600013)

They're after hidden assets - which are going to be hard to claim after his death when no-one knows it exists (in a related note, I do sometimes wonder indeed what happens to such hidden Swiss bank accounts, where only the account holder knows of, when this person dies). They don't know whether he has any money, they think he does, and are trying to find that out.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (5, Informative)

u38cg (607297) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600049)

Bank accounts: typically, the account gets closed after several (potentially many) years of non-activity, and the bank then retains a liability if the owner or estate ever shows up. Depending on the laws of the particular state, this liability can usually be written off after a period of time, similar to abandoned property. Usually the profit accrues to the bank, but some states have laws regarding how such funds are used.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (4, Informative)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600129)

I see. I know many countries have laws that stipulate that such unclaimed heritage goes to the government, which then can use it for the general good. Sounds very reasonable to me; better than having it go to the profit of some private business.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600261)

Sounds very reasonable to me; better than having it go to the profit of some private business.

You mean the private business that safeguarded it for all that time?

You know banks arent charities, right? That they arent safeguarding your money and providing interest for the general good?

Seems perfectly fair if I agree to hold people's money and take liability for it for many years, and you disappear with no will or anything else, that I should keep the money (assuming no heirs or next of kin) rather than the government-- after all, the government already gets a big piece of the pie, but THIS piece they didnt earn.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (0)

toastar (573882) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600295)

<quote>

<p>You mean the private business that safeguarded it for all that time?</p><p>You know banks arent charities, right? That they arent safeguarding your money and providing interest for the general good?</p></quote>

They should be making interest on it.

<quote>Seems perfectly fair if I agree to hold people's money and take liability for it for many years, and you disappear with no will or anything else, that I should keep the money (assuming no heirs or next of kin) rather than the government-- after all, the government already gets a big piece of the pie, but THIS piece they didnt earn.</quote>

The government gets all abandoned property when someone dies. In this case they just don't have the burden of selling it for the funds.

I mean if you have a person with no family and no will, where do expect his house and car to go to when he dies? The first squatter?

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (0)

toastar (573882) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600301)

Fucking /.

You mean the private business that safeguarded it for all that time?

You know banks arent charities, right? That they arent safeguarding your money and providing interest for the general good?

They should be making interest on it.

Seems perfectly fair if I agree to hold people's money and take liability for it for many years, and you disappear with no will or anything else, that I should keep the money (assuming no heirs or next of kin) rather than the government-- after all, the government already gets a big piece of the pie, but THIS piece they didnt earn.

The government gets all abandoned property when someone dies. In this case they just don't have the burden of selling it for the funds. I mean if you have a person with no family and no will, where do expect his house and car to go to when he dies? The first squatter?

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600319)

It's not the government which gets it ultimately. It's the people. And the difference between that an a corporation is the people whom get it are not entitled to. The corporation's owners do not deserve it just because they did what they were paid to do. They already got paid for that safekeeping however it was stipulated for them to get paid. Be it they go $10 / year / month or made money off loaning this money out. The point is the best place it could end up is with the government or alternatively a charity doing good work (like educating underprivileged persons or feeding the poor).

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600339)

The bank didn't "earn" that money either. The only earned whatever fees and/or interests contracted with the account holder. If they hold it for 30 years, then they have 30 years of fees to subtract from the account, nothing more.

Yes, they did. (4, Informative)

wanax (46819) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600351)

The only reason the bank protected peoples' money for many years in the first place, and why Switzerland draws so many international deposits, is because they have a long record of effective government, an independent legal system and bank controls. Moreover, given that most modern governments guarantee deposits up to a certain level (100k CHF in this case), much of the depository risk is borne by the government and ultimately the tax payer, not the bank. And the bank has already made its (legitimate) profit by having access to the principal to lend against for many years. But hey, when you can ignore those inconvenient facts to privatize profits while socializing the risk, you gotta do it, right?

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600353)

Yeah, except in the US, it is still backed and secured by the FDIC. The bank has zero liability for "storing" currency, which in todays economy, even is less of a concern since it is all electronic anyways.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

mlush (620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600399)

Sounds very reasonable to me; better than having it go to the profit of some private business.

