Like buckin' fuzzards, State Farm goes after Rigsby qui tam

Like a Good Neighbor
Like a Good Neighbor? H/T New Orelans News Ladder

State Farm’s team of buckin’ fuzzards swooped down from the perch in their poisonous tree leaving droppings at McIntosh in their search for qui tam carrion – buteo buteo too blind to see.

The thing they keep forgetting when they wear out the Rigby sisters and Scruggs for purloining all of the fraudulent and altered engineering reports from them, is that every time they do it, they are underlining the fact that fraudulent and altered engineering reports do exist and that they can be found at State Farm and its contracted companies.

Buckin’ fuzzards seeking an expeditious and final end to the quest for justice of qui tam Realtors – filing a response in opposition and calling the evidence collected on behalf of the American people poisonous fruit

So as to prevent any misunderstanding as to what State Farm means herein by “stolen” documents, materials, information or ESI, State Farms means any of the foregoing that were obtained by the Rigsbys or their agents by any means other than through normal civil discovery in an action in which the Rigsbys are parties.

when clearly they know it is not:

The doctrine is subject to three main exceptions. The tainted evidence will be admissible if (1) it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source; (2) it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or (3) the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated. (emphasis mine)

Buckin’ fuzzards with the hubris to claim the 5th Amendment responses of Dick Scruggs and his son Zach are evidence of guilt – waited until after discovery ended to their similarly guilty employee, the hard-to-serve Lecky King, available for deposition.

Buckin’ fuzzards that hear the cottonwoods whispering above and start dreaming of evidence for Tammy to sing like a violin in the hooty-owl hooty-hoos of their motion for leave to file motion for summary judgment in McIntosh.

Buckin’ fuzzards feigning respect for justice while showing blatant disregard for same by putting out the the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by BFR&G/GB&M as road kill – while failing to reveal the 11th-hour response they submitted to the 5th Circuit but eagerly revealing their strategy:

In the near future, State Farm intends to move to disqualify the Rigsbys as witnesses, and perhaps further as Relators in this Action, as well as to move for the exclusion of all documents, information and Electronically Stored Information stolen by the Rigsbys and their agents – relief similar to that granted State Farm by this Court in its Order in Thomas C. McIntosh and Pamela McIntosh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co…

State Farm intends to respond separately in opposition to the Rigsbys’ motion for clarification…of this Court’s April 4, 2008 Order in McIntosh.

Buckin’ fuzzards think they can hide behind the fruit of the poisonous tree they planted but cannot:

…this Court’s Scheduling Order for Dispositive Motions Pending on August 5, 2008, provided instructions for how parties should designate deposition testimony given by the Rigsbys…Since this Court is allowing the parties to use deposition testimony previously given by the Rigsbys, it seems highly unlikely that this Court intended the McIntosh Order to preclude the Rigsbys from testifying in this case.

Buckin’ fuzzards – bitch and master – whispering sweet nothings.

To be clear, nothing in this submission constitutes consent by State Farm to the Rigsbys serving as witnesses or Relators in this Action or to the use or introduction of any stolen evidence by them. (emphasis added).

Consent, fuzzard? Buckit.

13 thoughts on “Like buckin' fuzzards, State Farm goes after Rigsby qui tam”

  1. How will State Farm try to explain the emails presented in the Rico case? Those were damning but were in no way related to the Rigsbys.

    Glad those Buckin’ Fuzzards aren’t my neighbors.

  2. Me, too, Mktpro66, those buckin’ fuzzards drop whatever they’ve picked up and worked over into the Rigsby sisters’ yard hopeful the rot will spread.

    They don’t intend to explain anything – just see if they can make the blame stick on the Rigsby sisters so all of this will look like one big case. I gather the strategy is to get one dismissed and then claim they’re all related and dismissed by association.

    Worked for them on attorney disqualification but expect the judges are on alert to keep the snake from biting twice.

  3. I am sorry, but I am having a very hard time getting past this paragraph. It just cracks me up!

    As stated in prior filings, State Farm has no interest in unnecessarily delaying resolution of this Action. Nonetheless, while State Farm wants an expeditious and final end to the Rigsbys

  4. No, belle, those “protections” were there for the policyholders, Judge Senter made that clear. I think the quote you cited is yet another indication of the arrogance that comes through in this latest filing.

    I just can’t imagine filing a response that tells the Judge what he can rule that will be acceptable to the defense. Sop got it the other day when he wrote that saying it three times doesn’t make it true.

    I’m thinking we’d see more justice if we started playing this game by football rules. Penalties for holding, going out of bounds, ineligible receiver, backfield in motion…

  5. What football rules apply to theft of documents, suborning perjury and bribing witnesses?

    Unsportsmanlike conduct?

    Just curious.

  6. And then there’s the fake trip to Bloomington to pick up the fake documents from the fake informant. What football rule covers that one?

    But the better question is this: if you really have a good case on the merits, why do all the extraneous scamming? If you have a good case, why lie? Why steal? Why steal and destroy original documents and them accuse SF of shredding those very same documents?

    Is that what you do when you have a good case?

    I don’t think so.

  7. I’ll have to get a rule book to answer, claimsguy, but while I’m checking, I need you to read the RICO question I’ve posted and tell me your lawyer opinion.

  8. Your RICO question is a waste of time. There is no RICO case here. There are a bunch of individual coverage cases, most with no merit, a few with some, but that’s it. But a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization? Not even close.

    Wasting time hoping for a home run ball like a RICO case is just that: a waste of time.

    (By the way: wasn’t it this blog that decried the federalization of the law? Yet you seem to be madly, deeply in love with RICO (Federal) and the False Claims Act (Federal). Hmmmmm.)

  9. Contrary to what is probably thought about my position, I for one would like to see the RICO action go forward. I feel all the agents, employees, and the public deserve to KNOW if a crime were actually committed. There needs to be closure so some healing will begin. If there were mistakes but no “concerted effort” then we need to know this, protect from them for next time and go on. If there WERE CRIMES that CAN BE PROVEN (and I’m not just talking in the court of public opinion,) then the guilty parties need to be punished.

    I am QUITE POSITIVE that many on this blog will settle for nothing less than a public crucifixion of all insurance executives, agents, adjusters, etc. however the people that still have an open mind (those in the middle of either extreme position,) need to know this was fully investigated, adjudicated, and resolved. Let the chips fall where they may.

  10. A standing O for your first paragraph, proximo. The problem is seems to be getting anything to go forward. There courts are backed so backed up that justice has a longer gestation period than an elephant – and new cases are being filed every day as the SOL approaches.

    As to your opinion of this blog in second paragraph, I take exception to the “all”. There are too many good people in the insurance industry undeserving of the unfavorable light SF has shed on all – my agent for one.

    “all wrong-doers punished” is what I think everyone wants with the exception of the wrong-doers themselves. Whether there will ever be agreement on who did wrong and who made a mistake, I just don’t know.

    When the chips fall, I wonder if anyone will be satisfied that a full investigation, adjudication, and resolution was a fair one. It shouldn’t be like that but it seems to be the mood in our country on lots of issues, not just insurance.

  11. Yeah, no matter which way it goes, there are always going to be people saying there was cheating afoot. (Lets see, “Bush stole the election…, OJ was Guilty, No one has ever landed on the moon, etc.) By the way big N, I didnt say ALL, I said MANY…which I think is fair. (just sayin….)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *