If State Farm gets what they want - namely, to get Dickie and Zach to answer all these questions under oath, unsealed in the McIntosh case - this thing is going to blow up sky high.

They asked some really tough questions in those depos.

Stay tuned.

Q. Would you please state your full name and spell your last name for me.
A. Richard Furlow Scruggs, S-c-r-u-g-g-s.

Q. And your date of birth, Mr. Scruggs?
A. Based on the advice and instruction of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based on my privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and the Mississippi Constitution.

Q. Please give me your home address.
A. Same response, sir.

Q. The questions I’m asking you and the answers you will give me must be in verbal form. The court reporter, across the table from me, will have to take down everything we say, and unless you speak out loud and give me a verbal response, we get a garbled record. Will you please wait until I complete my question before you answer and give me an audible response as appropriate?
A. Based on the advice and instruction of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and the Mississippi Constitution.

Q. If you don’t understand one of my questions, would you please stop me and tell me you don’t understand, and I’ll do my best to rephrase it?
A. Based on the advice and instruction of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and the Mississippi Constitution.

A. I decline based upon my rights and privileges under the Fifth Amendment.

MR. ROBIE:
Let me show you a document which we’ll mark as Exhibit 3. It bears your production number, Scruggs document number SMPD1-000307. (Exhibit 3 was marked.)

MR. MALLETTE:
For the record, when you say your document number, it’s not our document number. It’s a document numbered by State Farm or someone else.

MR. ROBIE:
That’s correct. It’s the number we’ve assigned to it based on your document production.

A. I decline to answer, sir, respectfully based upon my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.

Hair trigger on invoking the Fifth

Q. That question may have been compound. Let me see if I can break it down. Isn’t it a fact that you have the original version of this October 12 Forensic Analysis and Engineering report?

Q. Isn’t it a fact that you have the original handwritten note on—placed on a piece of yellow sticky paper that appeared on this October 12, 2005 report when it was presented to you?

Q. Isn’t it a fact that Kerri or Cori Rigsby stole this document from State Farm and delivered it to you?

Q. When is the first time that you met with Pat Lobrano?

Q. When is the first time that you spoke to Pat Lobrano after Katrina made landfall?

Q. Isn’t it a fact that Pat Lobrano negotiated with you for the services of her daughters, Kerri and Cori Rigsby, to assist you in taking documents from the State Farm claims operation?

Q. Did you talk to Pat Lobrano in September of ‘05?

Q. Did you talk to Pat Lobrano in October of ‘05?

Q. Did you talk to Pat Lobrano in November of ‘05?

Q. How about in December of ‘06; did you talk to Pat Lobrano in that month?

Q. Did you meet with Pat Lobrano or her daughters in January or February of ‘06?

Q. How many times did you meet with Kerri or Cori Rigsby before they retained you as their attorney?

Q. How much did you promise to pay Pat Lobrano in exchange for her obtaining the services of the Rigsbys as a consultant for the Scruggs Law Firm?

Q. How much have you paid her for arranging the consulting services of the Rigsbys for the Scruggs Law Firm?

Q. Did you furnish any financial remuneration, guarantees on loans or any other compensation to Pat Lobrano or her husband in exchange for her arranging the consulting services of her daughters?

Q. Did you contribute any funds or any financial backing whatsoever to the rebuild of Pat Lobrano’s home?

Q. Did you arrange for the purchase of Kerri Rigsby’s house for a sum approaching a half million dollars?

Q. Did you provide any funding or financial backing in any form for the purchase of Kerri Rigsby’s home after Hurricane Katrina?

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that you met with one or both of the Rigsbys in December of 2005, and that they were the insiders you referred to in your meeting with George Dale and Lee Harrell in December of ‘05?

Q. In fact, the Rigsbys gave you a copy of this document with the original handwritten or handwriting on the sticky note that appears in this copy on Exhibit 3, didn’t they?