You mean the private business that safeguarded it for all that time?

You know banks arent charities, right? That they arent safeguarding your money and providing interest for the general good?

OK so what your saying here is that the banks lose money maintaining my bank account?

Seems perfectly fair if I agree to hold people's money and take liability for it for many years, and you disappear with no will or anything else, that I should keep the money (assuming no heirs or next of kin) rather than the government-- after all, the government already gets a big piece of the pie, but THIS piece they didnt earn.

Exactly what liability are the banks taking for the money? This is actual real money, not dependent on the health of the CEO or the wizardary of finance guy. On top of that the capital sum is getting less and less valuable as inflation chips away at it. $1000 in 1912 was a years and a half pay now its a weeks pay. As long as the interest rate is lower than inflation the bank can make a profit because they only have to return the same amount of currency not the same value of currency.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (5, Interesting)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600517)

Seems perfectly fair if I agree to hold people's money and take liability for it for many years, and you disappear with no will or anything else, that I should keep the money

So if you hold my money for years, then I want it back, you have to give it to me and get nothing extra. But if I die without instructions then you get to just keep it? Seems like that gives you the wrong sort of incentive.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600343)

In Canada, moneys in dormant accounts revert to the Federal government.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600095)

(in a related note, I do sometimes wonder indeed what happens to such hidden Swiss bank accounts, where only the account holder knows of, when this person dies)

What happens is the same that happened to the assets of the jews that were killed in ww2.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600157)

(in a related note, I do sometimes wonder indeed what happens to such hidden Swiss bank accounts, where only the account holder knows of, when this person dies)

What happens is the same that happened to the assets of the jews that were killed in ww2.

The money goes to Jewish bankers smart enough to be in Switzerland?

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600531)

If "hidden Swiss bank accounts" existed before, they ceased to do so after the Swiss agreed increased tax cooperation with the US and Europe in 2009. Within 2 years of this agreement, 28% of total foreign deposits in Switzerland had been withdrawn.

Of course, this money merely went somewhere else, so Hans might have money stashed in Grand Cayman, Panama etc - who knows?

I personally doubt that there is a secret Reiser fortune out there - while being an incredibly talented software developer, he was much less proficient at the practical aspects of life. Why did he take the stand at his own trial, despite his lawyer pleading for him not to?

I don't think he made that much money - his interpersonal skills were legendarily poor - and nothing about him indicates him being "streetwise" enough to hide significant wealth in foreign countries. The one thing he might have managed would be to bury a bunch of gold somewhere - but unless it gets him some years off his prison sentence, he won't be saying anything about that to anybody.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

r1348 (2567295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600577)

After a few decades, the inactive account/deposit becomes state's property. That's how Switzerland became THAT rich: offer capital safeguarding during Wolrd Wars, aware that there's always someone who won't come back to claim it.

Re:Wouildn't his kids inherit his money anyway? (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600109)

They could seek time added to his sentence. Or a transfer to a full-stroke storage facility

Surely their greedy lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40599945)

told them to file a lawsuit because he gets 40-60%.

Re:Surely their greedy lawyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600355)

RTFA, 'tard.

How is this tech/science/... related? (0, Redundant)

gruntkowski (1743014) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599951)

I don't get why this article is promoted. I mean: 'the Reiser kids are going to sue their dad'. Big deal! What's next: the Olsen Twins?

Re:How is this tech/science/... related? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40599967)

Reiser is the author of reiserfs. A filesystem in the linux kernel.

Re:How is this tech/science/... related? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600103)

Yes, but he's no longer actively developing it (for obvious reasons), and there's no reason to assume that this will change soon. Therefore whatever happens to him is no longer more interesting than what happens to John Doe, unless it specifically is about the code in the kernel (e.g. if someone had sued him for copyright violation over reiserfs, it certainly would be of special interest here).

Re:How is this tech/science/... related? (1)

kregg (1619907) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599971)

If they become Linux developers then sure

Re:How is this tech/science/... related? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40599979)

The Olsen twins are suing their dad?

