Documents published by the California Senate on this site
From email@example.com Thu Jun 15 03:46:09 2000
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:42:16 -0400
From: The Insurer Crime Outline <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: The Insurer Crime Outline
We Urge You to Forward This Newsletter to Anyone Who Might Benefit
The Insurer Crime Outline
eXposing America's Bandit Industry
Please visit our site at http://www.insurancejustice.com/
"Defiance to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
THE ADP RICO CLASS ACTION AND ANTITRUST SUIT
Has been corrected and is now available. Although this is for one
state, it should apply to all. ADP is a massive national data processing
firm which did the dirty work for the top twenty three insurers,
who are also being sued, by "lowballing" the "usual and customary"
cost of medical treatments with fake data. Let's hope this gets
extended to every state in the union. Go here:
EX-WORKER SUES ALLSTATE AFTER FIRING COLLEAGUE'S SUICIDE LED TO DECISION
Lexington, KY Herald-Leader
Saturday, June 3, 2000 Section: City & Region Edition: Final Page:
C1 By Louise Taylor, Herald-Leader Staff Writer One morning last
August, Sarah Howard sat behind her desk at Allstate Insurance Co.'s
claims office on North Eagle Creek in Lexington, pointed a pistol
at her head, and pulled the trigger.
She was 47, a mother, an Allstate claims adjuster for 22 years, and
she was miserable. She killed herself in the place that she blamed
for that misery.
On an Allstate memo pad, "Committed to Quality" stripped across the
bottom and her name across the top, she printed her suicide note
in block letters. It was addressed to Allstate management, and read,
in part: "Remember this, as employees are people with faults. You
can only push them so far without something happening. I'm only surprised
that someone hasn't done something sooner. Don't even think I am
the only one you have pushed this far.
"You kill people in many ways."
Her death hit her colleagues hard. One, who was also a good friend,
said the suicide helped jar her into filing a lawsuit against Allstate.
She is Linda Brown, who worked at Allstate's Lexington claims office
for 12 years. Allstate fired her in March 1999, about six months
before Howard killed herself.
Brown and her lawsuit paint Allstate as a working hell: a place where
employee medical problems were met with increased workloads; a place
where adjusters were rewarded for lying to people to keep insurance
claims down; a place where employee turnover was so frequent that
people would start work on Monday and quit on Wednesday; a place,
in short, where humanity was in very short supply.
Allstate and two supervisors named in the lawsuit -- Susan Vance
Brawner and Melissa Rogers -- vehemently deny Brown's allegations.
"We believe the judicial process will set the record straight on
this matter," Allstate spokeswoman April Eaton Robinson said. "Because
of pending litigation and to respect the privacy of all parties involved,
we are unable to provide additional comment at this time."
Last week, Brawner and Rogers filed a response that acknowledges
Brown was fired but dismisses all of her other claims as untrue.
They also dispute Brown's claim that she was long rated as an exemplary
employee and had won a company award just a month before she was
fired. Allstate filed the same response.
All three defendants ask that the case be thrown out on various legal
grounds, including that Brown failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies and that her legal complaint violates provisions of Kentucky's
civil rights, workers' compensation and equal opportunity laws.
Brown and her attorney, Rob Roark, are unruffled by the prospect
of Allstate painting her as a incompetent whiner with an ax to grind.
"'There are going to be people who will say I was fired, I was disgruntled,"
Brown said. "Sure, nobody likes to get fired. But I never went to
see an attorney, even though I had many claims, until Sarah killed
herself. Her family is looking to me to get justice for her, and
I want that for them.
"Also, I was in such an emotional state that I couldn't talk about
Allstate for six months. That's how beaten down I was. Sarah's death
gave me the courage to pursue my claims and help her family pursue
hers. I knew I couldn't let Allstate continue to treat people that
way. It's unconscionable."
Howard's 29-year-old son, L.T. Howard of Phoenix, said Brown "is
helping me decipher what my mother went through."
"The stress from her work was a catalyst toward her depression,"
Howard said, referring to his mother. "I don't think Allstate pulled
the trigger, but I certainly think they put the gun in her hand.
Her diaries speak volumes about the way that Allstate treated her."
Why did they not quit Allstate?
"I believe at first it was a matter of pride or stubbornness," Brown
said. "We had both been at this company for many years, but as soon
as we disagreed with their programs we turned to lepers."
Roark added that Brown did seek another job, but Allstate gave her
Brown said that maybe she and Howard should simply have quit: "Sarah
and I had told Allstate point blank that we were not going to quit.
Looking back on it now, I am not sure that was the best thing for
my emotional state. Was it best for Sarah? Obviously not."
In her lawsuit filed March 30 in Fayette Circuit Court, Brown alleges
that the company fostered horrific working conditions and that one
supervisor urged Howard as well as Brown to take their own lives
if they couldn't handle their heavy workloads. She seeks unspecified
compensation for lost wages and punitive damages.
Said Brown: "How would you feel if you told your manager that your
workload was getting out of control, and he or she replied: 'Well,
I know you've been in the hospital with suicidal thoughts. Maybe
you should take that route out.'
"My manager told me that. She told Sarah the same thing. The only
difference is that Sarah did it."
Allstate also did such things as piling more computer work on Brown
after its own doctor had diagnosed her with carpal tunnel syndrome
and ordered her to do less such work, the suit claims.
Brown also alleges that Allstate engaged in seamy practices, such
as paying less than fair value on certain insurance claims -- and
that it was her complaints about those and other matters that prompted
Brown singled out one Allstate program called "Do I Need an Attorney?"
which, in essence, answered its own question with a firm "no." The
program, Brown alleges, fraudulently discouraged people with claims
from hiring attorneys. It did so, she said, by instructing adjusters
to lie to the claimants by telling them they would get the same amount
of money with or without an attorney, when, in fact, Allstate's own
research showed that people with attorneys generally got about 40
percent more in settlements.
Brown said she, too, wrestled with thoughts of killing herself: "Sarah
and I discussed doing it together at the Allstate office. We always
said, 'If we ever do it, we'll do it there, because that way they'll
finally have to deal with us.'"
She couldn't take that final step, though. "I was at Sarah's memorial
service. Her son, L.T., was standing there, and all I could see was
my son. I couldn't do it. Some people I know think Sarah was a coward.
"She was not a coward. She was a very brave, intelligent woman.
"You can only push a person, any person, so far."
CYBERCOMMENTS: Good story, although it's a bit annoying they didn't
notify me they were going to print when I gave them the story, so
I had to pay two bucks from my dying credit card to see it online
in their archives. Sheesh. And they'll probably give me static over
reposting it on the site. But either way it's going onto my Allstate
Suicide page. If someone wants to make a 1st Amendment/copyright
issue out of it, so be it.
Still, N FL has the cheapest wages in the South and this site costs
me more than I can afford. I would Appreciate those who have Not
contributed to consider doing so. The insurance industy spends billions
on PR and on owning the law. A few bucks to keep the light of truth
burning isn't much. Our PO Box is below.
STATEMENT FROM SENATOR MARTHA ESCUTIA
Public Hearing, June 12, 2000, 9:30 a.m., State Capitol, Room 112
Good morning and welcome to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
Bad Faith Liability and Consumer Rights.
The Northridge earthquake lasted 14 seconds yet sent shock waves
for the next six years. Southern California residents continue to
struggle to put their lives back together. While here in Sacramento,
nine legislative hearings in the last two months have uncovered evidence
that the Insurance Commissioner and his executive staff took questionable
actions on findings of claims handling violations by insurers.
The focus in recent weeks has been on the "Market Conduct Examinations"
conducted after the Northridge earthquake and the department's response
to those exams. Market Conduct Exams are "audits" performed by trained
DOI staff to make sure claims are being handled fairly and legally.
This subcommittee heard testimony that the department received "thousands"
of consumer complaints about Northridge claims handling. The Assembly
Insurance Committee heard testimony that the department was aware
of many lawsuits alleging bad faith practices by insurers after Northridge.
Witnesses have testified that the Market Conduct Exams found only
"technical" violations. Without the reports themselves, all we get
in one hearing after another is "he said...she said", or "I don't
remember", and that is not good enough for this body. It is not
good enough for the citizens of California.
Our job is to find out whether or not insurers committed large-scale
violations of claims handling laws and regulations after Northridge
and whether or not they were subjected to appropriate disciplinary
action. Without those exam reports, it is literally impossible for
this body to do its job.
This Subcommittee has come into possession of the executive summaries
of the market conduct exams and is releasing them for legislative
and public review.
The Department was asked to provide the Senate with these reports.
On May 12, 2000, I asked the insurance companies to provide us with
all documents relating to the exams, including their responses and/or
criticisms of the exam findings. (See Exhibit 6) We did not get
the documents we asked for.
The refusal of the Commissioner and the insurance companies to provide
us with copies of the exam reports has been a major roadblock in
evaluating the DOI and carrier conduct. Where the regulatory process
fails, the legislature must step in and conduct a full and open review.
Findings in the exam reports include:
? Earthquake damages were "grossly underestimated" by company representatives,
( Ex. 1 at p. 13, Ex. 2 at p. 15, Ex. 3, at page 11, Ex. 4 at p.
12). In some cases, entire rooms and fireplaces were never inspected.
? Companies made unfairly low settlements, ("low balled" claims)
(See Ex. 1 at pp. 12, 14, 16, Ex. 2 at pp. 16-17, Ex. 3 at p. 12,
Ex. 4 at pp. 13, 16).
? Companies misrepresented pertinent facts and policy provision (Ex.
2, p. 18, Ex. 3, p. 10, Ex. 4, p.15)
? Consumers were misinformed about the statute of limitations, (Ex.
3 at p. 14).
The reports also state that as to three of the examined carriers,
DOI staff found that "The findings of this examination indicate that
many of (the carrier's) claims handling practices affect all settlements
of first party property losses and are not necessarily exclusive
to earthquake claims." (See Exhibits 1-3 at p. 8) These are very
CYBERCOMMENTS: This is very important. It shows it wasn't just Northridge,
but all claims handling practices. And these are national companies
that do Exactly the same thing in every state.
These are only some of the specific violations identified in the
reports. Some of the findings can be characterized as "technical",
such as failure by the company to record the date a document was
received, (Ex. 3, p. 10) and could have been remedied had that been
the intention of the Commissioner.
In fact after each violation summary, the exams indicate that "remedial
action is to be determined." We don't know if such action was undertaken;
what we do know is that there were settlements, foundations were
established, money was transferred to the foundations, and the Market
Conduct Exams were shelved.
Our focus and concern is on the numerous substantive violations the
examiners identified, and the fact that the settlement agreements
attached as Exhibit "5" appear to directly conflict with the examiners'
findings. For example, the settlement agreements state that insurers
acted in good faith in adjusting Northridge claims. However, the
market conduct exams and trained DOI examiners found numerous violations
in the sampling of files reviewed. Violations of Unfair Claims Practices
Act, Insurance Code provisions, regulations, and case law.
These are not the complete exam reports. They do not contain the
specific findings that identify the policyholders whose files were
reviewed. They do not contain exhibits that might reveal insurer
trade secrets. They do not reflect all the responses the examined
insurers made to the department.
The Market Conduct Exams are only part of the puzzle, but they are
a very important part. We look forward to getting full cooperation
from the department and from insurers to put together the whole puzzle.
CYBERCOMMENTS: The market conduct exams are available at:
The previous URL was wrong.
And these are not even complete reports since the corrupt CA insurance
commissioner muzzled the investigators and disbanded them to cover
for the big insurers. It's just that even the partial reports were
sooo bad he ordered them stopped, so they wouldn't be filed, due
to being incomplete investigations.
I will also be putting them on my own site since State Farm has promised
legal action to shut them up in CA. I doubt they will succeed, but
they have a lot of lawyers. Download them all, in PDF format. Remember,
insurers are national entities, so these crimes have been mirrored
all over the United States. It's time other DOIs released their
market conduct exams instead of holding on to them at the behest
of their evil masters in the insurance industry. Three cheers for
Senator Escutia, one of the Few honest politicians in America.
Quackencrook, the theiving California Insurance Cmmissioner, and
his insurer cronies, now want the CHP to investigate Senator Escutia
for releasing "private" information. But why is it private? Certainly
not to protect the victims of insurer wrongdoing -- hiding the crimes
against them Hurts them. It only protect insurers, and these records
are kept private by corrupt legislators. Bravo for Senator Escutia.
Quack is the one who needs to be investigated by the CHP for is
UPDATE: I hear the exams are not very legible in PDF so they are
being converted to something more readable, which I will upload when
they are ready.
By the way, this is a lot of work, but a lot of good people also
help me out by sending info or doing some dogwork.
If anyone sends anything to the PO Box, I would appreciate your including
your email address. Or if you email me include your name, at least
the first couple of times. A problem with Microcrap's Outlook Express
bollixed my email addresses a while back. I managed to save the
email addresses with some programmer tricks, but couldn't save the
database, so I lost many of the associated names. This means it
is often hard to pair a name with an email address, unless it's something
really obvious, since I have hundreds of them. Some are easy to
pair and some aren't, and even then I can't always be sure.
A correspondent asked why I work so hard on this. Darned if I know.
Sheer stubbornness,maybe. And I hate bullies. But I'm not a saint,
so I think it's mostly I've been Elected because I have the skills
and connections to do this at a time that it needs to be done. I
think Providence just picks up people who "fit" what needs to be
done and they just feel a compulsion to do it until it is done.
OWNING THE TRUTH
Insurers own the legislatures, most lawyers, and largely win in court.
Now they're trying to get the court reporters under their thumb:
The Indiana Lawyer Dec 22, 1999 by Kelly Lucas Staff Writer
Anti-contracting law takes effect Jan. 1 Indiana joins national trend
to prohibit contracts with court reporters The establishment of long-term,
exclusive agreements for services between court reporting firms and
corporate litigants will become illegal in Indiana Jan. 1, 2000.
After that, depositions taken by court reporters working under a
contract will be considered void.
The state's new anti-contracting law, approved by lawmakers in 1999,
was conceived primarily to prohibit contracts between corporations,
often insurance companies, and court reporters. Many in the legal
community argue that contracting violates the rights of litigants
as well as the ethical obligations of the reporters.
Agreements between corporations and large court reporting firms,
referred to by Indianapolis court reporter Jim Connor as "national
clearing house court reporting firms," are a growing trend in the
profession. Connor explained that when a contract exists, the local
attorney representing the insurance company or other corporate client
is typically required to call an 800 number that will put him in
touch with the national court reporting firm. That firm will then
locate and assign a court reporter willing to adhere to the contract.
Fairness is at the heart of the contracting issue fairness to the
attorneys, to the clients and to the court reporter.
The attorney calling for the deposition is responsible for hiring
the court reporter, explained Merrillville court reporter Karen Price,
president of the Indiana Shorthand Reporters Association (ISRA),
but he is often prohibited from using his reporter of choice.
"Law firms get comfortable with a reporter, the attorneys know the
quality of the reporter's work and the level of professionalism they
can expect," Price said. "I am aware of a number of times when an
attorney wanted to use a specific reporter, but could not because
of the contract.
"This will allow the attorney conducting the deposition to choose
the court reporter based on reputation rather than the price break
that the contract allows them to get," she added.
Many argue that contracts between court reporters and one party in
a legal dispute provide an unfair advantage to the contracting litigant
and compromise the impartiality of the reporter.
The National Court Reporters Association (NCRA) has come out in favor
of anti-contracting laws, arguing that every participant in a deposition
has a right to an impartial court reporter with no ties or financial
interest with either party. Contracts, the NCRA contends, can transform
the impartial reporter into a member of one side's team.
It is argued that while the contracting party gets a price break
from the court reporter or special services in exchange for the guaranteed
business the contract provides, the costs are recouped by increasing
charges for the non contracting party.
"I recently spoke to an attorney who wanted a copy of his client's
deposition transcript and had to order it from the court reporter
that the insurance company he was opposing had hired," Price explained.
"The copy rate he got was close to $ 500 for an approximately 120-page
transcript. That is almost triple what he should have been charged,
based on a going rate of $ 1.25 to $ 1.75 per page. It looked like
the reporter was making up for something."
Professional ethics, according to Price, dictate that the same rates
be charged all parties for the same services. Likewise, she says
providing special services to the contracting party such as expedited
delivery of transcripts or free condensed transcripts or deposition
summaries creates an unfair advantage in litigation over other parties.
A number of associations, including the American Judges Association,
the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts, the Association of
Trial Lawyers of America and the NCRA, have supported legislative
and judicial efforts to prohibit exclusive, one-sided agreements.
According to California attorney Pam Pressley of the Foundation for
Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, Fair Justice Project, 16 states have
laws on the books ranging from complete bans on contracting to disclosure
statutes. She says another 25 have or will have legislation or Supreme
Court rules pending in 2000.
