January 12, 1999

   Dear XXXX,

   Thank you for your letter dated January 8, 1999 summarizing
   our telephone conversation and outlining some on the legal
   situations we face as well as some of the decisions that will
   have to be made.

   This response,  which will undoubtedly be too long, I will try
   to organize into three parts: part 1 will deal with considerations
   that precede any legal considerations, yet have great weight
   in the answers to ultimate decisions; part 2 will deal specifically
   with your letter; part 3 will deal with questions still in my mind,
   and suggestions.

   PART 1 - A PRIORI CONSIDERATIONS

   I face the following essential situation:
   I can no longer care for myself, much less provide for myself.
   I even have to be bathed.  The idea of simply settling with State
   Farm for what they should have done in the first place, namely
   PIP and UIM to full extent, is not only inconceivable, but
   impossible.  To sustain myself for the rest of my life, making
   up for all of the life functions that have become physically
   impossible, and provision for a specialized environment that
   is appropriate to my disabilities, I roughly calculate the need
   of approximately Ten Million Dollars Net, in a lump sum, of course.
   I have given much thought to this and what the alternatives are.
   The only alternative to yet more pain, suffering and torture as
   a consequence to settling for what State Farm might consider
   reasonable, is not to stay around.  I have decided this without
   reservation or doubt.  I presume I don't have to be any more
   explicit.  It is a rational choice already firmly made.

   So, the possibile scenarios branch this way:

        1) Capitulate to State Farm and accept whatever
           crumbs they might give, be forced to use it up quickly;
           you and your profession are killed just a little bit more,
           and I "leave".

        2) Fight with whatever is available until nothing more
           is available
                a) We loose; you and your profession are killed
                   just a little bit more, and I "leave".

                b) We win - It is a Pyhrric victory and I "leave".

                c) We win well.
                   Everybody lives as well as they can live.
                   I stick around, and I may be able to write
                   electronic music and do some more
                   mathematics and physics.


   I  am not a coward, and will fight to the death for
   what must be fought for.  I am not afraid of "leaving".
   It would simply be a choice: no longer to live in a world that
   I have come to despise as evil, primitive, barbaric and stupid.
   Several modes of leaving have already been provided for in detail.
   To leave would be no casual or emotional decision, except to say
   that staying, with only rapid disintigration and no reason to
   stay is just unacceptable.  There is still no joy.  Helping
   a few students of music and science over the internet doesn't
   quite do it.

   My father once, exasperatedly, asked the rhetorical question,
   "You don't know *how* to do *anything* in a small way, do you?"
   I think I was 12 years old.  He was right in his implication,
   and I still don't.  I won't "leave" in a small way either.
   My leaving will be remembered - trust me.  I still am a
   mathematician, physicist, computer scientist and molecular
   biologist.  The real possibilities are now to me only amusing.
   Most people would be quite amazed and shocked at what is possible
   with all of that and a keyboard.  Mad scientist?  No, mad as
   hell scientist!

   So you see, the course is pretty much set before "Law" has
   anything to say.  I trust your integrity and intelligence
   to do what is right and appropriate in the context of these
   a priori absolutes.

   We seem, beyond my first understandings, to have a radical case.
   Most times radical problems require radical solutions.

   Though you may feel that the "leaving" alternative may be
   overly drammatic, we are not in a courtroom yet, and I am
   only talking to you.  I assure you, this is no emotionally
   manipulative statement; I merely tell you of an unalterable
   decision made, that will not be unmade.  Argumentation is
   neither solicited nor required.  The fact, however, must be
   taken into account in decision making.


   PART 2 - CONCERNING YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 8, 1999

   Prelude:
   You should know that almost every letter or phone call from you
   leaves me in a state of anxiety that lasts for a few days and
   is severe enough to require medication.  It is me and my lack
   of emotional preparation.  Most of the time I successfully bury
   my mind in something else, and I am not emotionally steeled (a
   new concept for me) for having "it" all brought back into the
   forefront of my consciousness.

   Sometimes, I think maybe your intense sense of honesty almost
   slides over into "brutal frankness".  Yes, I know we can lose, and
   I could even lose everything.  If that happens, it will not be because
   WE have not tried our damndest.  You constantly test my resolve,
   as well, I suppose, you should, by showing me the monsters that
   lurk in deep waters.  Yes, they are scary; I don't like them
   being there, but the lesson of this part of my life is to learn
   something I've never had to learn: to be a warrior - who is not
   afraid to die for fear of fighting.


   On your letter specifically:
   PAGE 1
   Paragraph 1
        Yes, I've got that down, and I'm still working on it;
        it's like pulling teeth, but he hasn't lied yet.

   Paragraph 2
        Are there not also financial and psychological losses?
                Businesses lost,

                Income, which could even be assumed to be poverty
                level it *had* to be enough to pay SF's policy,
                housing, food.

                I am still in therapy and being medicated for
                anxiety, treated for PTSD - most of the trauma
                now resulting from the actions of SF.

                Haglund's word should also connect, legitimately,
                further psychological trauma to the permanent
		physical damage, pain and disablement - trust me,
		it's there.

