Did you know that Mr. De George won his case re: disability insurance, inspite of the fact that he was working in his profession as an attoerney, filing numerous briefs, apperaring in court and deposing insurance investigastors for days, regarding his case in chgief.
These activities were the substantial and material duties of his occupation of an attoreney. In fact the depositions of the insurance investigator were video taped. Oh, well.
The comments that DeGeorge has a history of filing “questionable” claims has no factual meaning. Before an insurer pays a claimthey investigated and if there is any factual or legal basis for denying a claim they simply deny it. Mr. DeGeorge’s claims were each investigated, the even of the loss was admitted by each insurer, and it was paid in full and without any compromise.Tehy even paid interest in some cases for holding up the paymant without any valid legalor fqactual basis.
As for the fact one has more cliams inhis life time than another, it has not value and constitutes no basis for assuming that one with many events which give rise to a claim is making a false claim. In the field of probabilities such an assumption is known as the “MOnte Carlo fallasy.” That is, the probability that lightening will hit the same lace twice is the same that it will hit some other place. Or, each time you sin the roulette, the probability that the ball will hit red or black is unrelated to what color was obtained in the previous spin. Thus, each time a yacht casts off the probabbilty that the yacht will suffer an event is unrelated to what hapened last time the yacht had cast off.
Some will have no losses all their life and some, a samll number, will have many.
And just because a person is rear ended several times, it does not mean that he was rea ended in order to callect money from some inurer.
The gossip generated about DeGeorge was due to the interest of the insurers and some bad lawyers who seek to gain fame by dramatizing a phenomenom of life.
As for the conviction of the flooded yacht in 1992, no one is discussing the fact, the lack of motivation for DeGeorge to damage a new 76 fot luxury yacht on its maiden voyage, 50 mile off shore, with no food or water, not enough fuel to get to shore on a rubber lefe raft, when there was no insurance policy issued yet, and when there wasno valid insurance yet because the captain had not been approved by the insurer yet. There was absolutely no reason, motivation or expected profit to damage a yacht under such conditions.
Rex Degeorge gave me leagl advise and i ended in prison for three years,this was 1986.he has his own rules and laws and thinks he is hero. i hope prison time humbled him
The frenzy observed around this case is much greater than virtually any case involving fraud by any insurance company, a bank, a government, a multi billion dollar Ponzi scheme, or the recent banking events.
Obviously, there are those who want to intimidate insureds from making claims on their policies when they have a loss. Such publicity scares the dissuades the ordinary person from persueing a claim against an insurer out of fear that they will be accused of fraud. In fact, when an insurer has no defense against a claim, they almost always scream “fraud”. This scares the insured and forces him or her to accept a much lower sum than what should be paid as just compensation.
As to the real dynamics of the criminal case against DeGeorge, one must wonder why it took the US 20 days of tprosecutorial testimony at trial, before a judge who was the prior US Attorney in the same district (which includes Los Angeles)to prove fraud against DeGeorge. Why did the trial judge block virtually every effort by the defense lawyer to introduce any exculpatory evidence, and why the court did not want to hear DeGeorge’s request (on the record) that he wanted to testify but was not allowed. How can one have a fair trial if he is not allowed to testify on his behalf and present evidence in his defense? Does anyone really deny these facts? Will I have to attach copies of the trial trancript of the purported trial to show what really happened in the trial ??
Why did the FBI and the US Customs offices, immediately after the yacht incident in October 1992, inform the Italian investigators that Rex K. DeGeorge was connected wit the Travis Ashbrook drug conspiracy, a child pornography ring in Los Angeles, money laundering in Monte Carlo, and connections with the Maffia chief in Palermo, only to retract all these false accusations some 30 days later. Obviously, that caused the Italians to focus on DeGeorge rather than persue the Russian captain who left the yacht an an offshore trawler. (Note that at the loss date, 1992, the iron curtain had just fallen and well connected operatives from both sides were using various avenues to ship their contraband and high tech materiel to buyers in North Africa using ports such as Naples, Italy.
This case is so complex and full of intrigue generated not by DeGeorge but by the “Legal Attache” (FBI) operating out of the US Embassy in Rome and the US Customs office.
Coincidentally, and suspiciously, the US prosecutors did not try the case, or even inform DeGeorge they intended to prosecute, until:
1.) two of the key players from Customs and FBI died or became unavailable
2.) All witnesses and person in neighboring yachts who had seen the captain and crew cast off were lost and could not be located any longer.
This tactical delay left DeGeorge with no independent witnesses. Obviously, one cannot discuss much of the evidence in this limited forum. Perhaps, if I find it of interest, I will write a complete expose’ which will shed more light to the reader about what really happened.
One must wonder why none of the writers or bloggers conducted any investigation of review any of the exculpatory evidence but instead chose to blindly be a meer echo of the US prosecutors and the insurance company’s lawyer.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Did you know that Mr. De George won his case re: disability insurance, inspite of the fact that he was working in his profession as an attoerney, filing numerous briefs, apperaring in court and deposing insurance investigastors for days, regarding his case in chgief.