Re:How is this tech/science/... related? (2)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600515)

The Olsen Twins have a *dad*
I always thought they were some kind of fungus.

Re:How is this tech/science/... related? (4, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#40599987)

Come on, man, you know perfectly well why the story was posted: because it's going to get upwards of 200 comments and a whole lot of pageviews because we're all morbidly interested in the nextgen filesystem developer turned murderer.

Now, what you really meant to say is: Fellow geeks, we ought not to take interest in this story.

Re:How is this tech/science/... related? (1)

gruntkowski (1743014) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600021)

I stand corrected. Now let's do some programming!

Hans Reiser's Latest disappearing act! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40599963)

First your files, _all of them_ disappear.
Then his ex-wife disappears.
$15m seems relatively easy/harmless to disappear...

Hidden assets. (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600001)

It's believed he may have hidden assets and a judgment is sought so a search for these can be conducted.

Probably in an vnode. Try "reiserfsck".

Re:Hidden assets. (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600085)

this will involve lawyers.

try 'man clusterfsck' for more info.

Re:Hidden assets. (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600191)

try 'man clusterfsck' for more info.

error: man page not found.
Did you mean glusterfsck?

Re:Hidden assets. (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600225)

Odds are good you'll have to dd him into a larger volume before recovery can work.

Re:Hidden assets. (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600605)

"Gonzalez also said Reiser – who was Linux software developer – may have intellectual property rights to some of the projects he was working on."

ReiserFS could be bought/licensed by Microsoft ...
"FAT64FS"

Children that sue? (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600023)

I wonder who really initiated the suit. Not likely the kids: what do they know about money, at that age, let alone law suits? Why would those children suspect the existence of hidden assets? They probably don't even know what the word means.

So other than these two children, who's going to benefit? Is this initiated by some lawyers that do the suing on behalf of the children? Is it initiated by their legal guardian who hopes to get access to (part of) that money?

Re:Children that sue? (5, Informative)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600059)

I wonder who really initiated the suit. Not likely the kids: what do they know about money, at that age

The lawsuit was initiated by the children's grand mother (Nina Reisers mother) who is their legal guardian and with whom the children now live in Russia.
I don't pretend to know anything about her motives, but I don't see anything wrong with a grand mother trying to secure her grandchildren's future. Especially after all they have been through.

Easy way to ensure the children get money (0)

aepervius (535155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600529)

make sure it is required in judgment that the money do not go to the guardian, but is stored on an account which can't be touched until 18, and on which the guardian has no procuration.

Re:Children that sue? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600205)

If you think a 12 year old doesn't know what money is and want it, you've never had a 12 year old...

Posting anonymously because I'm moderating.

Re:Children that sue? (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600421)

I wonder who really initiated the suit.

His wife? Google tells me she may still be alive... although strangely nothing dated since he confessed and lead the authorities to where he buried her and the body was positively identified as Nina... I've never known facts to stop the conspiracy nuts so abruptly.

Re:Children that sue? (2)

pipatron (966506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600533)

It's hardly a conspiracy theory to speculate that a missing person may actually be alive until they have found the body or got a confession.

I know where the assets are hidden! (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600039)

It's stuffed in the back seat of his car!

If Hans offers to drive his children to where the money is hidden, I hope they will have the sense to take a cab instead.

Re:I know where the assets are hidden! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600075)

Han's car has no back seat. I remember clearly, because he drives the same car I do. He also removed the passenger seat to make room for the body.

Re:I know where the assets are hidden! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600127)

Han's car? Who's that Han you are speaking of? The one who shot first?

Re:I know where the assets are hidden! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600169)

That Han wouldn't have fucked up so badly. Also the cops would have been reduced to shooting at random while he lifted off and made the jump into hyperspace.

Re:I know where the assets are hidden! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600139)

And then he didn't put it back!

What was the business worth? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600043)

IIRC Reiser was trying to sell his company after he was arrested, but I doubt he got 15*10^6 USD for it, and a lot would have gone to lawyers.

I know all manner of ways to hide assets (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600115)

I'd make a great Mafioso if I weren't so squeamish about Cement Overshoes. :-D

A little bird lit on my windowsill as I was having my morning coffee today to explain Barbados Bearer Bond Corporations.

