State Farm stops "dickin" around in Oxford, files Motion to Withdraw (a Rigsby qui tam update)

Believe me folks, State Farm won’t be pressing the Wall Street Journal to pick this story up – but that’s not to say State Farm’s Motion to Withdraw isn’t breaking news, only that some may have forgotten the history of discovery in the Rigsbys’ qui tam case.

Nowadays, there’s too much evidence on the table and the latest installment  of the State Farm-created “Sticky Note Caper” in filed northern Mississippi federal court proved no more effective than “dickin” around with oiled silk paper.

The “Sticky Note Caper” actually began with a Court in Washington, D.C. before it moved to Kentucky.  Oxford, where  State Farm’s Motion to Withdraw Motion for Return of Property was filed with hubris in USA v Scruggs, however, should be the last stop.  The Motion to Withdraw summarizes this short-lived attempt to play State Farm’s Scruggs sideshow” in a three-ring circus:

On July 20, 2010, State Farm filed its motion pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the United States to return property that State Farm believed may have been seized by searching agents while executing search warrant(s) issued in No. 3:07-mc-24 in this district.

State Farm’s motion was primarily seeking the recovery of the original of a document, to wit, an engineering report and “sticky note.” State Farm had reason to
believe that the papers may have been in the possession of Scruggs Law Firm, P.A., and seized during the execution of search warrant(s) on the premises of Scruggs Law Firm.

On July 27, 2010, the United States filed its response to State Farm’s motion, and in its response the United States asserted that: Continue reading “State Farm stops "dickin" around in Oxford, files Motion to Withdraw (a Rigsby qui tam update)”