Those who have fought contracting say the most difficult states to
pass anti-contracting legislation in are those that are home to the
very large court reporting firms. However, Indiana's anti-contracting
law was approved on the first try.
Indianapolis court reporter Tom Richardson helped lead the ISRA battle
against contracting. According to Richardson, no individual or organization
appeared to testify against Indiana HEA 1594.
Richardson, a former federal court reporter, says it is imperative
that court reporters remain impartial.
"Court reporters were compromising their impartiality merely for
money," Richardson stated. "The ordering party was given a reduced
rate and, in turn, costs were being passed on to the opposing party,
in effect subsidizing the other party's discovery."
Indiana's anti-contracting law, as well as Kentucky's, are among
the strongest in the nation, according to Pressley. In addition to
banning the practice, violation of the Kentucky statute carries a
Class B Misdemeanor.
Now that the market conduct exams have been revealed in CA, the insurers
are crying with concern about the "privacy" of the people they cheated.
Duhh, I think their victims want the truth to be Known. The MCEs
"showed up" and were released by the Senate, since they thought a
judge would not allow them to be released. Nearly the entire American
judiciary seems to be a captive of the insurance industry. If you
win a common sense verdict with a fair jury of your peers, the insurers
will appeal, and the judge who hears the appeal will side with the
corrupt insurer about seventy percent of the time. Of course, insurers
hire more lawyers than anyone, and many become judges. Insurers
even put lawyers through school, fund judicial campaigns, and after
their election, give $5,000 "honorariums" to judges for giving lame
speeches to industry lawyers at posh resorts the industry sends them
to. That's one reason I like the www.jail4judges.com site ;')
There is nothing worse than a corrupt pro-insurer judge. They wreck
the entire legal system and should get triple penalties. A thousand
years in jail is not enough for a pro-insurer judge, considering
the lives that are destroyed by this malign industry.
By the way, I mentioned previously how there is really no such thing
as disability insurance. They'll find a pretext to kick you off
of it. But I forgot the obvious moral. Don't Ever take a chance
on your health for an employer, as they'll leave you high and dry,
crippled for life, with fake disability insurance. Don't overuse
your back, bend, twist, or jerk -- and never lift things when you
are angry or tired or they are too heavy. Take your time, use your
legs, don't be a hero even if you're an ape. I know a lot of big
guys who are laid up with rotten backs. Be a wimp. Your employer
deserves no less for their fake disability insurance ;')
NOT JUST CALIFORNIA
Although some of you may be getting tired of Quackencrook, I have
to point out that he dealt with the corruption of national companies
which had national policies. You can rest assured that Every cheat
they are being caught at in CA, for the Northridge quake, has been
repeated all over the United States, and is ongoing as we speak.
SACRAMENTO--State Senate leaders Monday released confidential state
reports showing that three of the nation's largest insurance companies--20th
Century, State Farm and Allstate--mishandled hundreds of claims following
the Northridge earthquake.
Sen. Martha Escutia (D-Whittier) said she was taking the unusual
step of disclosing confidential documents because it was the only
way to make public how companies had treated their policyholders
after the 1994 disaster. Escutia would not reveal where she obtained
Republican state Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, who commissioned
the reports, has insisted they are secret. But in his dealings with
insurance companies, he threatened to make the studies public if
the companies did not agree to settlements requiring millions of
dollars in payments to nonprofit foundations.
Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco), who supported
Escutia's decision to go public with the information, said the reports
clearly showed that insurers had "complicity" in the scandal enveloping
"This is fairly damning stuff," Burton said after the hearing. "It
indicates that there was a pattern and practice of bad faith and
deception on the part of major insurance carriers who may or may
not have been patrons of his reelection."
The foundations, now under investigation by two legislative committees
and Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, used the settlement money to finance
ads featuring the commissioner, conduct political polling and make
contributions to organizations associated with him. None of the money
was spent on earthquake research, as the companies had been promised
As a result, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have said pressure
is mounting for Quackenbush either to resign or face impeachment.
"Should Quackenbush step down? I think he should, I really do," state
Sen. Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) said Monday.
The decision to release the state claims examinations came under
immediate fire from angry insurance company officials, who accused
the senators of an "egregious act" that violates one of the very
laws the Legislature passed. Under California law, the surveys, called
market conduct examinations, are confidential unless the commissioner
chooses to make them public.
