UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT
    DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JUDY E. MORRIS, MD   )
      )
   Plaintiff  ) Civil Action No. CA 98-30204 FHF
      )
v.      )
      )
UNUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA,  )
 et al.    )
   Defendants


 CERTIFICATION OF PERSONAL CONSULTATION
Plaintiff hereby certifies that on January 6, 1999 she hand delivered to
the Office of H. Gregory Williams the Attached letter requesting a Rule
7.1(a)(2) Conference prior to her filing her response to his motion to
dismiss and also to advise him that she would be including a More
Definite Statement per Fed. Rul. Civ P. 12(e) to correct the defects in
the pleading Mr. Williams complained of in his Motion to Dismiss.  Mr.
Williams did call plaintiff the following day, however he did not appear
to be interested in conferring in Good Faith to resolve or narrow the
issue.  He did offer to give her an extension over the 14 days she has
to respond but plaintiff found out the following day from the Court
Clerk John Stuckenbruck that this extension agreed upon by Mr. Williams
might not be valid if the plaintiff had not filed a motion requesting
it. Therefore since plaintiff could not file a motion for an extension,
nor would she know if it was granted, she will attempt to file her
Response by the deadline.


       Judy Morris, MD
       PRO SE
       261 Bumstead Rd.
       Monson, MA  01057
       (413) 267-3606

UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT
    DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JUDY E. MORRIS, MD   )
      )
   Plaintiff  ) Civil Action No. CA 98-30204 FHF
      )
v.      )
      )
UNUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA,  )
 et al.    )
   Defendants

RESPONSE AND MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT OF JUDY E. MORRIS, MD, PLAINTIFF IN
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS SENATOR
LINDA J. MELCONIAN, CHAIRPERSON JOINT INSURANCE COMMISSION; THE OFFICE
OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND BUSINESS REGULATION; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (L.
SCOTT HARSHBARGER); THE DIVISION OF INSURANCE; LINDA RUTHARDT, WALTER
MARCINKUS, SOLMARIA MARQUEZ, MICHAEL GOETZ, AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(B)(1) AND 12(B)(6).