I don't know the procedure for actually incorporating, but I expect there are services in Barbados that will handle it for you for a reasonable price.

Barbados Bearer Bond Corporations are Legal People just like the United States Disney and Heartst corporations, but when one incorporates one, one is issued a bond by the Government of Barbados.

Whoever physically posseses that bond owns the corporation, so be sure to keep it in a safe place.

ProTip: don't put it in a safe deposit box; The Man can legally drill out your lock if they obtain a search warrant. Instead, when you don't actively need to use it, pack it securely in a strong, leakproof container, then bury it three feet underground out in the woods somewhere, while noting your location with a GPS.

Once you have incorporated, your Bearer Bond Corporation can be the legal holder of a bank account. I suggest you don't open that account in the United States. I don't know about Barbados in particular, but many Caribbean nations have strict bank secrecy laws. They don't have taxes either. I understand Lichtenstein is that way if you live in Europe.

Once you have that bank account, you can receive wire transfers, EFTs and paypals.

Now you need to find a way to register a domain name anonymously. I looked into that a while back, and found some registrars that pointed out they were not beholden to United States Legal Authorities, but those registrars were in law-abiding nations, and so would be vulnerable were they to be served with a warrant by their own government. One way to do it would be to set up a second bearer bond corporation, so it could be the registrant. Slashdot once reported that Turkey permits anonymous registration, but I haven't yet looked into it.

Now you need an anonymous web hosting service. There are lots of those; they will accept payment by international money order. Just be careful not to get your fingerprints on the money order, its envelope or your cover letter. I recommend PRQ [www.prq.se] of Sweden; they will host anything that's legal in Sweden, and have their own full-time legal staff to fight takedown orders; I've been doing business with PRQ - under my real name - since 2010 and cannot recommend them highly enough.

Now you set up a completely legitimate website that monetizes itself in some way that doesn't require disclosing your true identity. A real good way would be to post Software Engineering Tutorials [dulcineatech.com] , then get Slashdotted once you build out your site. It's not that your Slashdotting will bring your site revenue, but that all the "organic links" that result will boost the SEO of your site, so that at a later time, it will actually get more visits every day as a result of search engine referrals than it did from your Slashdotting.

So don't be in a hurry to monetize your site. If you really are in a hurry to hide your assets, fly over to Amsterdam, buy a bunch of diamonds, then leave them deeply buried underground somewhere within the European Community - so you don't face customs inspection with a pocket full of Rocks, you see. Whenever you need some cash, dig them back up, keep a few with you then sell them for cash in Amsterdam.

You would do well to build several different sites, each on a widely different topic. Each will attract a distinctly different clientele, and its hard to know ahead of time what topic for a site will pay off. Whatever you do, you want a low-maintenance site, because you don't want to have to hire a webmaster to look after your money laundering operation. Every single one of my own sites consists entirely of static documents; the closest thing I come to a web application is that I now use Apache Server Side Includes for common elements like my site navigation.

Once you have at least one successful site with lots of inbound links, you can commence your money laundering. What you do is spend your money to advertise not your own sites, but sites that link to yours. Don't be too obvious about it; a real good way would be to find a message board on an appealing topic that does not yet have a lot of members, then promote that website. As its SEO grows, because Link Popularity - of which Google PageRank is a specific example - is transitive, if I link to your site, and you spend money to make my site popular, much of your investment will result in my site making your site more popular than it otherwise would be.

If You Know What You Are Doing Google AdSense is the very best paid advertising there is, but only if you know what you are doing. I once bid on an exact phrase match query with AdSense that consisted of but two short, simple words. One does that by placing one's keywords in quotes, like "blue widgets". I got one click that set me back a dime. That AdSense ad's second click also cost me ten cents, but resulted in a thirty thousand dollar custom software development contract.

(Wild horses would not drag those two short, simple words from my lips. I might need to use them again.)

Don't buy the pack of lies that the online advertising vendors feed you, that the purpose of advertising is to drive traffic to your site. No. The purpose of advertising is to drive conversions - in my case, closed consulting contracts. Before I clued in to that fact I was blowing over three hundred dollars per month on AdSense.

