|
Post by Roughneck on Jul 13, 2004 19:55:27 GMT -5
By CARSON WALKER, Associated Press Writer
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - A judge ruled Tuesday that former Rep. Bill Janklow was on duty when he caused a deadly traffic accident, meaning taxpayers would have to pay for any civil damages in a wrongful-death lawsuit.
U.S. Magistrate Arthur Boylan sided with a federal prosecutor's conclusion that Janklow, 64, was on official business Aug. 16, 2003, when he sped through a stop sign on a rural road and crashed into motorcyclist Randy Scott.
Janklow had appointments or appearances over two days around the state and was on his way home when the accident occurred. He did not stop at his mother's home in nearby Flandreau minutes before the accident.
"Even assuming he had stopped to visit his mother ... the diversion would have been inconsequential in this instance," Boylan wrote.
Boylan, ruling in St. Paul, Minn., concluded the federal government should be listed as the defendant in the lawsuit filed by Scott's family members, who are from Minnesota.
Lawyer Ronald Meshbesher wanted the case moved to state court in Minnesota so the family could get punitive damages, which is not allowed in federal court. He said he will appeal.
"The gist of the ruling is that he was acting within the scope of employment," he said. "And the fact that he was convicted of a criminal act did not take him out of the scope of employment because it was foreseeable that his employer, whoever that might be, would have expected a traffic accident."
Janklow, elected to Congress in 2002 after serving a total of 16 years as governor, spent 100 days in jail after his manslaughter conviction in the highway death. He resigned from Congress in January.
His lawyer, William Fuller, and Scott's mother, Marcella Scott, did not want to comment Tuesday. Janklow could not be reached for comment.
Ah, gotta love it. I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised, being that I was shocked that he was even held to any kind of accountability at all. i guess that was enough.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 14, 2004 20:45:07 GMT -5
A person who breaks the law by speeding and running stop signs that causes the death of another person is acting within the scope of his employment? As an employer, yes that's something I'd certainly expect. Here I always thought a Congressman's job was to uphold the law. Another fine example of how the buck stops-- over there.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Jul 14, 2004 20:54:56 GMT -5
Apparently it stops with the taxpayer.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 14, 2004 21:07:30 GMT -5
Apparently it stops with the taxpayer. Doesn't it always?
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Jul 14, 2004 21:55:28 GMT -5
Yeah, but this time it's in the most literal and blatent sense.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 14, 2004 21:59:41 GMT -5
Yeah, but this time it's in the most literal and blatent sense. It'd always in the most literal sense. Who do you think good old Kenny Starr handed his bill to?
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jul 19, 2004 23:24:14 GMT -5
I honestly don't know which one scares the crap out of me more these days...the Judicial branch or Congress and the Executive branch.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 20, 2004 22:36:44 GMT -5
I honestly don't know which one scares the crap out of me more these days...the Judicial branch or Congress and the Executive branch. I'm very glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels that way! Everyday I come across off the wall decisions that make my hair stand on end. There are far and away too many judges out there who don't have even the slightest background in or knowledge of the law and their interpretations of the law have gotten too far, how shall I say, interpretative of the actual law.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Jul 21, 2004 0:07:45 GMT -5
Just the fact that judges have to pass litmus tests and are considered liberal or conservative shows that judges are hardly impartial nowadays. Yes, they will always have their own opinions, but now they use their judgeships to impose their ideology on the country every bit as much as legislators and executives.
|
|
|
Post by SanAntonioMike on Jul 21, 2004 22:36:23 GMT -5
Well, here in Phoenix, a police officer shot an unarmed woman in the back and claimed "self defense" because she was "going to run her car over him." Despite the prosecution pointing out that shooting the driver would not stop the car, he got off.
Her crime? Passing a bad subcription. Her baby was in the car, too.
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 22, 2004 8:38:07 GMT -5
Just the fact that judges have to pass litmus tests and are considered liberal or conservative shows that judges are hardly impartial nowadays. Yes, they will always have their own opinions, but now they use their judgeships to impose their ideology on the country every bit as much as legislators and executives. The sad part is, this is not how our country's forefathers envisioned it. The three-part governmental system was supposed to be about checks and balances. The judiciary was supposed to be the FINAL check and balance - it would prevent crummy laws (i.e., the acts of the legislative branch) from being executed by the executive branch. Now, however, judges legislate and execute without hesitation. UNELECTED individuals hold the fate of our democracy in their greasy little hands.
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Jul 22, 2004 8:51:41 GMT -5
I'm very glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels that way! Everyday I come across off the wall decisions that make my hair stand on end. There are far and away too many judges out there who don't have even the slightest background in or knowledge of the law and their interpretations of the law have gotten too far, how shall I say, interpretative of the actual law. Well now, I agree with you about judges taking the law as written and "reading" in certain things. I always wince when I hear a judge say "the legislature meant this" or the "legislature meant that" when they drafted the law. Oh really, your honor? You mean, you were there when the bill was drafted and debated? You were inside the heads of the legislators and thus know their "true intent"? Spare me! Wayward judicial interpretation has engendered a cottage industry that thrives on wordplay and nuance to evade the law. Yes, that's right, I'm talking about trial lawyers. Indeed, for lawyers (and I should know ;D ), it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. ;D
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Jul 26, 2004 23:06:09 GMT -5
Well now, I agree with you about judges taking the law as written and "reading" in certain things. I always wince when I hear a judge say "the legislature meant this" or the "legislature meant that" when they drafted the law. Oh really, your honor? You mean, you were there when the bill was drafted and debated? You were inside the heads of the legislators and thus know their "true intent"? Spare me! Wayward judicial interpretation has engendered a cottage industry that thrives on wordplay and nuance to evade the law. Yes, that's right, I'm talking about trial lawyers. Indeed, for lawyers (and I should know ;D ), it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. ;D It's not any different than those who proclaim to "know" exactly what the framers of the Constitution's "true intent" was. I was however, referring more to judges in general, including those on municpal and state levels. I was not too long ago enlightened to the fact that judges don't need any sort of degree or background in the law to become a judge, something I'd always thought was a requirement. The way they're transferred around left me quite unsettled too. A traffic court judge can be transferred to family court simply because they're short handed, despite not having experience, knowledge or expertise in family law. Two case that have gotten national attention recently particularly turn my stomach-- the Schiavo case in Florida and the Marks/Aylsworth case in New York.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Jul 26, 2004 23:34:05 GMT -5
Yup. Same for Supreme Court Justices. There are absolutely no requirements to be a Supreme. Not even an age limit. And I've seen arguments that the Supreme Court Justices, especially the Chief are more important thatn the President. I love how folks read invisible ink. Like using the Fourth Amendment the justify abortion. Or the Second Amendment. now, i'm a gun lover, but I do remember the part that said "in order to maintain a militia." I hate when folks use it to try to justify an absolute right to own firearms.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jul 27, 2004 21:51:55 GMT -5
Two case that have gotten national attention recently particularly turn my stomach-- the Schiavo case in Florida and the Marks/Aylsworth case in New York. Yeah...that's just what I mean too. In one case you have a situation where the courts have ruled in the husband's favor repeatedly...so where the hell does Jeb and his legislature get off over-riding the courts...(which has since even ruled that their 'law' is unconstitutional- but this family's nightmare will continue indefinitely until the case makes its way through appeals court after appeals court)??!! The other you have a totally warped and unjust ruling by a judge who was recently transferred from criminal court to family court and inexperienced in domestic and family law who made a travesty of a ruling based on 'junk theory' from the pyschobabbling 80s era that the majority of family court judges disregard as unproven quackery.
|
|