Q. And you knew that the Rigsbys—one of the Rigsbys had stolen this document out of the State Farm file, and based on that information, you informed Attorney General Hood that he could subpoena those records from State Farm and the company would never be able to produce them; isn’t that a fact?

Q. You did tell Attorney General Hood to subpoena this document from State Farm knowing that it had been removed from their files and could not be produced; isn’t that a fact?

Q. And, in fact, that’s exactly what occurred, isn’t it? General Hood subpoenaed the document, State Farm couldn’t produce it, and you were able to report to the press that they were shredding or deep sixing or destroying evidence that you knew they didn’t have; isn’t that a fact?

Q. That was part of a program which you euphemistically called the play book from tobacco, wasn’t it?

Q. You had a strategy to find an insider to steal documents, a strategy to use the legislature, a strategy to use the judicial officers of Mississippi, and a strategy to use the press in order to put State Farm into an extremely uncomfortable position and pay you money; isn’t that a fact?

Q. That is a strategy that you employ, isn’t it?

Q. Did you promise Pat Lobrano or her husband any financial remuneration quote, “at the end of the day,” close quote?

Q. Well, I hadn’t put a question to you, but I’m happy to do so. Would you look at Exhibit 4, please, and tell me that, in fact, these are checks which your firm paid to Zuckerman Spaeder in 2007 for defense of the Rigsbys?

Q. The first of these checks is dated October 4, 2007, in the amount of $68,890.54. Do you see that?

Q. The second check, which is dated November 8, 2007, is in the amount of $234,286.35, correct?

Q. You did not produce either one of these checks in response to our Request for Production of documents showing compensation or records evidencing payment to the Rigsbys, did you?

Q. The combined total of these checks, by my math, is about $303,976.89. Have you submitted a W-2 or 1099 to the Rigsbys reflecting payment of almost $304,000 of legal fees on their behalf?

Q. Have you reached an agreement with the Rigsbys whereby you will cover their tax liability for income taxes for this $304,000 payment?

Q. Is part of the compensation package for their consulting agreement an agreement that you will pay their tax liabilities, income tax liabilities for all benefits paid to them by you or your firm?

Let me get this right, Dickie Boy plead the 5th to each question, so can’t SF infer that by pleading the 5th the assumption can be taken that the answer to the question would be to confirm that the question is true?  If that is true, could the Rigsby’s and Dickie be open up for purgery charges?  Also, might SF have some basis for going after DS and his fortune for slander and defamation?  No doubt that they could see that their reputation was damaged by Scruggs and the sisters, and not just in MS.  Hell, they can call Bellsouth/Aspen to the stand and she would make their case for them on how their reputation is now down the toilet.  Only problem with bringing her to the stand is the fact that as of a couple months ago she still carried SF insurance on her property.

Q. Did you attend a holiday party at the Rigsbys’ house in the year 2005?

Q. Did they show you, at their home, a copy of the Forensic October 12, 2005 report with the original sticky note attached?

Q. Have they told you, Mr. Scruggs, that they showed a copy of that October 12, 2005 report, with the original sticky note attached, to some of their friends?

Q. Have they shared with you, Mr. Scruggs, that they even allowed some of their friends to take the original sticky note off the document?

Q. Do you know where the document with the original sticky note can be found today?

Q. Did you attend a meeting in Dallas, Texas with the Rigsbys and other members of the Scruggs Katrina Group in order to plan Katrina litigation?

Q. Isn’t it a fact that you met with George Dale and Lee Harrell at the Department of Insurance in December of ‘05 and told them that you had—you were working with two insiders at State Farm?

Q. Isn’t it a fact that you met with George Dale and Lee Harrell at the Mississippi Department of Insurance in December of ‘05 and threatened to run a campaign against George Dale if he didn’t propose a program forcing State Farm to pay a half a billion dollars into a fund for you to administer?

Q. Isn’t it fact that the insiders that you mentioned to George Dale and Lee Harrell in December of 2005, Kerri and Cori Rigsby?

Q. The document production which we received did not include any documents received from a corporate insider at State Farm which you purportedly gathered in March of 2006. Are you aware of that?

