Skip to comments.
Taxpayers to Pay Damages from Janklow's (R-Former SD Governor) Crash With Motorcyclist
Associated Press ^
| November 30, 2004
| Carson Walker
Posted on 11/30/2004 7:55:58 AM PST by wallcrawlr
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- Former U.S. Rep. Bill Janklow will not have to pay any money out of his own pocket for an accident that killed a Hardwick, Minn., man.
The lawyer representing Randy Scott's family said today that he will let stand a federal judge's ruling that Janklow was on duty Aug. 16, 2003, when he sped through a stop sign near Trent.
That means federal taxpayers, not Janklow, would pay any monetary awards from a wrongful death lawsuit because Janklow is covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act, which protects federal employees from negligence claims when they're on duty.
The federal judge now will dismiss the civil lawsuit against Janklow and the Scott family will file a new claim against the U.S. government.
Janklow, 65, was elected to the House in 2002 after serving 16 years as governor. He resigned from Congress in January, spent 100 days in jail for the criminal convictions and paid a fine.
Ronald Meshbesher of Minneapolis, the Scott family lawyer, said he decided on no further appeals because it likely would take too long to get a ruling and was ``an uphill battle.''
He said he has two years from the day of the accident to file a claim with the government but an appeals decision could take longer.
``I think the law is wrong but that's just the way it is,'' Meshbesher said. ``The government is picking up his problem and taking him off the hook completely.''
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: janklow
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
This guy Janklow is beyond pathetic.
more details in link
To: wallcrawlr
Outrage piled upon outrage.
2
posted on
11/30/2004 8:15:41 AM PST
by
pikachu
(The REAL script)
To: wallcrawlr
3
posted on
11/30/2004 8:16:32 AM PST
by
BikerNYC
To: wallcrawlr; martin_fierro; BraveMan; blackie
I'd go to jail for a year if i was promised Janklow would be my cellmate the entire time.
The terror I would instill in that SOB would make the devil himself "Giggle" with joy.
RIP Randy Scott.
To: wallcrawlr
The lawyer is letting it stand because the US govt has deeper pockets.
This is just another example of the priveleges that an elected official gets when in office. If a military member commits a crime, the military quickly cuts the ties that bind and the military member is on their own to deal with any civil/criminal litigation after the military has taken their pound or two of flesh out of them.
The govt needs to let this guy go out on his own and let him fend for himself!
5
posted on
11/30/2004 8:24:54 AM PST
by
SZonian
(Do you smell that? That's the smell of victory!)
To: 68 grunt; angry elephant; archy; Askel5; baddog1; basil; beowolf; BikerNYC; Bikers4Bush; ...
6
posted on
11/30/2004 8:30:10 AM PST
by
martin_fierro
(00111100 00100000 01111100 00111010 00101001 01111110)
To: wallcrawlr
this POS needs to be in a crowded jail cell with multiple "bubbahs" for a loooong time
7
posted on
11/30/2004 8:41:19 AM PST
by
steplock
(http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
To: wallcrawlr
The results of lawyers making laws - enforcing laws - judging laws.
HITLERs
8
posted on
11/30/2004 8:43:03 AM PST
by
steplock
(http://www.outoftimeradio.org)
To: martin_fierro
9
posted on
11/30/2004 8:45:24 AM PST
by
Askel5
(† Cooperatio voluntaria ad suicidium est legi morali contraria. †)
To: JoeSixPack1
Our tax dollars at work ~ Bump!
10
posted on
11/30/2004 9:40:40 AM PST
by
blackie
(Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
To: wallcrawlr
How do I get one of those "commit crimes with impunity" passes?
To: JoeSixPack1; wallcrawlr; martin_fierro; blackie
I can understand the Scott family wanting to give up and throw in the towel.
They need to close this chapter of their lives.
Janklow's free pass is only temporary. His judgement day will come . . .
12
posted on
11/30/2004 9:48:54 AM PST
by
BraveMan
To: wallcrawlr
This ought serve as a caution for those about to enter the voting booth.
13
posted on
11/30/2004 9:55:44 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
To: martin_fierro
14
posted on
11/30/2004 10:11:38 AM PST
by
blackie
(Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
To: BraveMan
15
posted on
11/30/2004 10:14:02 AM PST
by
blackie
(Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
Comment #16 Removed by Moderator
To: wallcrawlr
Piece of crap parasite.
I hope a drunk driver takes him out, because we're not only getting no justice, we have to pay for his evil actions?
Damn government.
17
posted on
11/30/2004 10:47:46 AM PST
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: BraveMan
I can understand the Scott family wanting to give up and throw in the towel. They need to close this chapter of their lives. They're not giving up - they're going to steal a lot more money from taxpayers (who committed no wrong against them) instead.
If they were "giving up", they'd give up, instead of filing a new lawsuit against the taxpayers.
18
posted on
11/30/2004 10:49:41 AM PST
by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: wallcrawlr
Maybe some federal employee can post relevant law or policy. I was a state employee for 18 years. If someone was drunk driving and sppeding the state was free to not pay damages since the person was violating the law, even though on-duty. Law violations, outside-the-scope of duties, were standard exceptions to the state indemnifying the employee.
To: Hank Rearden
If memory serves, the Scott family through their lawyer have been the driving force behind moving this litigation from the federal courts to the state courts, to avoid this very scenario where the taxpayers instead of Janklow end up picking up the tab. As I understand, the Scott family has been vigorously fighting this move to the federal courts. They did not want the taxpayers to bear the financial burden any more than you or I do.
Now they could continue to fight this for years I suppose. I would think continuing to contest the move from the state to federal courts is wearing them down. They have a substantial emotional investment in all of this the other side is not encumbered with. Do I fault them for not continuing to fight the good fight? In a word, no.
Do I think they should give up any claim to compensation for their loss simply because some fed is pushing the burden on to the taxpayer? Again, no.
I feel strongly the Scott family deserves some sort of compensation for their loss. I gather from the tone of your response you have some misgivings with the Scott family receiving any compensation whatsoever from the taxpayers. Tell you what; I'll cover your fair share of the cost. Figure out how much is coming out of your own pocket and I'll cut you a reimbursement check . . .
20
posted on
11/30/2004 1:05:00 PM PST
by
BraveMan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson