Now I kind of wish someone would violate my civil rights.
I bet you could find someone on craigslist, Adam.
You know, while this is funny on a "Stick it to the Republicans" level, it's wrong for the city to be able to buy that kind of insurance, or for the RNC to be able to buy it on behalf of the city. The decisionmakers in the Minn/StP police departments are responsible for policing in a way that violates people's civil rights, and should have to pay for that decision -- even if it was necessary to keep the RNC happy, the city government should have told the RNC to go pound sand.
Actually, its more complicated. First, a policy that really did pay the full amounts of actual judgments for actual, intentional violations of civil rights would probably be void; what the policy could pay are settlement amounts and litigation costs. We don't know whether the $10m is the amount paid in settlement or an amount paid in settlement+litigation costs. Second, the real cost to the Republicans is, of course, amount paid in the insurance premium, not the amount the insurer actually pays out.
It would be interesting to know the premium the Republicans paid for that policy.
My advice to greedy radicals whose civil rights were violated and want to maximize their $$$: bring suit fast with a good lawyer and settle out early while there's still a lot of room under the policy.
My advice to non-greedy radicals who want to actually punish the city for its actions: hold out, get a longer trial schedule, and take the city to trial after it has already blown through the policy. Your risk/reward ratio is worse if you want cash, but you'll be a much bigger headache for the city of St. Paul.
But everyone who has got a plausible case should sue. I'm sure there's money to be had and justice to be done.
I honestly don't know if there's any legal bar to buying insurance for liability from intentional torts. It seems plausible that there might be, but I've never had to think about it professionally.
5 -- Generally, there is such a bar. It's possible that there is some exception for city or state governments purchasing insurance for intentional civil rights violations (not my practice area), but I doubt it.
1. What idiotic insurance company agreed to issue that policy for anything less than a premium equal to the coverage? (Perhaps a company that saw this as a good way to make an under-the-table $10M contribution to the Republican party?)
2. So it's still going to cost the city several million since they've already blown through the coverage in a couple days?
Isn't there some kind of moral hazard here? Or does that only apply to common folk?
7(1) -- Yeah, I was also wondering about that. It does seem most likely that either it was a premium equal to the coverage or a sub rosa way of contributing to the party. Of course, we know that large insurers would never have an interest in contributing to the Republican party, so that story must be false.
7: I was thinking the same thing, except that a premium slightly under the coverage amount, proportional to the very small chance that there wouldn't be civil rights violations, would be appropriate. Maybe the policy cost 9.5 mil?
8: That'd be the reason for the bar Halford described. As I said above, I don't know anything about the boundaries of the bar, or even that it existed.
I think this policy might possibly be justified in a legal way by saying that it's for litigation costs only, which occur whether or not you're found guilty.
8 - The moral hazard problem is why you usually can't, as a matter of law, buy insurance against crimes or intentional torts. But what you can do is buy insurance that protects you against litigation costs.
Then, just before the trial when it seems likely that you'll lose, you settle out without actually admitting fault, which means that the insurance payment is (in theory) for your litigation costs, not for actually paying off the crime.
This is how large companies manage to insure that they never (or only very rarely) pay the actual cost of intentional securities fraud, for example. The only real check on the system is that if you're really a bad actor and the intentional fraud is obvious, the insurance company can refuse to pay. I don't really see that happening in the case of an obvious sweetheart deal between the republican party, a large insurance company, and the City of St. Paul, though.
This is another example of market failure due to excessive government regulation.
We should have been able to form and capitalize a corporation to underwrite the costs and expenses of pursuing the civil rights claims, in exchange for a large proportion of the damages collected. We could have made a bundle, and there'd be plenty of money to do an excellent job litigating.
For example, with enough money, claims against Republican officials personally could have been pursued, along with claims against the campaign and the RNC. I'd love to see a judgment against Rove for, say, $50 million in punitives for conspiring and aiding and abeting deprivations of civil rights and battery and false impisonment. I'd have paid a thousand dollars, say, for a .01% share of such a judgment.
7
"So it's still going to cost the city several million since they've already blown through the coverage in a couple days?"
If you read the link you will see the $8.2 million is NYC's cost to date for the 2004 Republican convention. NYC is of course famous for generous lawsuit settlements as for example the guy who got $650000 after his attempt to commit suicide by jumping in front of a subway train failed.
A tort thread! Someone bake some tarts!
I actually do intend to bake a free-form apple-quince tart later today if the dough I found in the freezer is still good. It can't be more than two months old, uh, probably.
Excessive government regulation also makes the realization of the hog farm project unlikely. It turns out the USDA regulations forbid pork fed in way that makes disease transmission possible -- for example, the transmission of the Rove prion from brain to brain.
14 -- There's already a market solution to your problem. It's called "contingent fee lawyers." Unfortunately, the odds of actually getting a $50 billion punitive damages verdict are pretty low, which is why few have stepped forward on the issue.