Q. I direct your attention, please, to the bottom of the first page of this document. This is an AP, Associated Press story, which says, quote, “Scruggs said in an interview on March 30th that he plans to share documents from a highly placed State Farm source. He had flown to Bloomington a week earlier to pick up a package from the source. ‘They gave me a bunch of good stuff and I’m going through it now and turning it over to the Attorney General,’ he said."Please tell me, Mr. Hood, where is that good stuff?

MR. MALLETTE:
Object to the form.

MS. NICHOLSON:
Join.

A. I’m not Mr. Hood, sir.

MR. ROBIE: I’m sorry. I apologize.

Q. Did you ever, in fact, deliver documents to the Attorney General which you purported to have picked up in Bloomington, Illinois in March of ‘06?

Q. In fact, you had an ongoing program with the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi to try to force State Farm to pay money it did not owe to you and your clients; isn’t that a fact?

Q. Let me make sure that question is clear. The court order specifically refers to the information, the documents from the highly placed State Farm source that’s referenced in this Exhibit 5. I see no such documents in your production. Did you, in fact, include any?

Q. Are there such documents in existence?

Q. Do you have an interest in the house that Kerri Rigsby sold to Dr. Oswald in 2006?

Q. Did you meet with Pat Lobrano, Kerri and Cori Rigsby, Chip Robertson, Todd Graves, Anthony Dewitt and Mary Winter at a trailer that you owned in Pascagoula?

Q. In fact, Cori Rigsby booted up her State Farm laptop and gave it to Anthony Dewitt for him to search State Farm’s confidential database while you were meeting in his trailer, in your trailer in March or April of 2006?

Q. I haven’t posed one. I was just letting you look at the document. Mr. Scruggs, do you know that ALD are the initials for Anthony L. Dewitt?

Q. These documents which we’ve marked collectively as Exhibit 7 were produced to us by Kerri and Cori Rigsby at an earlier time than this last week. How did they come to have these e-mails with ALD’s initials onthem?

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that these e-mails, which we’ve marked as Exhibit 7, are materials which Tony Dewitt, Anthony Dewitt uploaded from State Farm’s confidential database from your trailer using Cori Rigsby’s State Farm issued laptop?

Q. Isn’t it a fact that Anthony Dewitt cut and pasted State Farm e-mails from State Farm’s confidential database using Cori Rigsby’s State Farm laptop?

Q. These documents, these State Farm e-mails which are contained in Exhibit 7 are all produced in PDF format, are they not?

Q. None of these e-mails have been produced showing the existence of any of the meta data; isn’t that a fact?
A. Would you repeat that?

Q. None of these show meta data?

Q. Each of these e-mails, in fact, is cut and pasted from a string of e-mails and the documents that precede it have been redacted or eliminated, haven’t they?

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that while present at your trailer in March or April of 2006, Cori and Kerri Rigsby accessed State Farm’s database and you instructed them on what to search for?

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that in meeting with you at your trailer in March or April of 2006, one or both of the Rigsbys accessed the McIntosh claim file and verified that the Forensic Engineering report, dated October 12, 2005, in fact, was not present in State Farm’s file?

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that it was important to you and the other lawyers present at this meeting with Ms. Lobrano and the Rigsbys to determine that, in fact, State Farm still did not have a copy of this report so that you could proceed with your scheme to leave the impression that the company had destroyed evidence?

Q. Please explain to the court, Mr. Scruggs, how it is that the Scruggs Law Firm has internal State Farm e-mails with the initials and name A.L. Dewitt on them.

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that these documents, which we’ve marked as Exhibit 8, are internal State Farm e-mails which were uploaded by Anthony Dewitt from one of the Rigsbys’ State Farm issued laptops?

Q. Isn’t it a fact that Pat Lobrano, Kerri and Cori Rigsby, Chip Robertson, Todd Graves, Mary Winter and Anthony Dewitt all participated in a meeting in your trailer where these documents were accessed from a State Farm issued laptop?

