Documents published by the California Senate on this site

From Thu Jun 15 03:46:09 2000
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:42:16 -0400
From: The Insurer Crime Outline <>
To: "" 
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


"Defiance to Tyrants is Obedience to God."



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:



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 
horrible references.

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 
her firing.

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.



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 
serious findings.

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. 
Thank you.

CYBERCOMMENTS: The market conduct exams are available at:

[and here]
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 
rotten corruption.

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.



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 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 ;')



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 
the documents.

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 
by Quackenbush.

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 
earthquake carriers.

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 
by examiners.

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 
by examiners.

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.  



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 
more detail:

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.

carol rodgers 

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:    FAX: 1 (413) 332-8489.

Documents published by the California Senate on this site

Home Page
Insurance Page
Our RICO Case Diary

Email me, Bill Hammel at

The URL for this document is:
Created: June 15, 2000
Last Updated: June 15, 2000