Risk management is the identification, evaluation, and prioritization of risks (defined in ISO 31000 as the effect of uncertainty on objectives) followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor, and control the probability or impact of unfortunate events or to maximize the realization of opportunities. Risk management’s objective is to assure uncertainty does not deflect the endeavor from the business goals.
What goes hand-in-hand with risk management is insurance coverage. Wikipedia defines the purpose of insurance as,
a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
Risk management and insurance coverage are the motives behind judicial corruption. Look at it in these simple terms, a homeowner would be liable to another if the other person was bitten by the homeowner’s dog, or fell on a slippery step, or tripped on a misplaced tool, or injured by the owners car or other vehicle. Such “injury” would be covered by the homeowners insurance company. Afterwords, the insurance company may either raise the homeowners premiums or cancel their policy entirely based upon the “risk” of a future claim.
Governments are no different. They are “at risk” for damages arising from their negligent conduct just as a homeowner. And any ‘adverse judgement’ against government will have the same consequence on their insurance coverage – either their premiums will increase or their coverage will be cancelled. But governments have ONE layer of protection that homeowners don’t … governments have their judges! Judges manipulate our judicial system so both insurance companies and governments don’t pay for their negligence or misconduct. In other words, judges “fix cases – i.e., a cover-up” in order to obtain outcomes that benefit insurance companies. It is also why judges claim “immunity” for their judicial decisions — it is one cover-up to hide another cover-up. Said another way, it is ‘institutionalized corruption’ devised by judges, implemented by judges, and protected by judges in order to manage risk.
Here are two judicial opinions (out of many) that serve as clear examples showing the modus operandi judges use to protect insurance companies, which in turn helps governments keep their insurance coverage — the ultimate scheme in RISK MANAGEMENT.
US District Court Judge, Tacoma, WA, Benjamin Settle overturned a jury verdict awarding Clyde Spence $9M because a police officer fabricated evidence to convict him (see Spence v Krouse). So too, a jury verdict was reversed against a police officer by the 11th circuit judge claiming,
“A man awarded $472,000 by a jury for his wrongful arrest, only to see the verdict tossed and a new jury award nothing, came up dry again after a federal appeals panel upheld a lower court order granting the second trial. The ruling lets stand a verdict absolving an Atlanta police officer of damages for the 16 days plaintiff Dan Benton spent in jail after being arrested on child molestation charges that were later dropped. “
The reason for these judges to overturn a jury verdict is to SAVE insurance company profits and SAVE the ability the government has to obtain insurance coverage. There is no other reason for a judge to overturn a jury’s determination that awards the victim his or her damages suffered at the hands of government misconduct. It is this simple … judges are the front men in this insurance fraud scheme for the benefit of themselves, the government that pays their salary, and the insurance companies that insure them all.