These activities were the substantial and material duties of his occupation of an attoreney. In fact the depositions of the insurance investigator were video taped. Oh, well.
give the man a break. he is being overpunished
The comments that DeGeorge has a history of filing “questionable” claims has no factual meaning. Before an insurer pays a claimthey investigated and if there is any factual or legal basis for denying a claim they simply deny it. Mr. DeGeorge’s claims were each investigated, the even of the loss was admitted by each insurer, and it was paid in full and without any compromise.Tehy even paid interest in some cases for holding up the paymant without any valid legalor fqactual basis.
As for the fact one has more cliams inhis life time than another, it has not value and constitutes no basis for assuming that one with many events which give rise to a claim is making a false claim. In the field of probabilities such an assumption is known as the “MOnte Carlo fallasy.” That is, the probability that lightening will hit the same lace twice is the same that it will hit some other place. Or, each time you sin the roulette, the probability that the ball will hit red or black is unrelated to what color was obtained in the previous spin. Thus, each time a yacht casts off the probabbilty that the yacht will suffer an event is unrelated to what hapened last time the yacht had cast off.
Some will have no losses all their life and some, a samll number, will have many.
And just because a person is rear ended several times, it does not mean that he was rea ended in order to callect money from some inurer.
The gossip generated about DeGeorge was due to the interest of the insurers and some bad lawyers who seek to gain fame by dramatizing a phenomenom of life.
As for the conviction of the flooded yacht in 1992, no one is discussing the fact, the lack of motivation for DeGeorge to damage a new 76 fot luxury yacht on its maiden voyage, 50 mile off shore, with no food or water, not enough fuel to get to shore on a rubber lefe raft, when there was no insurance policy issued yet, and when there wasno valid insurance yet because the captain had not been approved by the insurer yet. There was absolutely no reason, motivation or expected profit to damage a yacht under such conditions.
Rex Degeorge gave me leagl advise and i ended in prison for three years,this was 1986.he has his own rules and laws and thinks he is hero. i hope prison time humbled him
The frenzy observed around this case is much greater than virtually any case involving fraud by any insurance company, a bank, a government, a multi billion dollar Ponzi scheme, or the recent banking events.
Obviously, there are those who want to intimidate insureds from making claims on their policies when they have a loss. Such publicity scares the dissuades the ordinary person from persueing a claim against an insurer out of fear that they will be accused of fraud. In fact, when an insurer has no defense against a claim, they almost always scream “fraud”. This scares the insured and forces him or her to accept a much lower sum than what should be paid as just compensation.
As to the real dynamics of the criminal case against DeGeorge, one must wonder why it took the US 20 days of tprosecutorial testimony at trial, before a judge who was the prior US Attorney in the same district (which includes Los Angeles)to prove fraud against DeGeorge. Why did the trial judge block virtually every effort by the defense lawyer to introduce any exculpatory evidence, and why the court did not want to hear DeGeorge’s request (on the record) that he wanted to testify but was not allowed. How can one have a fair trial if he is not allowed to testify on his behalf and present evidence in his defense? Does anyone really deny these facts? Will I have to attach copies of the trial trancript of the purported trial to show what really happened in the trial ??
Why did the FBI and the US Customs offices, immediately after the yacht incident in October 1992, inform the Italian investigators that Rex K. DeGeorge was connected wit the Travis Ashbrook drug conspiracy, a child pornography ring in Los Angeles, money laundering in Monte Carlo, and connections with the Maffia chief in Palermo, only to retract all these false accusations some 30 days later. Obviously, that caused the Italians to focus on DeGeorge rather than persue the Russian captain who left the yacht an an offshore trawler. (Note that at the loss date, 1992, the iron curtain had just fallen and well connected operatives from both sides were using various avenues to ship their contraband and high tech materiel to buyers in North Africa using ports such as Naples, Italy.
This case is so complex and full of intrigue generated not by DeGeorge but by the “Legal Attache” (FBI) operating out of the US Embassy in Rome and the US Customs office.
Coincidentally, and suspiciously, the US prosecutors did not try the case, or even inform DeGeorge they intended to prosecute, until:
1.) two of the key players from Customs and FBI died or became unavailable
2.) All witnesses and person in neighboring yachts who had seen the captain and crew cast off were lost and could not be located any longer.
This tactical delay left DeGeorge with no independent witnesses. Obviously, one cannot discuss much of the evidence in this limited forum. Perhaps, if I find it of interest, I will write a complete expose’ which will shed more light to the reader about what really happened.
One must wonder why none of the writers or bloggers conducted any investigation of review any of the exculpatory evidence but instead chose to blindly be a meer echo of the US prosecutors and the insurance company’s lawyer.
I sincerely doubt Mr. DeGeorge is/was capable of such unlawful actions.