Posted on 09/26/2020 5:05:47 AM PDT by MtnClimber
On Thursday, in his continued effort to get his case dismissed, Michael Flynn filed a third brief supporting the original dismissal claim. This made waves because it included texts between FBI analysts in which they admitted that they knew the investigation against Michael Flynn was unfounded and driven by partisan animus. The text messages might have revealed more than that: One texter confessed that those involved bought professional liability insurance after becoming afraid that news might leak about their conduct. They might have committed insurance fraud if they didn’t let the insurance companies know they had already committed wrongful acts.
There are multiple types of insurance fraud. Most people are familiar with cases in which people committed arson against their property or even murdered someone to collect insurance.
Another form of insurance fraud takes place at the time of purchase. Insurance exists to cover against possible future incidents. A person cannot buy insurance to cover a known past incident. That’s not insurance; that’s just cost-shifting. If someone knowingly and intentionally “forgets” to tell the insurance company about an existing claim, and then seeks to recover on it, that’s an actionable fraud. Indeed, it’s a two-tiered fraud because there’s fraud in both the purchase and the claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Very sharp observation! It makes sense. You can’t set your home on fire then run to buy fire insurance. The FBI agents who bought personal insurance knew or should have known they were not fully disclosing the severity of their risk when they purchased their policy. I doubt if insurance companies will pay on these fraudulent policies.
TUESDAY-—
MORE fodder for voters just before the first ‘debate’.
Sullivan is still going to hammer Flynn. Look for about a 3 year sentence just because Sullivan has the power to do whatever he wishes.
Which ins company was involved?......GEICO, of course.
Not Progressive?
DECEMBER 17, 2015 : (RUSSIA : RUSSIA TODAY DINNER IN MOSCOW ATTENDED BY FLYNN, MIFSUD)
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/12/sidney-powells-latest-motion-michael-flynns-case-russiagate-bombshell/
This why Flynn’s legal team wants the phones. From the article:
“Some of the evidence Powell seeks is already presumed by many to exist, such as FISA applications pertaining to Flynn and the original 302 written shortly after FBI agents interviewed Flynn about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. But other evidence Powell identifies reveals that she has skinned all the snakes involved in SpyGate and knows exactly what went down. For instance, Powell requested “any information, including recordings or 302s, about Joseph Mifsud’s presence and involvement in engaging or reporting on Mr. Flynn and Mifsud’s presence at the Russia Today dinner in Moscow on December 17, 2015.””
13 posted on 10/16/2019, 11:29:01 AM by EVO X
“We’ll know how deep the swamp is when we learn the insurance company is ok with being defrauded.”
It might end up being like all the detritus being hired by Netflix. Just another way to launder campaign contributions/bribes.
That's certainly an interesting question and it could go in a number of different directions. If the intentional acts were performed prior to the coverage period of the policy, then there would be no coverage for them.
If this were a commercial liability case where higher ups in a corporation directed the misconduct, then civil (and if applicable, criminal) liability would extend up to those giving the order and possibly to the business itself.
What complicates this case is these are government employees, and to an extent they would have qualified immunity from civil liability, unless it could be demonstrated that their actions were not merely poor decisions, or deviations from protocol, but also had bad-faith motives.
Let's suppose Flynn sued some of these employees for their actions. The employees would turn it over to their insurance companies. If the insurer accepted that the employees were in fact professionally liable, they would try to settle the claim. If, on the other hand, the insurer would deny coverage (based on the gov't employee's fraud on the application, excluded loss, etc.) Flynn would sue them personally, during which the employees may try to use the "just following orders," defense, or invoking qualified immunity. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question that would not be answered short of litigation, and I would suspect such a suit would likely establish some pretty weighty case law for future actions.
What about teaching FBI Agents that if asked to do something illegal, that they can say, "NO". An FBI department called "Nuremberg Trials" could be set up so agents concerned about the ethics of doing something 'wrong' would have a group to go to...who would stand with them.
If Sullivan sentences Flynn, it will get deleted on appeal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.