I, Judy E. Morris, MD, being a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, under pains and penalties of perjury do hereby
strongly oppose the motion put forth to dismiss the above defendants,
hereafter referred to as ^”Commonwealth Defendants^‘ for the following
reasons:
1. This Motion to Dismiss must be stricken because there was no
attempt made by defendants or their counsel to comply with   Local Rule
7.1(a)(2) nor was there any certification accompanying their Motion to
Dismiss.
2.  In the event the court does not strike the pleading for the above
reason or in the event the Court grants the ^”Commonwealth Defendants^‘
leave to resubmit the motion after they comply with Local Rule(a)(2)
plaintiff responds with the following memorandum.
3.  Plaintiff restates and incorporates as if set forth here in full all
arguments opposing Motions to Dismiss submitted in previous responses to
Motions to Dismiss by Betty Rae Poppo, Harrington Hospital/Mr. Mangion,
Insurance Fraud Bureau/Michael Gray, and UNUM/Crispin defendants
especially those with regard to Fed. Rule Civ. P 12(b)(6). ^”A court
should dismiss a suit under FRCP 12(b)(6) only if it appears beyond a
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief.^‘ Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102 (1957). Plaintiff also restates and incorporates
the previously submitted Statement of Claim, Entitlement to Relief and
RICO Statement as if set forth in full.
4. The ^”Commonwealth defendants^‘ claim immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment of the Constitution to prosecution in this jurisdiction and
immunity to RICO prosecution in this jurisdiction.  Plaintiff contends
this is indeed the proper jurisdiction since the allegations against the
^”Commonwealth Defendants^‘ are so entwined with the RICO complaint
against the other defendants that there could not be substantial justice
by separating the defendants into separate jurisdictions.  Were it not
for the acts and omissions of the ^”Commonwealth defendants,^‘ as will be
outlined below, there would more than likely be no RICO complaint
against any defendants. These acts and omissions are detailed in the
Chronology of Events of ^”Commonwealth Defendants^‘. Attachment A.  These
acts and omissions constitute an association in fact consistent with a
RICO enterprise as defined by RICO 18 U.S.C. ß1961 et seq. ^”a group of
persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course
of conduct^‘ as an ^”ongoing organization, formal or informal [with]
various associates function[ing] as a continuing unit.^‘ United States v.
Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d (1981) later
proceeding 604 F. Supp. 667 (D. Ma.1985).  Plaintiff re-iterates the
criteria for jurisdiction as specified in Paragraph 18 of her complaint,
being diversity of most defendants, value of damages over $75,000, a
Federal Law, RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq, and now, according to Mr.
Williams a constitutional question of governmental immunity and
important public policy issues about what exactly is the function and
responsibility of the Department of Insurance, the Attorney General^“s
Office, the Office of Consumer Affairs, the Insurance Fraud Bureau, and
the State Legislature when informed repeatedly by a reliable source of
ongoing crimes against the citizens of the Commonwealth.
5.  ^”Commonwealth Defendants^‘ claims of immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment notwithstanding, this claim of immunity is in direct violation
of plaintiff^“s Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process of Law.  This
blanket immunity claimed by the Commonwealth Defendants is a legal
fiction and implies that the Government defendants are above the law.
This statement is intended to knowingly and intentionally mislead this
Court.
If this were the case we would have the same situation as described in
the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776,
Attachment B. ^”Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed ^÷ That whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or abolish.^‘ ^”When a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government.^‘ The Declaration describes an
^”Arbitrary government,^‘ ^”abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering
fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.^‘ ^”In every state of these
Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our
repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.^‘  A
careful read of Attachment A will show how plaintiff petitioned these
defendants and other government agencies repeatedly and beseechingly to
do their duty to protect the Citizens of the Commonwealth against
corporate lawbreakers, only to be met with jargon, lies, deceptions, and
stonewalling.
Attachment C gives examples of questionable character, ethics
investigations and other suspicions including a treatise on the
Collusive relationship between the Attorney General and private
insurance interests.  Questions are raised not only by the media, and
this document, but by Attorney General Scott Harshbarger himself,
another government employee, Stephen D^“Amato, that worked within the
Department of Insurance, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
regarding some of the ^”Commonwealth Defendants.^‘  It also would seem to
be inappropriate, unethical, and a conflict of interest for the Attorney
General^“s office to be defending Linda Ruthardt and the Department of
Insurance when they have publicly questioned the credibility of this
defendant and her agency and have an ongoing investigation against her,
as detailed in Attachment C.
  This Court cannot deny plaintiff her Constitutional Due Process
Rights.  In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, 339 U.S.
306 (195) the Court ruled ^”Against this interest of the State we must
balance the individual interest sought to be protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment.  This is defined by our holding that ^—The fundamental
requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard^Ň^‘
Plaintiff is constrained by time in this response but with further study
is certain to find laws and citations limiting governmental immunity
especially in circumstances such as she will explain below where there
is ample evidence of collusion, conflict of interest, and conspiracy by
^”Commonwealth Defendants^‘ and private interests to deprive citizens of
property and due process.
6.  Each elected and appointed official of the State of Massachusetts
was required to recite an oath, Attachment D, swearing to faithfully and
impartially discharge their duties, the rules and regulations of the
Constitution and the laws of this Commonwealth.  To intentionally,
willfully or negligently ignore, defy, or fail to uphold the laws
because of the supposed protections of the Eleventh Amendment would defy
the intention of the writers of the Constitution and the writers of the
laws of the Commonwealth as well as breaching their Oath of Office.
7.  Although Mr. Williams states that the ^”Commonwealth could
theoretically have consented to be sued for RICO in federal court,^‘ in
all likelihood and based on all of plaintiff^“s previous experiences with
the State Government a request of this nature from plaintiff would have
been futile, merely allowing the government more opportunity to delay
and obfuscate the issues.  Furthermore, at least the Department of
Insurance defendants (hereafter ^”DOI^‘) have known for over a year, as
proven in their own notes, that plaintiff intended to sue them and never
informed her that she must ask their permission.  An average citizen who
has never had significant legal problems would certainly not expect to
have to ask their abuser for permission to sue them. In fact as public
servants, their actions seemed exactly counter to what one would expect,
offering no significant advice or help to plaintiff, blindly accepting
legal advice, insurance advice and excuses from her abuser, and
depriving her of due process by not allowing her opportunity to respond.
When plaintiff did respond anyway, she was ignored or the events further
obfuscated by the DOI with half-truths and whole lies.
8.  Since Plaintiff^“s jurisdiction to sue the State in Federal court
should certainly stand based on the RICO and Constitutional issues, the
immunity under Mass. Tort Claims Act, M.G.L. c. 258, ß 1 et seq. will be
discussed only briefly. Immunity of government employees under the Tort
Claims Act is not absolute.  In fact the express purpose of the Act is
^”to allow those with valid claims in tort to recover against
governmental entities and to provide mechanisms ensuring that only valid
claims be paid.^‘  George v. Town of Saugus (1985) 474 N.E. 2d 169, 394
Mass.40.  If plaintiff prevails on her claims against UNUM, as she most
certainly will considering the overwhelming weigh of evidence, that
would certainly confirm that her damages, deprivation of property rights
and emotional distress, were ^”allowed^‘ by the government employees
responsible for enforcing the laws of the State.  In fact M.G.L. 258 ß 2
states, that within certain monetary restrictions ^”Public employees
shall be liable for injury or loss or property or personal injury or
death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any public
employee while acting within the scope of his office or employment, in
the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under
like circumstances^Ň.^‘  Case law goes on to say ^”While public employers
may not be held liable for intentional torts committed by their
employees, the employees may be personally liable for any harm they have
caused.^‘ Spring v. Geriatric Authority of Holyoke (1985) 475 N.E. 2d
727, 394 Mass. 274.  Plaintiff is clearly holding all ^”Commonwealth
defendants^‘ personally responsible for their acts and omissions in
failing to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth and in further
perpetuating fraud as outlined in Attachment A.
Plaintiff^“s failure to ^”present his claim in writing to the executive
officer of such public employer^‘ is clearly due to the ^”Commonwealth
defendants^‘ failing to tell her of such requirement which as a private
citizen she would have no way of knowing.  The Massachusetts DOI has
known plaintiff was threatening to sue them for over a year.  Had anyone
at that agency advised or even mentioned to claimant the notice
requirement, she would have complied long ago with notice not only to
the DOI but to other defendants as well.  However in all likelihood,
forcing plaintiff to comply with the notice requirement now would only
result a six month delay as the Commonwealth defendants availed
themselves of the six month period in which to attempt arbitration,
settlement or compromise since up until this point, not one of these
defendants has in Good Faith attempted to do anything or obtain further
information from plaintiff.  In all likelihood, a request of this sort
would merely give the defendants and opportunity to stonewall and delay
justice for another six months.  Therefore plaintiff begs the Court to
waive this notification requirement as the Commonwealth Defendants
attempts to invoke it now is clearly solely for purposes of delay.  Had
the Commonwealth Defendants had any intention of taking plaintiff^“s
complaints seriously they would have done so before now.  The Tort
Claims Act also does not provide immunity to the employees if their acts
were in violation of plaintiff^“s civil rights and they acted in a
grossly negligent, willful, or malicious manner.  Defendants actions
were clearly negligent and willful, and possibly malicious, with the
express intent to force plaintiff to file a lawsuit against UNUM,
knowing full well that this was unlikely to result in a satisfactory
outcome considering UNUM^“s claims history and abuse of the legal
process, as described and demonstrated by Dr. Morris in numerous
correspondences with ^”Commonwealth Defendants.^‘
9.  The particularity required to include all defendants in the RICO
suit and relevant State Causes of Action are included in Attachment A.
Attachment A details with particularity and evidence:
   a) Why plaintiff knew laws were being broken
   b) Why plaintiff appealed to the agencies she appealed to
   for redress
   c) Many of the contacts plaintiff had with defendants with particular
details of time, place, statements and identity of parties making them.
What these defendants obtained as a consequence of the fraud is
self-evident as job security and praise from superiors, or is evidence
that is within the hands of the defendants or known only to the
defendants such as job offers, influence, rewards to defendants or
defendants^“ families, or bribes.  However their actions speak to their
intent.
    d) Over 8 attempts with detailed letters and evidence sent by
plaintiff to the Department of Insurance and the inappropriate,
irrational or untrue responses from the Department via its employees to
plaintiff.
    e) Approximately 3 or 4 extensive attempts on part of plaintiff with
letters and evidence to get the Attorney General to investigate and the
responses from his department.
    f) Plaintiff^“s attempts to get the Office of Consumer Affairs to
investigate and their responses.
    g) Several attempts to get members of the State Legislature to
intervene, including unambiguous letters describing the criminal
activity being perpetrated to Linda Melconian and Byron Rushing of the
Joint Insurance Committee.   Senator Brewer, the only government
official to make any attempt to aid plaintiff, seems to agree with
plaintiff that there should be an investigation and wrote several
letters to the Department of Insurance and the Attorney General^“s
office, to which he also received deceptive and obfuscatory replies.
    h) Internal memos showing that all these departments were in contact
with each other and other agencies, like the Maine Bureau of Insurance,
discussing how to ^”handle^‘ this complainant.  These memos are no doubt
only a small sample of what was discussed.
    i) Plaintiff^“s two attempts to have criminal charges filed against
UNUM and the Assistant District Attorney spurning her attempts to get
these criminals prosecuted.
10. Attachment C contains a copy of the Randum of James N. Ellis, as
previously submitted in Opposition to Dismiss the Insurance Fraud
Bureau, Worcester Superior Court, Indictment No.^“s 97-0192 (1-28),
97-0565(1-14), which illustrates:
a) the zeal with which Attorney General Scott Harshbarger and his office
investigated and prosecuted fraud being committed against insurance
companies by plaintiff^“s lawyers.
b) the Attorney General^“s previous lack of concern or investigation when
the rights of citizens were being trampled by insurance companies when
he was urged to investigate by the Massachusetts Academy of Trial
Attorneys, page 5.
c) a good treatise on how the insurance industry has usurped the
prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General^“s office for their own
purposes to the detriment of taxpaying citizens and the large amount of
money flowing to the AG^“s office from insurance companies.
d) Newspaper articles describing the fact that even the Attorney General
has questions about the ethics and credibility of Linda Ruthardt and the
Department of Insurance.
11.  All of the above evidence can only lead to the conclusion that the
information which plaintiff has been able to gather on her own, without
the benefit of paid assistants, private investigators, law clerks,
secretaries, or any legal authority is the mere tip of the iceberg of a
conspiratorial relationship between the insurance industry and the State
Government to deprive citizens of property and due process by allowing
insurance contracts to be sold that have no reasonable means of
enforcement available to the victims.  Filing lawsuits and hiring
attorneys is a great expense, both financially and emotionally for most
disabled people, frequently impossible, and even if lawsuits are filed,
as explained in Plaintiff^“s original complaint, the ongoing abuses of
the legal system by UNUM, make it almost impossible for claimants to get
their full and rightful benefits, much less justice for the harassment,
abuse, invasions of privacy, violations of State and Federal laws, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress they endured.
12.  The money flowing to the attorney general^“s office from the
Insurance Fraud Bureau is no doubt, just the tip of the iceberg.
The factual information to plead bribery and fraud with particularity is
within the defendant^“s knowledge or control as in Burlington Coat
Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1418 (3d Cir. 1997) but the actions
of these agencies clearly indicate state of mind, intent and ^”scienter.^‘

13. It is unknown at this time whether the DOI has in fact received more
than 5 requests or affidavits asking for investigation of UNUM as that
information is wholly in the hands of the defendants.  Furthermore it is
quite likely that had numerous complaints been received, the
complainants would not be advised that no investigation would be
conducted unless their complaints were in the form of Affidavits, since
plaintiff was certainly not advised to make a formal request for
investigation of UNUM, although that is in essence what she did on
numerous occasions.

^”[T]he normally rigorous particularity rule has been relaxed somewhat
where the factual information is peculiarly within the defendant^“s
knowledge or control.^‘ Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d
1410, 1418 (3d. Cir. 1997).

The circumstances of the relationship between the AG, DOI, State
Legislature, IFB and insurance companies including UNUM is particularly
within control of the defendants (including documents, financial
arrangements, conflicts of interest, conversations and discussions
regarding plaintiff and/or the problems with lack of accountability of
the insurance industry, etc.)  However, plaintiff has ample reason and
evidence to suspect collusion, bribery, obstruction of justice, fraud
and other RICO Predicate Acts are occurring and that the Commonwealth
defendants were indeed part of the enterprise/association in fact based
on the evidence presented herein and in the attachments.  Furthermore
the court must accept the well-pled allegations of Morris^“s Complaint
and Motions as true, and must construe the facts and reasonable
inferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs.  Id: Little v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1 F.3d 255,
256 (4th Cir. 1993).  The complaint must be reviewed de novo if there is
any questions of dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Randall v. United
States, 30 F.3d 518, 522 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1956
(1995).:
Morris availed herself of every possible agency and redress she could
think of, all seeming to fail, and in fact, her experience having been
repeated by other insurance victims all over the country.  She contacted
and gave explicit evidence to her local elected officials, state
legislators, local law enforcement, including filing criminal charges on
three occasions which she believes the local Assistant District Attorney
threw in the trash. She contacted the AG, US Attorney, Postmaster
General, DOJ, DOL, FBI, Maine and Mass. DOI, Maine and Mass. Governors,
Inspector General, Office of Consumer Affairs, Legislative Committees on
Insurance.

She followed up rigorously with almost every single request from any
agency that bothered to contact her at all.  She offered any
information, any help, to provide further witnesses and victims to any
agency that would investigate, all to no avail.
14. Based on the complete lack of response of the government to her
valid complaints and repeated attempts, plaintiff is certainly justified
in using Civil RICO, as Attorney Williams points out, ^”an unusually
potent weapon -^◊ the litigation equivalent of a thermonuclear device.^‘
Miranda v. Ponce Fed. Bank, 948 F2d 41, 44 (1st Cir. 1991). When
presented with similar problems of a nonresponsive government acting
counter to the needs of the citizens, the founding fathers were forced
to resort to armed rebellion. Attachment B ^÷ The Declaration of
Independence.  And while plaintiff is not attempting to ^”redress every
instance of man^“s inhumanity to man^Ň.. or righting all wrongs of a
troubled world^‘ Miranda, 948 F2d at 49, she is attempting to right those
wrongs of which she has personal knowledge and evidence, at great
expense both financial, emotional and physical to herself.
CONCLUSION
By the aforementioned case law and evidence, plaintiff has clearly
established Racketeering acts of mail fraud committed by the Department
of Insurance, Linda Ruthardt, Walter Marcinkus, Solmaria Marquez, and
Michael Goetz, a form of bribery by the Insurance Fraud Bureau of the
Attorney General^“s prosecutorial discretion, conspiratorial discussions
between the Department of Insurance and the Office of Consumer Affairs
and the distinct possibility that the leadership of the Joint Insurance
Committee of the State Legislature, Linda Melconian, has fallen victim
to Corporate Bribery.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution requires that plaintiff be
allowed her Due Process rights to prove these claims by a preponderance
of the evidence.
   Plaintiff would also like to advise this court that she has expressed
a desire to meet with all opposing counsels in order to attempt to
narrow the issues as mandated by the Local Rules of the Court only to be
repeatedly rebuffed by counsels.  Plaintiff prays this honorable Court
would order all opposing counsels to meet with plaintiff in person in
order to attempt to narrow the issues or if possible settle this matter
without litigation.  Plaintiff acting PRO SE has shown this Court that
she has made far more than a Good Faith effort to learn and comply with
both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the
Court, whereas opposing counsels have failed repeatedly to do so.



REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
    as per Local Rule 7.1(D)
  Plaintiff again reiterates her request for oral arguments as set forth
in previous motions and requests a conference with the judge as soon as
possible.
  Signed under the penalties of perjury this 11th day of January, 1999.

Judy E. Morris, MD
       PRO SE
       261 Bumstead Rd.
       Monson, MA  01057
       (413) 267-3606

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was
delivered in person January 11th, 1999 to US District Court, District of
Massachusetts, Springfield and served by United States Postal Mail,
postage prepaid upon the following attorneys representing all defendants
in Morris v. UNUM, et al. Mailed on January 11th, 1999.


       Judy E. Morris, MD
       PRO SE
       261 Bumstead Rd.
       Monson, MA  01057
       (413) 267-3606



Patricia A. Peard, Esq.    representing ^”UNUM^‘ claimants
Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer
& Nelson, PA
100 Middle Street, PO Box 9729
Portland, ME  04104-5209

Katherine A. Robertson, Esq.   ^”UNUM^“s^‘ local counsel
Buckley, Richardson & Gelinas
1500 Main Street
PO box 15507
Springfield, MA  01115

William J. Kayatta, Esq.   representing Robert Crispin
Geraldine G. Sanchez, Esq.
Pierce Atwood
One Monument Square
Portland, ME 04101

H. Gregory Williams    representing State of Mass.,
Assistant AG     Harshbarger, Melconian, DOI,
Office of Attorney General  Ruthardt, Goetz, Marcinkus,
Western Mass. Division   Marquez
436 Dwight Street
Springfield, MA 01103-1317

Tracy L. Devlin, Esq.   representing IFB and Michael
E. Michael Sloman, Esq.    Gray
Meyer, Connolly, Sloman
& MacDonald, LLP
12 Post Office Square
Boston, MA  02109

Thomas H. Hayman, Esq.   representing Betty Rae Poppo
Cetrulo & Capone, LLP
53 State Street
Exchange Place
Boston, MA  02109

Robert Pierce, Esq.
Gretchen A. Brodnicki, Esq.  representing Harrington and
Pierce & Mandell, PC   Mangion
11 Beacon Street, Suite 800
Boston, MA  02108-3002

Christopher N. Jones   Co-Counsel for Transunion
Marion, Satzberg, Trichon,   Credit Corporation with Pat
Kogan & Wertheimer, PC   Peard
3000 Mellon Bank Center
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA  19103-7640

Carolyn G. Sullivan    representing Jack Taylor
Melick & Porter, LLP
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts  02109









Morris v UNUM, CA 98-30208FHF

Chronology of Events, Letters, Memos   ^÷   Attachment A

Chronology of Events, Laws, Facts leading Plaintiff to know that laws
had been broken, that the Department of Insurance and Attorney Generals
Office and other Divisions of State Government are the places consumers
are referred to when they want to enforce those laws, and the authority
these divisions have to investigate, IF their discretion had not been
tainted by corporate interests.  Evidence of Plaintiff^“s efforts to get
investigation and the response of the officials involved.  Evidence of
taint, Conflict of Interest and suspicion that the defendants have in
their possession further evidence of bribery, taint, conflict of
interest, collusion.

The specific defendant who failed in their duty, committed fraud or
deception will be cited in bold.

A-1.  ^”Cite Your Rights^‘ ^÷ Pamphlet picked up at the Attorney General^“s
Office ^÷ states ^”A merchant is obligated under the law to disclose any
fact, the disclosure of which may have influence the buyer not to enter
into the transaction to start with.  The inner workings of UNUM and
their efforts to deny legitimate claims and force claimants into
lawsuits was not disclosed by UNUM, Betty Rae Poppo, Jack Taylor or
Harrington Hospital.  This pamphlet says it is against the law not to do
so. The Attorney General is the Chief law enforcer in the state so
Plaintiff naturally assumed he would enforce the law or at least do
something to make sure the crime didn't continue to occur with regard to
unsuspecting insurance customers.
Attorney General

A-2.  ^”LifeAdvice^‘ Pamphlet ^÷ picked up at Attorney General^“s office.
Pamphlet put out by an insurance company (MetLife) advising people about
^”Taking Legal Action.^‘ It states ^”Criminal Complaints^Ň.are brought by a
state or federal prosecutor, such as the state^“s attorney or district
attorney^ŇEven if you are a victim of a crime, you cannot bring criminal
charges yourself.  Only a government prosecutor can file such
complaints.^‘  This would also lead plaintiff to believe that the
Attorney General would take her complaints seriously.
Attorney General

A-3. E-mail notice Nov. 1, 1998, Attorney General Scott Harshbarger
submitted an Amicus Brief in defense of State Farm Insurance to
decertify a nationwide class action against State Farm.  Mr. Harshbarger
was using his political office to promote private interests of an
insurance company here.

A-4.  From RICO 18 USC 1968
^”Whenever the Attorney General has reason to believe [if his discretion
isn^“t tainted] that any person or enterprise may be in possession,
custody, or control of any documentary materials relevant to a
racketeering investigation, he may, prior to the institution of a civil
or criminal proceeding thereon, issue in writing, and cause to be served
upon such person, a civil investigative demand requiring such person to
produce such material for examination.^‘  i.e. investigating racketeering
is clearly within the scope of the Attorney General^“s office.
Attorney General

A-5. Description of Constitutional Officers from brochure distributed by
AG^“s office.
^”Regulated Industries Division, Public Protection Division ^Ň..seeks to
keep the cost of ^Ň.health, life and disability insurance affordable^Ň.it
also answers questions and takes complaints about service, billing  or
coverage on these kinds of insurance.^‘  Taking complaints would imply
that they would also report significant ones to the AG and do something
about them when laws are being broken. Attorney General

A-6.  1997 Consumer^“s Resource Handbook ^÷ Plaintiff also picked this up
at the AG^“s office, says ^”State Insurance Regulators ^÷ Each state has
its own laws and regulations for all types of insurance^Ň..The officials
listed below enforce these laws^‘
[if their discretion isn^“t tainted]
^”Massachusetts, Linda Ruthardt, Commissioner^Ň^‘  This would lead
plaintiff to believe that the Massachusetts Department of Insurance
would investigate and enforce the insurance laws of the state of
Massachusetts.  Mass. Department of Insurance, Linda Ruthardt

A-7. Chapter from Legal Manual for Insurance Litigation ^”How Insurance
Companies Settle Cases^‘ by Clinton Miller, JD.
(Obtained from Courthouse library).  The chapter entitled
^”Techniques Not Found in Claims Manuals^‘ has the following Disclaimer
^”The following techniques illustrate unfair claims practices. The
tactics and techniques outlined in this chapter are unethical, sometimes
immoral, and usually illegal.^‘
After extensive investigation, interviewing numerous insurance
claimants, and her own case, plaintiff^“s knowledge and belief is that a
majority of UNUM^“s claims tactics are taken from this chapter, and they
engage in some that aren^“t even listed here.
Mr. Miller states that ^”Malice-Compelling the claimant to litigate his
claim in order to get paid.^‘  Because of the illegal nature or these
tactics, plaintiff naturally assumed the Attorney General  and
Department of Insurance would investigate.
Attorney General, Department of Insurance.

A-8. Massachusetts General Laws
M.G.L. 175 ß 2 Note 5 ^”Construction of Language^‘
^”Where there is an ambiguity in the terms of an insurance contract, the
ambiguity must be interpreted strictly against the insurer.^‘ and more
like this. Plaintiff had every reason to believe that the Massachusetts
Department of Insurance would enforce the provisions of the laws of
Massachusetts.
M.G.L. ß 3A ^”Powers and Duties of the Commissioner of Insurance^‘  ^”If
upon complaint, examination or other evidence exhibited to him [her] he
[she] is of the opinion [assuming no taint or conflict of interest] that
any provision of said chapters has been violated, he [she] shall
forthwith report the facts tot he attorney general, to the proper
district attorney or to the commissioner of public safety, who shall
cause the offender to be prosecuted therefor.^‘ ^”if the court finds a
defendant is threatening or is likely to do any act or acts in violation
of this chapter, and that such violation will cause irreparable injury
to the interests of the people of the commonwealth, the court may grant
an injunction restraining such violation.^‘ M.G.L. 175 ß 4 ^”He shall also
make such examination upon the request of five or more ^Ň^Ň. policyholders
^Ň^Ň.that such company is in unsound condition.^‘ [Whether the Department
of Insurance has received more than 5 such complaints is evidence that
is within the hands of the defendants.  Plaintiff is aware of the fact,
as told her by Jerry Condon of the DOI, that the Mass. DOI has received
over 30 complaints against UNUM in the last several years.  If these
complaints did not rise to the level of requests for investigation, that
may have been due to the fact that the complainants were not made aware
of the exact wording their complaints must take in order to trigger an
investigation.  It is obviously the duty of the DOI to advise people if
the complaints must take a certain form.]

Also the law states ^”Whenever he determines it to be prudent [assuming
no taint or conflict of interest], for the protection of policyholders
in the commonwealth, he shall in like manner visit and examine, or
cause^‘ ^Ň^Ň..[in other words ^÷ investigate]. ^”The commissioner may
investigate, in such manner and to such extent as he [she] deems
expedient, [in the absence of taint] any complaint of a policyholder to
any claim under any policy of insurance^Ň^‘ Plaintiff is certain that her
complaints spelled out more than enough details to trigger such
suspicion on the part of any regulator whose discretion was not tainted
by conflict of interest or bribery.

The Commissioner may investigate if a company^“s ^”business policies or
methods are unsound or improper, or that its condition or management is
such as to render its further transaction of business hazardous to the
public or its policyholders, or that it is transacting business
fraudulently^Ň^Ň.^‘

THE FOLLOWING ARE COPIES OF PLAINTIFF^“S NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO GET THE
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,
STATE LEGISLATURE AND OTHERS TO INVESTIGATE HER CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE OF
FRAUD AND UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES OF UNUM INSURANCE, AND THE
RESPONSES OF THESE AGENCIES.

A-9: March 15, 1997 ^÷ Plaintiff^“s first complaint to Department of
Insurance
A-10: April 8 ^÷ Letter from UNUM to DOI advising DOI that UNUM^“s
^”complaints handling^‘ department will answer their questions.
A-11: April 23, 1997 ^÷ Letter from Walter Marcinkus blindly accepting
UNUM^“s explanation of events, concluding the departments ^”inquiry into
the matter^‘ and not giving plaintiff a chance to respond.
      April 17, 1997 ^÷ Letters from UNUM^“s ^”complaints^‘ specialists to
the DOI

A-12: May 30, 1997 ^÷ Plaintiff^“s second complaint to Department of
Insurance and Walter Marcinkus explaining in details the deceits and
half-truths in UNUM^“s response and the further deceits, including abuse
of Private Investigators, abuse of plaintiff^“s efforts to keep UNUM
informed of her whereabouts, and  the fact that her claim was denied for
pretextual reasons by UNUM attempting to create an ambiguity about her
condition and her disability where not existed.  In this letter
plaintiff spelled out the terms of her contract and her medical evidence
of disability.

A-13: May 30, 1997 ^÷ Letter of complaint from plaintiff to Attorney
General Scott Harshbarger

A-14: June 6, 1997 ^÷ Response from the Attorney General^“s office.
Plaintiff did as requested and called the agency and was told the
complaint was being investigated by Judy Depontbriand and that Ms.
Depontbriand needed a week to look into things. A second response was
received from Richard Steward for the copy of the complaint sent to the
Western Massachusetts Division of the AG^“s office.    Plaintiff did not
hear anything back ever from the Attorney General^“s office, including
any responses to any other correspondence she sent them, until Senator
Brewer wrote to them on her behalf in the Fall of 1998.

A-15: June 20, 1997 ^÷ Response to complaint to Maine Attorney General^“s
office.  In this complaint, they confirm that Dr. Peter Mirkin did not
have a license to practice medicine but the Attorney General^“s office
accepted UNUM^“s word that he didn^“t need a license to do what he does.
Plaintiff subsequently received a ruling from the Maine Board of
Medicine that what UNUM^“s doctors are doing constitutes practicing
medicine in a consultative capacity and does require licensure.  The
Maine Attorney General^“s office has refused to indict Dr. Mirkin for
practicing Medicine without a license.

A-16: July 13, 1997 ^÷ Copy of letter sent to UNUM^“s Board of Directors
and also copied to the Massachusetts Department of Insurance and
Attorney General^“s office.  It is unbelievable that not a single agency
bothered to so much as contact Dr. Morris, nor investigate her
allegations.

A-17: July 14, 1997 ^÷ Response from the Governor of Maine (a
non-defendant co-conspirator) to a detailed letter from plaintiff
referring her complaint to the Maine Bureau of Insurance (a
non-defendant co-conspirator).

A-18: July 15, 1997 ^÷ Letter from the Maine Bureau of Insurance advising
plaintiff to complain to the Massachusetts Department of Insurance.

A-19: July 14, 1997 ^÷ Response to plaintiff from Department of Insurance
and Walter Marcinkus, ignoring plaintiff^“s complains of fraud,
illegality and unethical behavior, ignoring plaintiff^“s request for a
meeting and once again, blindly accepting UNUM fraudulent statement that
plaintiff^“s problem is an ERISA problem.  UNUM knows that plaintiff also
has an individual disability policy that is not under ERISA control.  By
blindly accepting UNUM^“s fraudulent explanations and telling plaintiff
that ^”State authorities have no jurisdiction I these issues^‘ Mr.
Marcinkus is engaging in fraud, deception, intentional delay, and
dereliction of duties.  The obvious reward for this unethical behavior
is job security although if there were other rewards for him that
evidence would be in his control.
June 19, 1997 ^÷ Misleading and deceptive response from  UNUM^“s reviewer
to the DOI and Walter Marcinkus.

A-20: July 5, 1997 ^÷ Plaintiff^“s third complaint to the DOI, Linda
Ruthardt and Walter Marcinkus spelling out why fraud is being committed
by UNUM, how she is being deprived of her benefits, how the DOI is not
responding to her complaints.  Copies sent to several agencies including
Linda Ruthardt and Massachusetts Attorney General.

A-21: Affidavit of Tamarra T. Rennick and copy of Dr. Morris^“s Internet
letter were sent to the Department of Insurance and AG to show more
thoroughly that UNUM has been sued an extraordinary number of times by
policyholders and other allegations of plaintiff about this company.
Once again there was not response from any agency that plaintiff sent
this information to, including the DOI and AG^“s offices.

A-22: Undated letter from Solmaria Marquez, addressing the issue of
whether plaintiff should continue paying premiums on her individual
policy.  This is proof that the DOI knew plaintiff had an individual
policy that was under State regulation, not ERISA.  Plaintiff
subsequently received a letter (can^“t find it right now) from the DOI
stating that UNUM had told them plaintiff must continue to pay her
premiums of $150 per month.

A-23: July 7, 1997 ^÷ Plaintiff complained via Internet to the Office of
Consumer Affairs that she was not getting a reasonable response from the
Department of Insurance

July 31, 1997 ^÷ Internet response from the Office of Consumer Affairs
blindly accepting the explanation of the Department of Insurance and
advising plaintiff to contact her employer sponsor (which she was
already doing).

A-24: August 4, 1997 - Internal Memo from Department of Insurance File
(sent to Plaintiff at her request) ^÷ Discussion between Linda Ruthardt
and Jane Brayton of Consumer Affairs section colluding to ignore
plaintiff^“s valid complaints and only address those issues UNUM tells
them to address ^÷ claiming plaintiff^“s problems are due to ERISA.  Also
cc^“d to Walter Marcinkus and Solmaria Marquez

A-25: August 6, 1997 ^÷ Internal communication between Walter Marcinkus
and Linda Ruthardt ^÷ regarding conversation where plaintiff called Mr.
Marcinkus to tell him that the ^”medical dispute^‘ was invented by UNUM on
a pretextual basis to force her to file a lawsuit.  He also insisted the
DOI has no jurisdiction due to ^”COBRA^‘ [I think he meant ERISA], even
though plaintiff explained that one of her policies was not an ERISA
policy and this is a false excuse to avoid investigating.  Plaintiff
advised Mr. Marcinkus that she would name the DOI and him as
co-conspirators if they continued to refuse to investigate ^÷ and in fact
she has.

A-26: August 7, 1997 ^÷ Second letter from Maine Bureau of Insurance
telling plaintiff to complain to the Massachusetts Department of
Insurance.

A-27: August 19, 1997 ^÷ Plaintiff had written several more letters of
complaint to the Maine Governor and Maine Bureau of Insurance.  She was
shocked to find in her file from the Massachusetts Department of
Insurance a memo stating that the Maine Bureau of Insurance had called
the Massachusetts Department of Insurance complaining that the ^”doctor
has repeatedly harassed Maine authorities.^‘  Plaintiff refers the reader
to a letter she recently received from the Massachusetts Attorney
General^“s office dated December 16, 1998, signed by John W. Donovan,
advising her to contact the Maine Bureau of Insurance and even giving
their address.

A-28: Undated letter ^÷ Just for good measure plaintiff wrote a separate
letter to Paul Celluci after he took over for Bill Weld.  There was no
response at all to this letter.

A-29: August 27, 1997 ^÷ DOI Internal memo from Linda Ruthardt to
Solmaria Marquez.
In an obvious attempt to get rid of Dr. Morris^“s persistent requests for
investigation, Ms. Ruthardt advises Ms. Marquez to write a letter to
plaintiff.  Ms. Ruthardt specifically states to make sure ^”what I have
said matched reality,^‘ to have attorney Michael G (presumably Michael
Goetz) ^”look at it.^‘  And to make sure it is ^”correct.^‘  The word
^”correct^‘ is in quotation marks in the memo and plaintiff believes this
is some kind of code word for ^”legally defensively^‘ (although plaintiff
doesn^“t feel the resulting letter is legally defensive and is certainly
not correct.)

This memo was also copied to Jane Brayton of the Consumer Affairs
Division indicating collusion, in that the Division of Consumer Affairs,
instead of investigating the DOI is conferring with them to get rid of a
persistent citizen demanding an investigation.

A-30: August 27, 1997 ^÷ Another internal memo between Solmaria Marquez
and Linda Ruthardt clearly indicating that there was much more
discussion occurring regarding plaintiff than what is evidenced in these
few memos and records.
Again a word is in code as Ms. Ruthardt refers to ^”get this as ^”done^‘ as
possible.^‘  This memo also shows that they recognized that plaintiff had
an individual policy but once again, her only recourse, according to the
DOI is to file a lawsuit.  In other words they will do nothing else to
investigate either Dr. Morris^“s complaint or the public policy issues
and questions about this companies methods that she has brought to their
attention.

A-31: August 27, 1997 ^÷ THE LETTER ^÷ clearly written with consent and
input from Linda Ruthardt.  This letter, signed by Solmaria Marquez
states that the DOI has ^”extensively investigated^‘.  They conclude that
UNUM^“s position on the non-payment of plaintiff^“s benefits after
February 14, 1997 was valid because of the ^”medical evidence that was
presented by your attending physicians and by UNUM^“s Independent Medical
Examinations^Ň.^‘  Plaintiff^“s attending physicians and medical evidence
clearly did not support UNUM^“s rationale to avoid paying benefits and
there never were any Independent Medical Examinations.  The DOI totally
ignored plaintiff^“s accusations and the proof provided in the way of her
medical records that UNUM lied about the conversations with her
doctors.  The letter states that UNUM is justified because ^”UNUM does
not agree with your position,^‘ however Massachusetts Insurance Law
clearly states that ambiguities must be found in favor of the insured.
It would seem that if plaintiff^“s doctors, and her insurance agents and
her employer, for that matter, believe she should be paid, and only UNUM
disagrees, there is an ambiguity [although in this case, a clearly
pretextual one on UNUM^“s part in order to claim a factual dispute in
order to force claimant to sue them.]

A-32: August 29, 1997 ^÷ Another internal memo indicating that the
Department of Insurance is getting its legal advice from the insurance
company.  Just because UNUM ^”routinely^‘ does something doesn^“t mean it^“s
ethical or legal.

A-33: September 5, 1997 ^÷ Letter from Plaintiff to Solmaria Marquez,
Department of Insurance stating that she unequivocally never had any
Independent Medical Examinations. There were copies of this letter in
the file plaintiff subsequently obtained from the DOI.

A-34: September 10, 1997 ^÷ Internal memo from Solmaria Marquez to Linda
Ruthardt stating that plaintiff showed up unannounced and grew ^”rude and
threatening^‘.

A-35: September 16, 1997 ^÷ Internet message from Plaintiff to one of her
friends documenting the events of her visit with the Department of
Insurance.

Plaintiff^“s version of the meeting is as follows:

Dr. Morris went to the DOI Offices on Sept. 10, 1997. She asked to talk
to Solmaria Marquez.  Ms. Marquez, Mr. Marcinkus and attorney Michael
Goetz all met with plaintiff in a small room.  Mr. Goetz did not allow
the others to say anything.  After some small talk, plaintiff asked Mr.
Goetz if it was legal for an insurance company to lie to deny an
insurance claim.  Mr. Goetz responded ^”No.^‘  Plaintiff stated that since
she never had any independent medical examinations as Ms. Marquez stated
she had had in the letter of August 27, 1997 (after stating that the DOI
investigation of Morris^“s complaints had been ^”extensive^‘) that ^”someone
is lying, either UNUM or the DOI.^‘  Mr. Goetz responded by saying ^”I
don^“t see where that^“s a lie.^‘

Plaintiff did lose her composure at this point.  She admits she used
some foul language (and apologized later) and did threaten to sue the
DOI for collusion ^÷ a threat she has carried out.
That was the extent of the foul language and the threats. This
interaction qualifies as Due Notice, and had the DOI made any effort to
advise plaintiff that her threat to sue must be in writing, she would
certainly have complied.  They intentionally did not tell her about this
stipulation so they could then use a Notice of Intent to Sue defense to
avoid being sued or for delay.  Of course, asking unresponsive
government agencies for consent to sue them would most certainly have
been a futile gesture anyway.  By plaintiff^“s actions, she certainly
complied with the intent of the notice provisions of the law which is to
give the state the opportunity to do its job prior to being formally
sued.