Q. Is the qui tam pleading, which is currently the operative pleading in the case, based upon documents which were stolen from State Farm during meetings at your trailer in April—March or April of 2006?

Q. Let me show you a document which your office produced last week. It’s a December 6th, 2007 letter, on the Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson, Gorny letterhead. It was previously marked as Exhibit 19 yesterday. We’ll mark it as Number 9 today.

Q. Is this document the fee agreement between the Scruggs Law Firm and Bartimus Frickleton and Graves Bartle for handling the qui tam litigation?

Q. Had you already originated representation of the Rigsbys in a qui tam proceeding before the Bartimus Frickleton firm was hired?

Q. How much money had you already paid the Rigsbys before Bartimus Frickleton was hired to represent them in the qui tam case?

Q. I’ll direct your attention, please, to Page 2 of the document. The last paragraph in the second to the last sentence once read, “The parties understand that SLF had pledged some portion of its fees, if any, recovered in this case to Scruggs Katrina Group SKG.” In fact, had the Scruggs Law Firm pledged some recoverable fees from the qui tam case to the Scruggs Katrina Group?

Q. For the record, this Exhibit 9 is a document which we’ve marked as Scruggs document SMPH1-000013. At Page 14 of that document, there is a handwritten interlineation in the agreement. Do you see that?

Q. Do you recognize that handwriting as the handwriting of Sid Backstrom?

Q. Did you authorize Sid Backstrom to make this modification to the fee agreement with the Bartimus Frickleton firm on behalf of the Scruggs Law Firm?

Q. The document, as modified, reads, quote, “The parties understand that SLF had discussed the sharing of fees, if any, from this case, with other members of SKG to account for their work in the case.”

Q. Other than work performed by members of the Scruggs Law Firm, what members of the SKG worked on the qui tam litigation?

Q. You are aware, are you not, Mr. Scruggs, that both of the Rigsbys have testified under oath that you, your office, furnished them laptops for use, for their use while they were still working in State Farm’s claims operations. Have you given those laptops to The Merlin Group for safekeeping?

Q. Did you review the data and documents on those laptops which you gave to the Rigsbys to use to see whether or not there are documents responsive to the court-ordered document production that you furnished us last week?

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that you also furnished both Kerri and Cori Rigsby with cell phones for their use while they were operating or working in State Farm claims offices?

Q. Were those phones equipped with cameras?

Q. Did they forward to you photographs that they took while working in a State Farm claims operation?

Q. If we look again, please, at Exhibit 9 [December 6th, 2007 letter, on the Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson, Gorny letterhead], on that same page where we’ve been looking at the handwriting, the last sentence of the last paragraph reads, as a result of the indictments, SKG has been dissolved and replaced by the Katrina Litigation Group, KLG, of which SLF, meaning Scruggs Law Firm is not a current member. Has the Scruggs Law Firm ever been a member of the KLG?

Q. It goes onto read, “It is the intent of the parties to this agreement that SLF shall remain a working member of the litigation team in the clients’ case but may withdraw its official representation of the clients during the pendency of the indictments.” Did you withdraw your official representation of the Rigsbys in the qui tam case during the pendency of the indictments?

Q. This document, Exhibit 9, on the last page, continues to read, SLF, meaning Scruggs Law Firm, continues to—agrees to continue to meet its obligations to the clients in this case, and under this agreement, during the pendency of the indictment, should SLF determine that it cannot meet its obligation to the clients and to the firms under this agreement, the parties agree that the terms of the agreement may be renegotiated. Have the terms of this agreement been renegotiated?

Q. Have you made a determination that the five years that you will spend in the federal penitentiary will disable you from meeting your obligations to the Rigsbys under this agreement?

Q. The document goes on to say that a unanimous vote of the remaining firms shall be required before other counsel or firms are permitted to replace SLF, meaning the Scruggs Law Firm, either on a temporary or permanent basis. Has there been a unanimous vote taken and rendered?

