Posted on 11/30/2004 7:55:58 AM PST by wallcrawlr
The picture is of Randy Scott on his Road King, before he met Janklow . . .
"this POS needs to be in a crowded jail cell with multiple "bubbahs" for a loooong time"
I agree. Janklow had a habit of speeding and reporting
ghost vehicles he was trying to avoid. He's a lying turd.
I hope he's tormented by the demons of his conscience
for as long as his pathetic life lasts. Jerklow is ALREADY done with his jail time as I recall.pathetic,really.
This ruling is complete horseshit. This is another judge on the bench stretching. Janklow was DUI--FTCA doesn't and wasn't intended to apply to that unless the drunk bastard was going home from work or somehow otherwise 'on duty,' which I sincerely doubt from the facts cited in another article.
"Janklow had appointments or appearances over two days in Rapid City, Pierre and Aberdeen and was on his way to his Brandon home when he went through a stop sign at an intersection of two county highways.
In his ruling, Boylan concluded that Janklow and his chief of staff, Chris Braendlin, drove by but did not stop at Janklow's mother's house minutes before the accident.
"Even assuming he had stopped to visit his mother in Flandreau ... the diversion would have been inconsequential in this instance," Boylan wrote.
The magistrate also concluded that Janklow's driving habits did not remove him from coverage by the Federal Tort Claims Act that legally protects federal employees.
'It is foreseeable that improper driving conduct, including conduct that can be construed as reckless, would occur,' Boylan wrote. "
How and where did he get drunk? Was he chuggin' a flask or did they stop at a bar or what? That is highly relevant to the case, and I don't know from the facts here. Does anyone else?
The Scotts aren't going after the deep pockets--they'd prefer to be in Minnesota courts, where they can get punitive damages! Instead, the courts are happy because they get to do a little CYA for a congressman, which will make Congress feel much safer as they drink and drive at events.
The solicitor had better be going after Janklow for reimbursement after this.
Nope. FTCA doesn't allow punitive damages, as I recall.
I feel strongly about it, too, since Janklow wasn't a taxpayer representative at all, but a stupid drunk bastard, and the court here just covered for him. So you can send me a check, too. What I'll do is send the government a check for fifty grand earmarked specifically for the Scotts, and you can just send me the whole thing in advance. I'm sure you'll be eager to do so because you feel so sorry for them.
Just because you feel bad for people is no reason to take money out of MY pocket. The people who should be responsible here are A) the people who insured this SOB after multiple accidents given his record and B) the SOB himself--NOT the U.S. taxpayer, no matter how sad the story. It's freewheeling with other people's money that got us into this mess. You as a conservative should know better.
oh my word...i thought it was janklow....i reported myself to to the mods
i feel terrible.
Look, I couldn't agree with you more; Janklow is responsible for his actions, as I am for mine and you for yours.
The fix is in, courtesy of the judge. The people who should be responsible have been absolved of responsibility, or so it would seem. That is the cold, hard reality here. In your zeal to promote fairness and protect the taxpayer, you do realize you're in effect advocating placing the burden solely on the Scott family for the actions of the Janklow and this judge, don't you?
If I were in their (Scott family) shoes, it would be pleasant to think I could walk away from pursuing any compensation at the taxpayer's expense. That would certainly be the honorable and noble course of action. To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure I could do that, nor could I find fault with anyone else who couldn't either.
I guess I'll have to pony up and pay your share as well . . .
And here I thought you thought it was me . . . ;0)
Where I disagree is that they somehow are owed the money by the federal government simply by virtue of having suffered through Janklow's action, that because they have nowhere else to turn, the federal government should be their refuge. I will say it again: You as a conservative should know better. Send them a check. Pass the hat at your office. But do not dip into the pocket of millions because you think they deserve better. It's equally likely those millions are just as deserving.
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he."
"If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose...."
"There are about 240 members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money...The people about Washington no doubt applauded you for relieving them of the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is a usurpation."
From Ellis' biography of Davy Crockett (text of Not Yours to Give at http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm)
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.