So now you've got a really, really popular, high PageRank, low Alexa Rank site that is cheap to operate because it consists of naught but static documents. You sure don't want a message board because you'd have to moderate it.

How to monetize it?

Sell links to other sites that at least appear legitimate. A good way to do that would be to accept pay for writing tutorials on products that are in your site's area of specialty anyway. Suppose you have a popular software tutorial site; I bet the chances are pretty good you could convince our friends in Redmond to pay you to write a study guide for Microsoft Ceritification Exams. There are lots of developer tools that are really, really useful, but not well known because their vendors are technically adept but clueless about business. Solicit them to pay you to write tutorials about their products.

Accept payment via paypal then drop it right into your Bolt Hole in Lichtenstein.

As your web of deceipt grows, you can create more and more shell corporations with more and more anonymously numbered bank accounts. Lather, Rinse, Repeat but most importantly:

Don't ever forget where you buried your bearer bonds!

Michael David Crawford [dulcineatech.com] , who just got a price put on his head by the Obama Administration.

Re:I know all manner of ways to hide assets (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600133)

while noting your location with a GPS

Yeah but what happens if you forget the coordinates? You write it down. Then what happens if the police find a WGS84 coordinate in your stuff?

Post the GPS coordinates on the Usenet News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600217)

in plain site of everyone, but carefully encrypted somehow.

For example, you could use an anonymous remailer chain to send each digit in a separate post to a bunch of completely unrelated newsgroups. Make sure your posts are on-topic so they're easy to find later in an archive search.

Suppose you need to encode the digits "123":

"One is the loneliest number" posted to a groupd about popular music

"Two can play at that game" when you get into a pissing match with a troll.

"Three strikes and you're out" in a discussion of the DMCA.

Re:Post the GPS coordinates on the Usenet News (1)

sander (7831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600615)

This is a great example of why you should never take advice from Anonymous Cowards.

Discovering Russia. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600149)

Discovery Channel:"Welcome to Russia week, where we cover the exciting things about Russia. Murder, intrigue, censorship, and the origins of the 'in Soviet Russia' meme."

how can you hide assets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600193)

in a journaling filesystem?

he changed IT culture... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600201)

Before Hans Reiser when debating one man projects they would always say "what if the lead developer gets hit by a bus?" now it's said "what if the lead developer gets arrested for murder?"

The lawyer of the kids gets a percentage? (0)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600211)

I have no doubt that some grown-ups have talked these poor kids in suing their own father. Alright, the bastard is a murderer. Still, leave the kids out of it, you damned lawyers. What percentage of the sum does the lawyer get? Enough to ignore ethical behaviour, I bet. The cliche that you have to pay the bills has a limit.

If left to themselves, these kids, ages 11 and 12 would never ever have come up with such a plan. It's adult greed, and it's sickening to make these kids go through all this just for money. Sure, it's gonna pay for their college years. And it's gonna leave them with a mental scar for life.

Re:The lawyer of the kids gets a percentage? (1)

sander (7831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600621)

The lawyers are working pro bono, which you would no if you read the article. Not that I expect you to know what it means.

They never learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600281)

Bang. Bang. (And another Bang Bang for the granny and her lawyer). Hans Solo.

Cut the crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600321)

Please put this kind of stories on people.com.

No hidden assets IMHO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600361)

If he had $15 million in hidden assets, he wouldn't have been working with the man that took his wife from him. Instead he would have gone off on holiday, had sex with a lot of slutty women and got a new wife.

On the other hand if he had no money, he'd have to suffer it, maybe even getting angry enough inside to kill her and him.

So the situation he was in suggests he didn't have a choice, i.e. no hidden money.

The ego the size of the plamet. (5, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600473)

It's five in the morning here and I am in no mood to be charitable.

The lawsuit was initiated by the children's grandmother. Their legal guardian. Her lawyers are working pro bono.

No fees. No slice of the pie. Got that?

Moving on.

Reiser is defending himself.

In a way, he is always defending himself. Reiser, it seems, can do no wrong.