It was clearly the intention of these three people to continue to claim
that plaintiff^“s allegations were unfounded, to refuse to adequately
investigate her complaints and to defend the unconscionable actions of
UNUM Insurance Company.  The damages to plaintiff are her loss of the
insurance benefits, the considerable time and expense she has had to go
to by suing UNUM to get those same benefits, the loss of the ability to
earn supplemental income due to the time and energy requirements of this
lawsuit, the emotional damage of being betrayed repeatedly by
governmental agencies, the physical demands of repeated letter writing,
phone calls, and trips to Boston which adversely affects plaintiff^“s
underlying condition, and the tremendous public policy issues of having
regulatory agencies defending the companies they should be investigating
and misleading the public and the taxpayers who pay their salaries.  The
benefit to the defendants is clearly job security and prestige. There
may be other benefits revealed during discovery such as bribes, stock
holdings or benefits to family members for deflecting and refusing to
investigate valid consumer complaints.  This agency is equally as
culpable as UNUM for the damages sustained to present and future
policyholders whose claims may be fraudulently denied.

A-36: October 6, 1997 ^÷ After receiving letters of Inquiry from
Plaintiff^“s Senator^“s Stephen M. Brewer and Edward M. Kennedy, Linda
Ruthardt wrote them a letter stating ^”enclosed for your information is a
copy of a letter that was sent to Dr. Morris regarding her complaint.^‘
Enclosed was an exact copy of the letter plaintiff had stated in writing
and in person contained fraudulent and misleading statements.  In this
way Linda Ruthardt committed two direct acts of mail fraud by sending
these letters to elected officials to mislead them into thinking that
plaintiff^“s complaints had been adequately and fully investigated by the
Department of Insurance and that neither UNUM nor the DOI had engaged in
fraud or deceits.

A-37: September 19, 1997 ^÷ Request from Plaintiff to UNUM for the rest
of her records that had been received since they last sent them.  A copy
was sent to the DOI/Michael Goetz.  Plaintiff never received a response
to this letter from UNUM or the DOI/Michael Goetz as she was now being
stonewalled.

A-38: November 21, 1997 ^÷ Letter from Senator Kennedy in response to
plaintiff^“s request for help.  In his letter Senator Kennedy refutes
UNUM and the Department of Insurance^“s contention that State authorities
have no jurisdiction for the problem she is complaining of.  See Letter
of July 14, 1997, response from Massachusetts Department of Insurance.
Senator Kennedy office subsequently sent plaintiff a copy of the letter
sent them by Linda Ruthardt containing the fraudulent statements.  Up
until that point, plaintiff had no idea that the DOI was continuing to
use this letter in defense of their indefensible position.

A-39: January 9, 1998 ^÷ Follow-up letter by plaintiff to Attorney
General Scott Harshbarger about her complaints and stating that Judith
Depontbriand has not gotten back to her.

A-40: January 12, 1998 ^÷ Letter from Senator Brewer to Linda Ruthardt
asking that she produce a copy of the Independent Medical Examinations
they and UNUM claim justify UNUM^“s position.

A-41: January 15, 1998 ^÷ Solmaria Marquez and DOI response to Senator
Brewer^“s request that they produce some evidence to substantiate their
claim that plaintiff had Independent Medical Examinations that supported
UNUM^“s denials.

This letter once again totally ignored the substance of Senator Brewer^“s
request, although it did state that the DOI does have authority to deal
with matters of law, meanwhile ignoring the laws that UNUM is breaking,
and basically once again stating that plaintiff must sue.  Plaintiff
believes that UNUM^“s and the DOI^“s continued insistence that she must
file a lawsuit is due to their belief that she may in fact not receive a
fair, impartial and final decision from the courts of the Commonwealth.

Once again the DOI is deceiving plaintiff, her state senator, and
ignoring the substantive and verifiable allegations of UNUM^“s fraud,
deceit, practicing medicine without a license, and forcing disabled
plaintiffs to sue that Dr. Morris has repeatedly brought to their
attention.


A-42: Spring 1998 (date unknown at present) ^÷ plaintiff filed formal
charges with the local District Attorney against UNUM and the Department
of Insurance. She spoke with Timothy S. Rogers, ADA.  Mr. Rogers only
excuse for not prosecuting was jurisdictional questions.  He made no
other efforts to help plaintiff.  Plaintiff requested he read Ralph
Nader^“s book and had left him money to buy it.  As you can see from this
note, Mr. Rogers had the money sent back to plaintiff (by a police
officer at 8:30pm one night).  Plaintiff thinks the Assistant D.A. may
have thrown her criminal complaints in the trash.

A-43: April 9, 1998 ^÷ Letter from plaintiff to Linda Melconian after she
took over the Joint Insurance Commission from Dianne Wilkerson.
Plaintiff included documentation and a request for a chance to speak to
Ms. Melconian further.  Plaintiff^“s allegations against Scott
Harshbarger are extremely serious.
Plaintiff never received any response from Ms. Melconian.

A-44: April 14, 1998 ^÷ Another letter from Senator Brewer accepting the
excuses of the DOI, and claiming there is nothing he can do.  Plaintiff
fails to see how a National Health Care Plan is going to solve patient^“s
health care problems when the current government agencies refuse to
enforce the laws already on the books.

A-45: August 14, 1998 ^÷ Letter to Byron Rushing of the Joint Insurance
Committee demanding attention be paid to this matter.  This letter must
have been shared with Ms. Melconian.  A copy of plaintiffs brief ^”An
Indictment of UNUM Insurance Company^‘ was enclosed with this letter.
Again, absolutely no response from anyone.

A-46: August 26, 1998 ^÷ Plaintiff again filled out Criminal Complaints
against UNUM, the DOI, and the AG.  Her complaints were returned to her
(Plaintiff can^“t remember the excuse du jour) but she returned them to
the Court with citations from law stipulating exactly which laws were
being broken.  She received no further communication from the District
Attorney^“s office in this matter and has a feeling these complaints were
also thrown in the trash.

A-47: September 23,1998- Further letters written by Senator Brewer to
Linda Ruthardt of the Mass. DOI.  Mr. Brewer is clearly as confused as
the claimant as to how the Massachusetts Department of Insurance can
defend UNUM^“s position based on Independent Medical Examinations that do
not exist, and claim no law has been broken.  To date there has been no
explanation from the DOI, Ms. Ruthardt, or Solmaria Marquez to this
request from Senator Brewer.

September 23, 1998 ^÷ Letter from Senator Brewer to the Attorney
General^“s Office.  Mr. Brewer, in this letter, clearly feels as
plaintiff does that some kind of investigation is in order.

September 23, 1998 ^÷ Letter from Senator Brewer to plaintiff telling her
what he is doing to help her.

A-48: October 13, 1998 ^÷ Plaintiff^“s complaint to the Massachusetts
Board of Medicine, of course, was responded to by the fact that the
Massachusetts Board of Medicine^“s authority only extends to doctors who
actually hold
licenses in Massachusetts.

A-49: October 26, 1998 ^÷ Response from Judith Depontbriand of the
Attorney General^“s office (over a year since our original
communication).  She states that the AG^“s office cannot help plaintiff
because she is represented by an attorney.  If Ms. Depontbriand had
bother to follow up at all with plaintiff, she would have known that the
attorney Dr. Morris had in August 1997 was short-lived and that she has
not had any attorney since then.  She acknowledges having received
further correspondence from plaintiff throughout the year which was not
answer until a letter was written by Senator Brewer. Furthermore, Dr.
Morris was never advised of any mediation services offered by the
Attorney General^“s office.

