XPost: alt.gossip.celebrities, alt.law-enforcement, alt.pets.dogs   
   XPost: alt.true-crime   
   From: theprof@jonez.net   
      
   Bert wrote:   
   > On 04 Aug 2007, "¥ UltraMan ¥"  posted some   
   >> BTR1701 wrote:   
   >>> comadrejo  wrote:   
   >>>>  Bo Raxo  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> Most homeowners policies will cover that kind of loss.  I have no   
   >>>>> idea what his house looks like, but I'll guess it's worth several   
   >>>>> million dollars and thus his policy limits will be adequate to   
   >>>>> cover whatever amount is negotiated.  Typically these are based on   
   >>>>> future earnings (with an extra percentage tacked on for   
   >>>>> pain/suffering/loss of consortium.etc.) and you're looking at a   
   >>>>> victim who is already halfway through his working life and   
   >>>>> probably didn't earn that much per   
   >>>>> year.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Bottom line;  about the only cost to Rhames will be flowers and a   
   >>>>> card.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   My guess also, from the Insurance Company's standpoint, how he   
   >>>>   died   
   >>>> could limit the liability payout.  If the caretaker died from a   
   >>>> heart attack, the Insurance company may limit the payment to the   
   >>>> caretaker benefactors, or if it went to trial, homeowner's   
   >>>> insurance liability could be limited...   
   >>>   
   >>> It also matters whether the caretaker was negligent in his own   
   >>> death. Rhames could have done everything right, locked up the dogs,   
   >>> etc. before he left to go shoot his movie and if the caretaker was   
   >>> the one who carelessly let them out or did anything which provoked   
   >>> them to attack, Rhames bears no responsibility whatsoever.   
   >>   
   >> Wanna bet?   
   >>   
   >>  respondeat superior   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> Until the investigation is over, it's silly to assume Rhames (or his   
   >>> insurance   
   >>> company) will have to pay out.   
   >>   
   >> You really were a crappy lawyer, weren't you?   
   >   
   > Clue:  He ain't and never wuz a lawyer...   
      
   As absurd as it may seem based on his decades of postings, BTR actually   
   was a lawyer in Texas for a short time before he quit to work for   
   the U$ Secret Service goons.   
      
   The pinacle of his career was "guarding" the drunken Bu$h Twin Sluts as   
   they proceeded to habitually violate Texas Criminal laws. BTR1701's   
   SS team even aided and abetted the commission of those continuing criminal   
   acts. When called-out by myself and others on the criminal corruption that   
   he and his team engaged in, BTR1701's asserted that Federal Agents had   
   no moral, ethical or legal duty  to prevent, stop or even report State crimes.   
      
   The recent ruling by US District Judge in the Peter Limone, right, and Joseph   
   Salvati   
   case clearly shows that BTR1701 is a comtemptible piece of shit.   
      
      
   U.S. must pay $101.7 million to men framed by FBI   
   BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A federal judge Thursday ordered the government   
   to   
   pay more than $101 million in the case of four men who spent decades in prison   
   for a 1965 murder they didn't commit after the FBI withheld evidence of their   
   innocence.   
      
   The FBI encouraged perjury, helped frame the four men and withheld for more   
   than   
   three decades information that could have cleared them, U.S. District Judge   
   Nancy Gertner said in issuing her ruling Thursday.   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   She called the government's argument that the FBI had no duty to get involved   
   in   
   the state case "absurd."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)