Notre-Dame: the problems with insuring a national monument

Who owns Notre-Dame and is it insured?

The French state owns the building and is its own insurer, and thus bears the entire risk.

"It doesn't use an insurance company … which is the case with a certain number of chateaux, it is a choice," said Dominique de la Fouchardiere, head of the SLA Verspieren firm, a specialist in insuring historical monuments and chateaux.

According to the Culture Ministry, the state owns 2.7 percent of the 44,321 listed historical monument.

Although the state owns the building, it is theoretically the archdioceses of Paris who is responsible for insuring the interior.

Contacted by AFP, the archdioceses of Paris did not immediately respond about the insurance coverage of the artworks and objects in the interior of the cathedral.

How will the insurance be brought into play?

Most likely with the determination of the origin of the fire and if one of the firms working on the cathedral is determined to have been responsible.

"There is a major risk that in this case it will go to court given the importance of what is at stake and the determination of responsibility is complex," said Nicolas Kaddeche at Hiscox, a specialist insurer for artworks.

With a number of different firms working on construction and renovation projects, he said it can be difficult proving who is ultimately responsible.

What kind of payout is likely?

If responsibility for the outbreak of the fire is not assigned to one of the firms working on renovating the cathedral, then the French state will on the hook. Thus the nearly 700 million euros in private donations already pledged will be important.

However, if one of the firms working on the cathedral is determined to have been responsible, the insurance company is liable up to the amount of the policy taken out.

How are the value of the building and artworks determined?

SLA Verspieren's de la Fouchardiere said that insurers try to evaluate the value of many of the features of national monuments, but "you can end up with an inestimable value".

He also noted that insurance companies base their policies on estimates of the real value of a property, which should be near the cost of reconstruction, and not market value.

Concerning artworks, Kaddeche said that various levels of coverage are possible, from covering only repair costs all the way to replacement.

The Swiss reinsurance firm Swiss Re told AFP that "works of art and relics are generally not insured as it is often impossible to estimate their value".

https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/notre-dame-problems-insuring-national-monument-doc-1fp0wc1

Why do people view "aliens" as being small and green, why can't they look just like us?

Copy pasta from youtube

April 15: XV tarot card is The Devil, is related to fire and to pagan god Saturn, father of Jupiter who defeated him (Notre Dame is build upon Saint Etienne church, and this over the first roman temple to Jupiter in the actual France)

XVI tarot card is The Tower, also know as LA MAISON DIEU (IN FRENCH "GOD'S MANSION"!!!)

Look at the tarot card at The Economist front, it is not a common tower, it is a christian church, a mansion.

Look at the other card, The Hermit, he is leading a march of yellow people, protesters. Could be a reference to Juliet jaunes (yellow vests).

Every fucking person I know sensed a very annoying vibe while watching at the TV, and we are not even in the fucking France, we are in the last corner of the world, but they all looked like horrified, like come on people don't freak becouse some church is burning thousands of miles away…

I got a phone call from my brother while working, he said "ey you see the TV? Notre Dame is fucking burning" and I was like "who fucking cares?" and then he said "Idk… It just remembered me the 9-11".

Every single person I asked about got the same vibe. My grandma said something like "this is the Devil's work".

Yeah… People got the message.

Giuliani: Trump lawyers finishing Mueller report rebuttal

Q, is this reason why are they distracting us?

>>6201998

If the OIG found no intentional DOJ and FBI malfeasance in their June '18 report on 2016 FBI conduct/activity (Clinton-Trump), what's the likelihood of the same OIG finding malfeasance as it relates to DOJ/FBI FISA activity and the exact same people?

Think about it.

The 2018 report found no DOJ/FBI misconduct (only some bad judgement). There were no criminal referrals. There were recommendations for internal improvement, which Director Wray said the FBI would implement.

The June OIG report was the second OIG report of 2018 attached to the FBI (first was FBI media leaks which did result in McCabe referral). And the June report covered the totality of DOJ and FBI activity throughout 2016.

Three months prior to the June 2018 OIG final report being published, in March 2018 the third angle of the OIG review was opened. This third OIG review is specific to issues around FISA. This is the one all are awaiting.

It's important to note the Office of Inspector General FISA review/investigation of potential FISA abuses (opened March) was launched three months prior to the "Election Activity" final report in June 2016.

The time frame covered by the "Election Activity" review (OIG report 2) and the "FISA Activity" review (OIG report 3) are the same. The topics are different (FISA being more specific), but the people under review and time-frame therein are identical.

Three months after announcing the "FISA specific review", the OIG produced report 2 and stated there was no intentionally corrupt behavior the IG office could identify in the conduct of DOJ and FBI officials in 2016; only some very questionable judgement.

No criminal referrals were made as a result of the June OIG report; and by the time the "election review" report was finalized many of the reviewed FBI and DOJ officials had resigned, retired or been fired. [The remaining exits came shortly thereafter]

The question: If the OIG found no intentional corrupt activity in the June '18 report (only bad judgement); no referrals were made; and time period and people are exactly the same; how can the OIG produce a post-facto FISA review report with substantively different conclusions?

Bruce Ohr is likely still employed for the same reason the dispatch of Strzok was delayed. The OIG and INSD (inspection division) can only reach those still inside the system.

On the narrow issue of how the DOJ and FBI assembled, handled and used the FISA application, and subsequent Title-1 surveillance warrant, against the Trump campaign (and officials therein), Bruce Ohr is a key and central witness for the OIG.

Unlike the previous OIG report #2 (Election-era Issues) if the OIG can find direct and intentional "gross misconduct" (by referencing traditional and historic FISA application assembly therein), toward those officials who participated in the FISA assembly then it becomes possible the OIG report could potentially outline the FISA application resulted in serious fourth amendment civil rights violations.

And that could be a narrow opening toward legal issues for DOJ and FBI officials who participated in assembling an intentional fraudulently-based application to the FISA court.

Unfortunately, that approach is a very high bar for the OIG to reach. Again, the OIG would have to find "direct evidence" of "gross misconduct" resulting in civil rights violations. The defensive arguments would be filled w/ legal justification(s) and internal process discussion.

Unfortunately x 2, such outlined "fourth amendment" FISA abuse finding would also be adverse to the interests of a larger U.S. intelligence apparatus, and institutional participants, who rely on utilization of the FISA process and would seek to protect it.

I suspect the officials who abused the FISA court are also relying upon the necessity of the FISA process to protect themselves from too much scrutiny and sunlight.

An example of that reality is found with HPSCI Chairman Devin Nunes advocating for FISA renewal April '18.

As HPSCI Chairman @DevinNunes knew (still knows) the FISA process was abused for corrupt intent; however, he also knows it is a critical component and tool for the U.S. intelligence system and national security. Currently he is advocating for a much larger conversation about it.

All of this reflects how complex the institutional issues are.

I suspect the initial media reports on the completion of IG Horowitz's "reconciler phase", and first-draft report going to principle stakeholders, will surface sometime in April.