15 -- If you're right that $10 million is well over the maximum amount likely to be paid out (I have no idea) then absolutely everyone who was brushed by a police baton should sue right away. There's money to be had, and it's not even the money of the people who will be making the decisions on paying it out.
I wonder if it occurred to Mr. Choi that they could just not violate civil rights for week, and avoid charges that way.
Contingent fee lawyers don't answer the need.
If I want to participate in the profits of writing insurance I can buy shares in any of the publicly traded insurance companies. That entitles me to whatever dividends they pay out of their earnings.
I can't buy shares in any of the big plaintiff's firms. That's usually called champertry or barratry or some such things. That means that the risk and the reward can't be distributed in a free market, as prosperity requires.
Perhaps Emerson and I should start a political movement dedicated to ending excessive government regulation. We can call it Hogs & Suits.
If Michael and I unite our forces, who could withstand us?
19
"... There's money to be had, and it's not even the money of the people who will be making the decisions on paying it out."
Doesn't the insurance company have to agree to any settlements it will be paying for?
If this happens again four years from now, tons of folks will be going to the Republican Convention for the sole purpose of having their civil rights violated.
21 -- Ah, I see your point. But there are many more indirect ways of participating in the action while avoiding the barratry laws, if you wanted to. For example, most large banks (and now some hedge funds) have programs in which you can advance loans or guarantee portions of a contingent recovery, in return for taking a portion off the top once the large settlement comes in. I don't think that you can participate in any of those programs as an individual investor, though, although there may come a day when you can.
23 -- Yes and no. Someone probably has to approve at the insurance companies, but it's the overworked city attorneys who are actually defending the cases who are going to recommend what's reasonable to the insurance company. Pretty favorable spot to be in as a plaintiff, if there's tons of available insurance.
My impression is that once upon a time, when you sued for a rights violation, you could actually sue the government official responsible directly, which provided incentives against misbehavior. Now that governments always pick up the tab, the incentives are much lower. (I thought I heard this in the context of John Wilkes, but Wikipedia -- the only reference I'll deign to use -- doesn't have the details.)
I don't think that you can participate in any of those programs as an individual investor ...
I sense an unfille market niche. That's how we'll finance Hogs & Suits. For if Emerson be with us, who may stand against us?
I remember the good old days when the Democratic convention in Chicago was the place to get [your rights] violated. The world has really gone to hell when you have to go to Minnesota. But perhaps there's another market niche. Hogs & Suits goes into the travel and specialty tour business?
Somehow "The Minneapolis 6,287" doesn't have the same ring as "The Chicago 7"
That's usually called champertry or barratry or some such things.
champerty.
Maybe you could arrange for torts to be committed against a
corporation, and then sell shares in the corporation. Or the
torted folk could incorporate or something.
If even a portion of what's been reported on Firedoglake* is true, I think that damages shold go well above $10 million.
I also think that there's something wrong with the immunity rules. Trained officials acting after deliberation and forethought - this is one of the few situations where deterrence should work. And it's not working. Apparently the penalties aren't certain or steep enough.
Perhaps the government could pay a bounty for the head of any law enforcement officer taken in the course of violating a person's civil rights? It'd be kinda like the bounty that was paid on wolves. A public/private cooperative approach.
And I should have looke up the spelling of champerty.
What I hear from St Paul (through the internet, not personal communication) is that crowd control was federalized under DHS, which in turn took its cues from the RNC. Governor Pawlenty was fully on board and the mayors of the two cities mostly just stood and watched. Their only real fear was that their cities' brand would be tarnished, the way Seattle's was by the WTO riots. The corrupt Ramsey County (St. Paul) sheriff took the lead. As I understand, federalization erased all jurisdictional boundaries and provided $50 million to bring in mercenary policemen from elsewhere. A real cash cow for the cop industry. The only politician who comes off looking at all good is Congressman Keith Ellison of Minneapolis; Norm Coleman is a loyal Bushie, and Klobuchar was instrumental in getting the $50 million.
The police assault began with a bunch of preemptive raids. The facts will come out in trial, but at least some of those preemptively arrested were independent media people whose goal was simply to document the demonstrations. Media, including commercial media, were treated as demonstrators throughout.
As far as I know, the mass arrests during the convention (around 700) were also made without much regard for whether any offense had been committed. It was all preemptive, making sure that no disruption is possible. In one case demonstrators were herded onto a bridge, trapped there from both ends, and then arrested (for trespassing on the bridge? Not sure).
Of the 700+ arrestees, my guess is that fewer than 100 were involved either in civil disobedience or in direct action, or even planning for that. A considerable number have felony charges which might be prosecuted as terrorism.
It's their world, and we just live in it. I imagine that Klobuchar is making mealy-mouthed statements, but as far as I know, except for Ellison everyone official in Minnesota is basically happy with the way things turned out, and I don't think that there's much more Democratic outrage nationally.