December 16, 1998 ^÷ Out of the blue plaintiff received another response
from the Attorney General^“s office advising her to contact the Maine
Bureau of Insurance.  Plaintiff doesn^“t even know which of her many
letters this response is in answer to.




---------

The above chronology either represents massive governmental incompetence
or collusion since each agency was in contact with the other agencies at
some part of this, even with the scantly documentation plaintiff has
been able to obtain. She is confident there have been other discussions
and correspondence regarding her complaints, other complaints against
UNUM, other complaints from Commonwealth Citizens about insurance abuses
and lots of discussions by government employees about how to ^”handle^‘
these complaints.  Plaintiff feels that much of this ^”incompetence^‘ is
merely a smokescreen to do nothing so the insurance companies in this
state can continue to sell policies with confusing verbiage,
fraudulently deny legitimate claims, defame and harass citizens and yet
the companies and individuals working for both the insurance industry
and the government have very little reason to feel they will ever be
investigated much less prosecuted.

          ATTACHMENT C

EVIDENCE OF CHARACTER, ETHICAL QUESTIONS AND INVESTIGATION RELATING TO
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, ATTORNEY GENERAL^“S OFFICE, INSURANCE FRAUD
BUREAU WHICH WOULD LEAD ANY REASONABLE PERSON TO QUESTION WHETHER THE
DISCRETION OF THESE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS WAS TAINTED BY
PRIVATE INTERESTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, OR BRIBES.

C-1.  Randum of James N. Ellis, Jr. in support of Motion to Dismiss, to
Disqualify Prosecuting Counsel, and Other Appropriate Relief.
   This document, also submitted with Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Insurance Fraud Bureau defendants, details a collusive relationship
between the Insurance Funded Insurance Fraud Bureau and the Attorney
General^“s office resulting in, if not an overt compromise, than
certainly an appearance of compromise of the Attorney General^“s
impartiality and prosecutorial discretion.
This arrangement is probably unconstitutional and it certainly appears,
from the difficulty plaintiff is having in getting incontrovertible
fraud investigated that ^”The inexorable result of the ^—special public
private partnership^“ with its features of ^—access and accountability^“,
is that, by and large, the priorities of the IFB have become those of
the AG.  Thus, for example, the focus of the IFB only on fraud committed
against its own members is mirrored in the policy of the AGIFD [Attorney
General Insurance Fraud Division.]^Ň..^‘  Ellis Randum, Page 5

Various newspaper accounts within the last year and a half  have
reported that both the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and the
Attorney General^“s office have been having concerns about the ethics,
integrity and honesty of Linda Ruthardt.  In fact it would seem to be a
conflict of interest and defy logic that the Attorney General^“s office
could be simultaneously defending Linda Ruthardt and the Department of
Insurance in this case while simultaneously investigating her in another
matter related to questions of conflict of interest with insurance
companies over the public^“s interest.

C-2: Boston Globe, January 6, 1998 ^”ruling by the Supreme Judicial
Court^‘ indicating that the Emlico affair ^”has grown into a political hot
potato involving questions of tampering by the Weld/Celluci
administration and the competence of insurance regulators.^‘

C-3: Boston Phoenix, January 30, 1998, page 5. ^”As the Phoenix revealed
in 1996, Ruthardt^“s division allowed Worcester-based State Mutual Life
Assurance Company to bilk policyholders out of some $105 million.  In
that case it was clear that Ruthardt was more interested in helping
State Mutual get the deal through than in fighting for the consumer.^‘
^”Ruthardt has shown a reprehensible aversion to making public records
available. This not only violates the law but leaves the public
wondering what she has to hide. In one case, Attorney General Scott
Harshbarger accused her department of supplying his office with
inaccurate information saying he was ^—seriously concerned about the
ethical issues the divisions behavior raised. The then chairwoman of the
Senate Insurance Commission, Dianne Wilkerson, subsequently urged
Harshbarger to conduct his own investigation with an eye towards
prosecution.^‘

C-4: Boston Globe (date unknown) ^÷ ^”Wilkerson loses committee post^‘ ^÷
Plaintiff finds it quite coincidental that the only punishment given to
Dianne Wilkerson for tax evasion was to strip her of her leadership of
the legislature^“s Joint Committee on Insurance.  Plaintiff is aware that
Senator Wilkerson was strongly leaning towards passage of the mental
health parity bill that would have made it illegal to have limitation on
mental illness in insurance contracts that are different that
limitations on physical illness.

Plaintiff contends that Wilkerson^“s replacement by Linda Melconian as
the leader of the Joint Committee was not so much punishment for tax
evasion as it was punishment for having views that might harm the
financial interests of the insurance industry.  It seemed an odd kind of
punishment when she was allowed to remain a State Senator.

C-5: Other articles in the Boston Globe have shown the Attorney
General^“s office prosecuting fraud against insurance companies or
prosecuting people who may be depriving insurance companies of money.
During discovery, the plaintiff hopes to establish if the Attorney
General^“s office is investing and prosecuting fraud by insurance
companies with the same zeal as when similar infractions are committed
against insurance companies.

C-6: Boston Globe, October 20, 1998 ^÷ Linda Ruthardt again in the news
and being investigated by the Attorney General^“s office for ethical
violations involving closed door meetings with representatives of the
Privately Funded Automobile Insurers Bureau.

C-7: Boston Globe, October 28, 1998, Nov. 10, 1998, and December 11,
1998 ^÷ ^”in an 18 page letter to Insurance Commissioner Linda Ruthardt^‘,
Harshbarger^“s office questioned Ruthardt^“s credibility.  Some of
Harshbarger^“s suspicions stemmed from an affidavit filed by Stephen
D^“Amato, a former DOI supervisor, who charged that ^”Ruthardt was too
close to insurance companies to protect the public adequately.^‘  The
above cited meeting was but one example.  Plaintiff has called both the
Department of Insurance and the Office of Consumer Affairs but has been
unable to get a copy of Mr. D^“Amato^“s letter.

Attorney General Scott Harshbarger cited the insurance industry^“s
^”deliberate and inexcusable^‘ noncompliance with his information request.

Plaintiff contends that both this letter and Mr. Harshbarger^“s letter to
Linda Ruthardt have relevance to her lawsuit, as well as raising
questions of why the Attorney General^“s office is defending someone
whose credibility they have publicly questioned and are actively
investigating.

C-8: Boston Globe, December 1, 1998 ^÷ Editorial by Daniel A. Grabauskas,
Director of the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation.  In
this editorial Mr. Grabauskas condemns the breaches of medical privacy
that are occurring and the fact that health insurers are not bound by
the same rules of confidentiality as video rental stores.  However his
lip service does not explain why his department completely ignored
plaintiff^“s E-mail complaint of July 2, 1997 where she described how she
was subjected to background checks of herself, her friends and her
family and followed extensively by Private Investigators after
innocently filing a claim for Disability Benefits.





Top of Page

Judydoc's Diary Page

Judydoc's Home Page

Insurance Page

Uncivilization and its Discontents

Home Page




Email Judy Morris
at: judydoc AT worldnet DOT att DOT net

Email me, Bill Hammel
at: bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us


The URL for this document is:
http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/DOCS/motop011199.html
Created: January 12, 1999
Last Updated: May 28, 2000