FBI: Scruggs Paid 2 Men to Persuade Miss. A.G. not to Indict State Farm

February 28, 2008

  • February 28, 2008 at 10:10 am
    TC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds like the “witch hunt” slipped a little on that alleged bribe; no?

  • February 28, 2008 at 10:19 am
    Payback says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Amazing;the prosecution puts forth purchased testimony and insults the legal profession by unsubstantiated allegations. What is a judge worth? Evidently, a mere 40 thousand. Someone in the justice department should be ashamed.

  • February 28, 2008 at 6:15 am
    Good Hands says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So, to buy an attorney costs half a million but you think you can get a good judge for only $40,000? I am glad to see that Balducci has such high standards!

  • February 29, 2008 at 7:03 am
    not to charge State Farm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Attorney General Jim Hood said Wednesday he would not have met with the men if he had known they were paid to persuade him not to file charges. “If I knew they were getting paid that much I would have told them to get out of the office because it just didn’t smell right,” Hood said.The FBI document was filed Monday as part of a defense motion introducing a potential witness. It says Balducci accompanied Patterson, who had a long-standing relationship with Hood, to a meeting in which the lawyers allegedly asked Hood not to charge State Farm.

    “Hood later agreed not to indict,” the report said.

    Hood acknowledged meeting with former State Auditor Steve Patterson and attorney Timothy Balducci around Christmas 2006, but said he was not influenced by them.

    “It was like they were fishing for information more than anything,” Hood said. “I didn’t get a dime, wasn’t offered a dime and wouldn’t have taken a dime.”

    Scruggs, Patterson and Balducci were indicted in November 2007, along with Scruggs’ son and law partner Zach, and another attorney in the Scruggs’ firm, Sidney Backstrom. The men were charged with conspiring to bribe a state court judge for a favorable ruling in a dispute over $26.5 million in legal fees from a settlement of Katrina insurance cases.

    Balducci and Patterson have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with investigators. The Scruggses and Backstrom have pleaded not guilty.

    While being interviewed by the FBI in November 2007, Balducci told agents that Scruggs paid him and Patterson to see “if they could get Hood to relent on indicting” State Farm, according to the report filed in federal court on Monday.

    John Keker, an attorney for Scruggs, told The Associated Press on Wednesday: “I’m not going to talk about Balducci’s claim until we get to the trial.”

    The FBI report, entered into federal court records in the bribery case against Scruggs and two associates, is based on an interview with a confidential source, apparently Balducci.

    A judge on Tuesday ruled that he will allow evidence of prior bad acts, particularly that Scruggs allegedly tried to influence at least one other judge when the trial begins March 31.

    The FBI document was filed Monday as part of a defense motion introducing a potential witness. It says Balducci accompanied Patterson, who had a long-standing relationship with Hood, to a meeting in which the lawyers allegedly asked Hood not to charge State Farm.

    “Hood later agreed not to indict,” the report said.

    Hood said the reason he didn’t file criminal charges against State Farm at the time was because he didn’t have enough evidence to prove the insurer violated state law.

  • February 29, 2008 at 7:05 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    a fox Dustin CAN YOU READ

  • February 29, 2008 at 7:11 am
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) moved to unseal a federal consumer fraud case against State Farm Mutual Insurance Company today that has essentially been erased from the public record. No docket sheet is available, the court’s computers have no record of the case, and almost the entire file of the four-year-long case is under seal. A smattering of documents, however, confirms that the case exists.

    “This is absolutely outrageous,” said TLPJ Foundation President Joseph A. Power, Jr., of Chicago’s Power, Rogers & Smith. “A lawsuit charging State Farm, one of the nation’s largest insurers, with cheating its policyholders has basically been excised from the court records. State Farm’s customers and the public have a right to know what State Farm is so eager to hide.”

    The lawsuit

  • February 29, 2008 at 7:20 am
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    well, if Mother Nature ever blew a big ol tornado thru bloomington,& obliterated it, we could all just go over to the big ol state farm buildings & camp out ……kind of like the katrina victims

  • February 29, 2008 at 7:28 am
    Payback Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ——————————————————————————–
    Press Release
    Wednesday, September 13, 2000

    SAN FRANCISCO COURT RULES THAT STATE FARM CAN’T HIDE
    INSURANCE REDLINING DATA FROM PUBLIC

    Data Will Help Determine Whether Insurer Discriminates Against Consumers

    San Francisco, CA — San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay rejected a lawsuit today filed by State Farm aimed at preventing the California Department of Insurance from releasing the company’s redlining documents to the public. Redlining is the practice of discriminating against consumers based on their race, income, the zip code where they live or other unlawful factors. State Farm filed its suit last year claiming that the redlining documents contain “trade secrets” and that the Insurance Department has no authority to disclose them to the public without the insurer’s consent.

    “Insurance redlining is no trade secret in minority, low-income communities across California,” said Rev. Norman Johnson, Interim Executive Director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) of Greater Los Angeles. “The Court’s ruling today upholds the anti-redlining regulations and the need for full public disclosure of data that will determine whether insurance companies are discriminating against underserved communities.” The SCLC and Consumers Union, represented by the civil-rights law firm Public Advocates, requested State Farm’s redlining data and intervened in the lawsuit to protect the public’s right to know.

    “State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, and other major insurers have been hiding behind the ridiculous argument that redlining data is a trade secret,” said Mark Savage, Managing Attorney of Public Advocates and lead counsel for the Intervenors. “To my knowledge, today’s ruling was the first in the nation to conclusively decide that such redlining data should be public. The law makes these redlining filings public, not secret, so that the Insurance Commissioner, government leaders, and the public can enforce the laws against discrimination and promote equal economic opportunity in low-income and minority communities

    V

  • February 29, 2008 at 7:58 am
    Good Hands says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    .

    Posted By: Kim David
    :
    “The State Farm Code of Conduct has been in place for nearly 10 years and provides all employees ethical and legal guidelines they must follow. Every State Farm employee must comply with the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.”

    You are correct….
    These Codes only provide financial protection for State Farm.
    Must meet State Farm Regulation for approval of the policy!

    There is not one Regulation, in any State,
    that protects the Insured or the Agents.

    Doesn’t the Insurance Commissioner receive
    Campaign Contributions from the Industry?
    Are they like paid to “keep the ghost clear?”

    There is not one Regulation that would enforce protection for the Insured.
    There is not one Regulation that protects
    the Agents!

    Why do we even need a Commissioner?
    He does not help us!

    Can you smell the rats?

  • February 29, 2008 at 8:20 am
    State Farm spin doctors says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    State Farm spin doctors they try to claim no knowledge of any changed documents and want to put blame on engineering companies. But I have information that puts the light on the real problem with what is happening at State Farm. I am a former agent of State Farm who has proof that State Farm has breached the contracts of its own agents. The information shows that a California Appellate Court has ruled that State Farm breached the contract and the California Supreme Court refused to hear State Farm’s appeal making the Appellate Court decision final (Case#C050591 California Third Appellate District). What does this mean to the average policyholder? Well a policyholder who has a policy (contract) with State Farm expects State Farm to honor that policy (contract) if the policyholder has a loss. Now the question is if State Farm will not even honor their own contract with their own agents what chance does the average policyholder have? In addition to this State Farm has not even notified the agents of this decision by the California Courts.



Add a Comment

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

*