Let me show you a document which we’ll mark next in order, which I believe is Number 10. It is a—it’s an e-mail from Beth Jones, at the Scruggs firm, to Rey, at CBS News, dated Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at 1:49 p.m. It bears our Scruggs document numbers SMPD1-000567 through 612. I’ll ask you, Mr. Scruggs, to take a look at that document, please.

Q. The document, which appears as the second page of this exhibit, starting at Number 568 through 611—612 is, in fact, the complaint, the First Amended Complaint your office filed in Case Number 106CV433, in the United States District Court of Mississippi for the Southern District, is it not?

Q. This is the qui tam amended
14 complaint that you filed for the Rigsbys in
15 U.S. District Court in April of 2007, is it
16 not?
17 A. I respectfully decline to answer
18 based on my Fifth Amendment privilege.
19 Q. The document at Page 43 bears a
20 signature line for the Scruggs Law Firm. Do
21 you see that?

Q. There’s another signature line for the Scruggs Law Firm at Page 44, under the heading, demand for jury trial. Do you see that?

Q. Did you sign this complaint?

Q. This complaint was filed in camera and under seal, was it not?

Q. And you understood that in filing this document, it was to be disclosed to no one other than the United States of America, the Rigsbys and their counsel, correct?

Q. The first page of Exhibit 10 is an e-mail sending this complaint, this First Amended Complaint to CBS News; isn’t that a fact?

Q. Was it your custom and habit, Mr. Scruggs, to release sealed court documents to news agencies as part of your program to prosecute litigation?

We’ll mark as Exhibit 11 a document dated August 7, 2006, which is an e-mail from Beth Jones, of the Scruggs Law Firm, to Joseph E. Rhee, R-h-e-e, of ABC News. It bears our document number Scruggs SMPD1-000387 through 424.

Q. This is, in fact, a copy of the final evidentiary disclosure which you caused to be filed or your firm caused to be filed in the United States District Court of Mississippi for the Southern District in the qui tam litigation, isn’t it?

Q. In fact, your office forwarded this to ABC News at a time when the disclosure was under seal and was not to be disclosed; isn’t that a fact?

Q. I’ll direct your attention to Page 8 of this confidential disclosure document. The last paragraph reads, “Relators are aware of at least two specific instances where defendant State Farm has engaged in such behavior. Worse, State Farm, aware that it has engaged in conduct that is false and fraudulent, is taking extraordinary steps to protect itself by shredding documents and hiring document shredding companies to dispose of documents at its Mississippi offices. The examples that follow are derived from relator’s personal knowledge.” We go to the next page. On Page 9, you set out, in some detail, the fact that FAEC prepared a report dated October 12, 2005. Isn’t that a fact?

Q. The disclosure then purports to set out the conclusion section from the October 12, 2005 Forensic Analysis engineering report, which we’ve marked as Exhibit 3 at this deposition. Isn’t that a fact?

Q. After setting out those conclusions, the document says, quote, “This report never became part of the permanent record of the McIntosh claim because it was recognized as contrary to the direction given to State Farm adjusters.” Isn’t that what it says?

Q. The next line says, quote, on information and belief, Alexis Lecky King, a State Farm Insurance supervising adjuster and State Farm guru, State Farm’s guru on flood insurance, wrote the following note on the report, quote, put in wind file. Do not pay bill. Do not discuss. A copy of that note is shown below. Do you see that?

Q. Can you tell us, Mr. Scruggs, how it is that you could state categorically that the report never became part of the record of the McIntosh claim file at State Farm?

Q. If you look at the Certificate of Service on this document, which is Page 34 or document labeled Number 424, you will see that the disclosure statement was served on April 24th, 2006. Did I read that correctly?

Q. Mr. Scruggs, I ask you to assume and I represent to you that State Farm did not respond to any subpoena from Attorney General Hood seeking documents until mid to late May, nearly a month after this disclosure statement went out. How is it that you could say, under penalty of perjury, that State Farm did not have that document in its file?