He is the one who asked the judge to drag the kids into court.

"Why?" you ask.

What he wanted to do was to draw them into a grandiose scheme to promote his new and improved conspiracy theories and defense for the murder. The judge isn't playing along.

He claims his wife was abusing the kids, that she had Factitious disorder by proxy --- often referred to as Munchausen syndrome by proxy --- where a caregiver harms or even kills someone they are in charge of in order to gain sympathy and attention. During the 2008 trial, Reiser alluded to that as well, accusing his wife of having the disease when she wanted to get their son surgery for severe hearing loss.

In the unlawful death case, he now says why: ''I defended my children from harm.'' He added that, by murdering his wife, ''I stopped multiple felonies by doing so.''

In his papers, he accuses the courts, the prison system, county children's services, his trial attorneys and others of conspiring against him, during his murder trial and now in the civil case.

''There are extensive legal grounds under multiple arguments for defending an innocent child when the state will not, at the cost of a non-innocent party's life,'' Hans Reiser wrote.

Convicted of Murder, Linux Guru Hans Reiser Returns to Court to Fight Civil Suit [wired.com]

"Wired" has it all, in Reiser's own handwriting.

More.

The beginning of Monday's trial was marked by impatience from the judge and the children's legal team. The complaint against Reiser was originally filed in August 2008 by the children's maternal grandmother and legal guardian, Irina Sharanova. The case has been stalled as Reiser filed various motions to delay proceedings and claimed that he has not had adequate access to his legal documents while at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga.

''This trial has been pending for a really long time,'' said Judge Dennis Hayashi about the pretrial claims. ''I also made it clear that I'm not delaying this any further. ... We need to move on.''

Reiser, dressed in his orange prison uniform and appearing antsy at Hayashi's denials, has subpoenaed his children to appear in court.

They are living in Russia with Sharanova and are not expected at the trial, [Sharanova's attorney] said.

"I personally don't think it would do the children any good to come here and testify in this trial,"

"They'd have to relive what they went through as very young children."

Both of the children were at their father's house in the Montclair district when the killing is believed to have taken place.

Jury selection begins in Hans Reiser civil trial [mercurynews.com]

Re:The ego the size of the plamet. (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600715)

Thanks for this. :-/ It's an unhappy set of facts, but I think it's an accurate reading.

I had hoped that Hans would give up on the self-justifications. It seemed like his over-inflated ego collapsed when he admitted to the murder, but it seems back in full-force now. :-(

Can this be used to get a re-trial? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600571)

I am not a lawyer, but it seems plausible that this can be used as an evidence of fraud in Hans' marriage/divorce/custody, what substantially changes the circumstances of killing Nina Reiser, invalidating the whole previous trial.

Re:Can this be used to get a re-trial? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40600627)

No, you're not a lawyer. You're a fucking jackass who's trying to find excuses for a murdering SOB who should rot in prison.

Re:Can this be used to get a re-trial? (1)

sander (7831) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600651)

This does not give any new information that would cause any doubts as to whether or not it was a murder or manslaughter - the fact that he killed his wife is pretty damn watertight. So this does not change anything trial or sentencing wise, never mind the part where he pleaded guilty and lead police to her grave.

Trying to go back no saying "hey! look! like i said, they are evil money-grabbing bastards! this makes my trial invalid!" would simply get him laughed out of court.

Errr... no. (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 2 years ago | (#40600677)

Firstly, lots of people have bad divorces. That's never going to fly as circumstances for reducing a murder charge.

2nd, he already tried the "Munchhausen by Proxy" defense in the original trial. It was sad, pathetic, bullshit by a raving lunatic then, and it still is. (Just read the first-hand trial accounts...)

Last, Hans has already admitted to the crime and voluntarily waived all appeals. (He revealed the location of the body in return for a sentencing reduction.) This act of fighting the wrongful death suit is just another way for Hans to re-try the case he lost, and lost badly. He'll lose again, and lose badly, since he is so adept at making an utter fool of himself in court.

In Hans' world, everyone is to blame Nina's death, and his conviction for it, but himself.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?