A few interesting filings late Friday in the Qui Tam.

First of all, it seems Senter has finally taught the Rigsby Gals lawyers to sit and rollover. They are at least asking permission before acting now.
Request from Rigsby Gals

State Farm Responds to Rigsby Gals’ request

There are a couple of juicy nuggets therein . . .

As mentioned above, in McIntosh the Scruggses recently produced stolen State
Farm documents that had not been returned to Renfroe as required by Judge Acker’s injunction.
Very troublingly, a number of those documents are e-mails which bear the initials “ald” – or, in
at least one instance – “aldewitt.” (Sampling of Stolen E-mails Produced in McIntosh, ex. E to
Resp, (ex. 7 to R. Scruggs’ McIntosh Dp., McIntosh [1244] at 10-24).) “ald” and “aldewitt”
almost certainly are initials or monikers for Anthony L. DeWitt of the Bartimus Firm, one of the
Rigsbys’ former counsel in this Action. These markings strongly suggest that one or more of the
Bartimus Firm lawyers had – and may still have – possession of stolen State Farm documents
.

Probably the most interesting was a footnote on page 1.

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 ([1173]) in Thomas C. McIntosh and Pamela McIntosh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., et al.; in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, no. 1:06cv1080-LTS-RHW.
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. Further, State Farm intends to
respond separately in opposition to the Rigsbys’ [206] Motion to Clarify This Court’s April 4, 2008 Order in
McIntosh. The instant document is not intended to serve as a response to docket item [206]

Nothing like calling your shot, I guess.

Bonus Exhibit in SF Response . . . Trailer Lawyers ask 5th Circuit to allow them to rep Rigsby Gals (again)