Q. Unless you knew that the Rigsbys had taken it and removed it from that file?

sounds like they have him by the crown jewels and are starting to clamp down.

Q. You instructed Beth Jones to send the False Claim Act First Amended Complaint and the Renfroe code of conduct to CBS News on or about June 6th, 2007, didn’t you?

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that you refused to disclose the amended complaint in the False Claim Act case, the qui tam case, to State Farm on the basis that it was sealed, yet, you had already produced that document for CBS News?

Q. If we look at the second page of Exhibit 11, we see that at 2:35 p.m., on August 7th, Beth Jones sent engineering reports to Joe Rhee [ABC News] with the notation, quote, “Mr. Scruggs asked that I send you these reports. Thanks, Beth.”

Q. Beth Jones also e-mailed to Mr. Rhee that same day a note saying—this is at 3:46 p.m.—“Mr. Scruggs wanted me to let you know that this information is not the information that is under seal.” Do you see that?

Q. Did you have an agreement with Joe Rhee at ABC and someone named Rey at CBS that you would furnish them confidential information under seal?

Q. The Exhibit 15 that I’ve placed in front of you is a two pages of e-mail. I direct your attention, please, to the note at the bottom of Page 1, from Brian Ford, to Derek Wyatt, which reads, “Derek, Courtney Schloemer of the Mississippi Attorney General’s office called me to tell me she discussed strategy with you regarding my participation in the criminal and civil cases. What is your understanding of where we go from here?” Do you see that?

Q. In fact, Derek Wyatt, on behalf of SKG, was coordinating the prosecution of the civil cases in conjunction with an agreed strategy worked out with Courtney Schloemer of the Attorney General’s office; isn’t that correct?

Q. Well, isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs, that you and Attorney General Hood engaged in a joint program to exert improper criminal charges against State Farm in order to extract civil settlements from my client?

Q.  Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs that State Farm is using every tactic known to mankind in order not to pay for properly adjusted insurance claims, that they would rather pay lawyers to beat down any one who gets in their way? 

Q.  Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs that State Farm has paid agents all over the country to go to boards and blogs and the press in order try to win these cases through public opinion?

Am I reading this right?  Is a State Farm lawyer putting Dickie Scruggs on record under oath that he (DS) is taking the 5th Amendment on a question asking if DS and the Mississippi AG colluded to threaten State Farm with criminal prosecution in order to promote a civil settlement that would enrich DS?  I know I am not a lawyer but I also know that sort of thing is against the law.  Does Jim Greenlee read this blog?

Sun Herald-SF filed Motion to Compel Scruggs to answer questions, etc.  Motion and story are here
http://www.sunherald.com/newsupdates/
story/715980.html

Posted by Bellesouth on 07-30-2008 at 11:07 AM

Q.  Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs that State Farm is using every tactic known to mankind in order not to pay for properly adjusted insurance claims, that they would rather pay lawyers to beat down any one who gets in their way? 

Q.  Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Scruggs that State Farm has paid agents all over the country to go to boards and blogs and the press in order try to win these cases through public opinion?

Bellesouth, et al are torn up that they have been on the wrong side of this from the get-go.  Displacing the blame from what Scruggs and Co. did on SF defending themselves.  Instead of realizing that everything that Scruggs and Hood did gummed up any potential chance that the insureds could see and get a fair shake in this whole mess.

Yeah, these questions are way over the line...also, just because a judge orders something doesn’t mean it was the right or constitutional decision...(see 9th circuit ,court), or are we devolving into a Russian style court system where the powerful get the ruling they want when they want regardless of state or federal precedents. 
But once again lost in our hatred for everything Scruggs are the people whom State Farm defrauded on legitimate claims...but Scruggs was their lawya so hey, shoouldn’t they be in that cell with him?  I think so, don’t you Alan?

...on another note, when does the “statute of limitations” run out on the Katrina claims cases...well, get ready for the big boom on that day, but don’t worry about it because it will be the collective pooping of corks all over Bloomington, IL