"Sen. Escutia has placed herself above the law today while at the
same time criticizing others in these hearings as placing themselves
above the law," said Jerry Davies, a spokesman for the Personal Insurance
Federation, a trade group that represents homeowner, automobile and
James Mattesich, an attorney for State Farm Insurance, said Escutia
had kept her intentions to release the reports quiet so that insurers
were precluded from seeking court action to stop the disclosure.
Escutia said she believes her rights as a lawmaker to obtain information
from agencies the Legislature oversees supersede "any confidentiality
"Our job is to find out whether or not insurers committed large-scale
violations of claims handling laws . . . after Northridge and whether
. . . they were subjected to appropriate disciplinary action," she
said. "Without those exam reports, it is literally impossible for
this body to do its job."
Escutia said now that she has seen the exams, it is clear Quackenbush
was not truthful when he described them as showing mostly technical
violations. Nor, she said, had the contributions to the foundations
been adequate punishment for the claims handling violations uncovered
The surveys, reported in The Times two months ago, concluded that
20th Century, State Farm and Allstate had repeatedly low-balled claims,
failed to inform policyholders of their benefits and forced many
claimants to sue to get full payment.
An analysis of the reports by Douglas Heller of the Foundations for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights found that State Farm failed to properly
explain benefits or misled policyholders in 37% of the 825 claim
files that were reviewed in the report. In the case of 20th Century,
he said the exam showed that policyholders were low-balled in 32%
of the 432 files examined.
Allstate improperly deducted the cost of wear and tear on possessions,
he said, in 16% of the 808 files that were scrutinized.
In testimony before the Assembly Insurance Committee, Quackenbush's
deputies have said they ordered the examinations after a flood of
complaints from policyholders. Although companies paid more than
$16 billion in claims, auditors conducted their examination by reviewing
only a sampling from each insurer.
William Sirola, a State Farm official, insisted the reports gave
an unfair picture because the settlements stopped them from being
completed. He said in their final form they would have included the
companies' reaction to each finding. He said State Farm officials,
for example, believe they can refute each of the conclusions reached
CYBERCOMMENTS: What a crappy lie. The market conduct exams were
stopped because they made the top insurers look so bad, and that
way they did not have to be filed and available as records, since
they were "incomplete." It was a con by Quackenbush to hide their
wrongdoing. Also, the insurers contradict themselves, claiming the
"exams" are unimportant and show no wrongdoing, yet crying like hell
that they are being publicly released. Why, if they show the Good
that insurers do, they should be Eager to have them released.
UPDATE ON A SLIMY SENATOR
I didn't have enough details on the AK senator who got caught cheating
the worker's comp insurance fund (which is an Awful crime, since
many workers are crippled and then impoverished because the worker's
comp fund is too low, which it is in most states.) Here is a little
there is huge publicity in the arkansas democrat gazette in little
rock, arkansas lastly published on a sunday edition about a week
ago-Senator NICK WILSON and others--conspiracy, mail and wire fraud-etc.
stealing state contract funds and kickbacks in workers comp. manned
by the arkansas school board association.
he won't get out early----he plea bargained for this-he had over
100 charges against him and others.
Here is a link to the story:
Unfortunately, like many crooked pols and businessmen, he went to
a "country club prison," where they have squash and raquetball.
He'll have a nice vacation, get a Florida tan, and then live on his
stolen money when he gets out. Every crooked pol, judge, and CEO
who is caught should be sent to a Turkish prison. They wreck a thousand
times more lives than petty crooks who have to go to the bad prisons.
"There is no Justice but that we make it so."
The insurance industry spends tens of millions to control the media
and politicians. We're lucky to scratch up twenty bucks.
If you want to help us get more of the truth out, please send a donation
to our box below:
Jim Mooney, webmaster
4495-304 Roosevelt Blvd PMB # 204
Jacksonville, FL 32210
That's all for now..
Please feel free to unsubscribe by replying to this letter with UNSUB
in the subject line. Or if friends want to subscribe, have them
write me with SUB in the subject line:
EMAIL: email@example.com FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489.
Documents published by the California Senate on this site
Our RICO Case Diary
Email me, Bill Hammel at
READ WARNING BEFORE SENDING E-MAIL
The URL for this document is:
Created: June 15, 2000
Last Updated: June 15, 2000