Talk:USAA/Archive 4

message: I appreciate the poster's linking to the blog, but I'm afraid its answered only one question (which leads to another).
So, to recap (and please bear with my questions: I'm trying to understand the controversy):
Q1) Under what charge(s) were you arrested?
:A1.1) "thinking and writing truthfully about an important issue" [?] [this is ClipO6's rhetorical question].
::A1.2) I relate the facts: I leave it to you to extract "the charges".  I see no charges.  All I see is a platoon of highly paid lawyers and a very compliant Texas judiciary trying to hushup the conversion of $5 billion.  If you read Kafka, Satre, Camus, and even John Fowles:  you will better understand the absurdity of the entire affair.  Koenig asks a few questions about how McDermott, Herres, and Davis got $5 billion to stick to their hands - and Koenig goes promptly to jail.  Davis has become so frightened of the dark cloud which hangs over the question of this missing $5 billion that he's beside himself.  If there is some plausible explanation as to why this $5 billion wasn't returned to the members in the years it was generated, then let's hear that from McDermott, Herres, and Davis.  How does putting Koenig in jail for a week help matters?
:C1) That is an interesting charge. But, while I again appreciate the poster linking to the blog, I think -in reality- the answer needs to be answered by Mr. Koenig (rather than a fellow outside observer like myself) or documentation provided to indicate this is a real charge. I've never heard of any legal charge referred to as "thinking and writing truthfully about an important issue," so I'm doubtful Mr. Koenig would appreciate someone answering Q1 for him with that as the answer. So, I'll leave Q1 open for Mr. Koenig to answer.
Q2) What led you to believe the deputies were in the direct pay of Mr. Davis? Are you implying they were employed as off-duty officers at that time by Mr. Davis, or do you think it may have been USAA?
::A2.1) The Sheriffs of Nassau County do not lift a finger to do anything without being paid.  There is nothing presumptively illegal about their acting as Robert G. Davis' private police force:  but with the Nassau County Sheriff, you "pay to play".  Trust me:  find an instance, just one instance, where the Nassau County Sheriff has tracked down and arrested a woman/child abuser on the request of a person protected bya court order:  come on, give me a break.  Robert G. Davis paid these guys:  and if he didn't, let him say so on these pages.
::A2.2) You ask if there is a distinction beween USAA, qua USAA and Robert G. Davis.  There is.  It was actually the 2.2 individual natural person subscribers to USAA who jailed Koenig:  Davis did it "for them" as their "attorney in fact".  The law suit against each of the 2.2 million members, individually and personally, who participated in this 42 U.S.C. 1983 violation of US Constitutional rights, under color of law, is going to be very very interesting.  The members of the Board of Directors of USAA and the employees of USAA who are simultaneously subscribers to the unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange are going to have a chance to find out if USAA's E&O insurer will inedmnify much less defend them.  What is important to appreciate here is that USAA is unincorporated:  Baer v. United Services Automobile Assn., 503 F.2d 393, 394-395 (CA2 1974) tells us that each of the 2.2 million members is personally and individually exposed to unlimited personal liability in any state court anywhere in this country.  It may be, as USAA insures overseas as well, that an action against the each of the 2.2 million members could also be commenced in anothe country:  wouldn't that be a hoot.  But equally important to understand is that Robert G. Davis, as a trustee for the assets of the 2.2 million members, is a resident of Texas.  And the residence of a trust is the residence of thr trustee.  This means that the members of USAA, who speak through the USAA board of directors, might find a proper jurisdiction in the Federal Courts for the action they should be commencing against Davis, and McDermott and Herres before him. All I can say at this point it that this is going to be very interesting.
::C2) But there is a broader question here:  and that is the clearly exhibited historical pattern of USAA to use its connections with law enforcement agencies to silence critics and overly insistent policyholders through intimidation abd the threat of converting ordinary claims to criminal proceedings.  There is going to be a lot more on this subject - especially as to the extraordinarily close relationship between USAA and the FBI:  so close, that FBI agents are allowed to become full members of USAA.
Again, thanks to the respondent and thanks (ahead of time) to Mr. Koenig for directly answering the questions.
You're welcome.
Edit: the above post is one part Clip06 and one part someone else's editting of Clip06's post. Please understand that the post by Clip06 was not intended to be so disjointed.
--Clip06 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Above Response