   Paragraph 3
        Beginning, and going into subparagraphs on

   Subparagraph 3 a.
        If they pay the medical bills *now*, arbitrarily and
        capriciously, it is no different from suddenly deciding
        to allow surgery - on a dead man.  Maybe I ask this below,
        but, is not a BF action separate and distinct from PIP
        and UIM actions.  We are not, in BF, asking for relief in
        terms of performance, but rather on the nature of that
	performance, i.e., how the claim was treated, with the
	contention that it was egregious in delays and willful
	disregard for a spinal cord compression and its consequences,
	even after they were directly informed
        of the need and scheduling of prompt surgery.

        Questions: who made the decision not to pay for treatments,
        when their own IME directed further treatment?  Was it a
	physician?  If not, are they not practicing medicine without
	a license?  Perhaps in Romei's deposition ....

        Has the use of existing precedent in other States been
        struck down, when there is no appropriate precedent in NJ?

        It seems to me that even though BF has limited recognition
        in NJ, it is pretty much the only course of action that
        can get to scenario 2 c).  If you will not abandon me, I
        will not abandon you.  Still, everything hinges on Haglund,
        as to whether this is a sane course.  If Haglund poops out,
        we go immediately to any scenario that isn't 2 c).
        I also count on the logic of being allowed precedents set
	in other States.

   Subparagraph 3 b.
        Argument: they expressly pay Medicals, or claim they have
        in the usual manner, claiming nonrecepit of bills, the dog
        ate it etc., in order to escape their fiduciary duty - BF.

        There has been BS and BF from SF all along.  One tiny manipulative
        act that could be construed as GF, and they have salvation?
        Do we acquit murderers on evidence of the existence of people
        they haven't killed?

        Suppose we go directly to an independent BF action, are we
        still extending the law so that the case is novel?
        If one just lets the compensatory action in PIP go, without
        telling them, and presses for compensatory and punitive in
        a separate BF action?  But - oh shit - we still have to wait
        for Haglund, otherwise it's a fools game.  But let's suppose
        Haglund does what's right, can we do that?  If we can, and
        PIP is somehow closed out so that the money you hold is free,
        is that enough for you bring a full fledged, independent  BF
        action against SF?  If so, I say do it!

   Subparagraph 3 c.
        Do these rules on paying for defense counsel for a
        deposition also hold in an independent BF action?

        What if Haglund could actually be pursuaded to be brought
        to NJ for the deposition, and returned?  It is easier
        to bring Mohammed to the mountain than to bring the
        mountain to Mohammed.  All accommodations: limo here,
        plane flight, limo there, food and lodgings, his fee also,
	of whatever, for putting up with the bullshit, and then
	return similarly.  How do the rules change then?

   Subparagraph 3 d.
        Another good reason for going directly to BF when it
        is, or becomes the time.  It seems that PIP is all you
        get in a PIP action, no matter what, and that is not
	acceptable.

        Trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is
        generally not useful.  Let PIP be PIP, if we can do
        that.  The medical bills will, of course, continue.
        How do they get paid?  Does NC get stuck - or can
        you get continuing lien payable to NC?

        In an independent BF action, we are entitled to a jury,
	yes?

        This paragraph is your very best argument for taking
        the damages, delays and monstrous BF directly to
        an independent action - again [sigh] depending on on
        Haglund.
        
   Paragraph 4
        The surgery would still have been necessary, regardless
        of State Farm's delay.  Isn't that enough responsibility?


        If we are spending a lot of my money, it should be
        on an independent BF action, however dicey it may
        be.  But must one instigate suit while the BF is
        being committed?  Meaning, are we sunk on BF separately
        *because* a PIP action has forced them to pay, or SF
	claims it has paid all?  Logic says no; Logic and reason
	is something I seem to remember the law having, but perhaps
	that was in a dream.

        I think the direction that I must go in should be fairly
        clear after you finish reading this tome.  It's been
        quite some time since you've been treated to one.

        Now, you can tell me all the reasons why I might as
        well go directly to scenario 1), and get the agony over
        with.  Abandon all hope, ye who ....

   PART 3 - QUESTIONS, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

   Note:
   I am still working on getting what can be gotten from Haglund,
   and I understand just how crucial that is.  I hope that he
   doesn't turn out to be a liar, for what ever his reason.
   That would force branch 1) in my scenario outline of Part 1.

   Suggestion:
   In the way of narratives, from healthcare givers, I urge you to ask
   at the right time, so that they will be current, for narratives
   from Smoky Mountain Mental Health and my primary and central
   healthcare provider Dr. Carringer here in Robbinsville.
   While others see me in terms of specialized parts, he sees
   and knows the entire picture of my physical and mental health
   on a fairly regular basis.

   Query:
   I still don't know the details of your deposition of
   Savastano and Murray.  Alan got a full transcript of Alan
   Genitempo's questioning.  Nothing about me was in that.
   I spoke with Alan Genitempo and he told me that you were there
   and generally what went on.

   It sounded favorable, but I don't remember what he said.
   What came of it?  My vague memory says that Savastano
   was led to say that at least, in principle, the benefits
   should never have been terminated in the first place, and
   that the ultimate decision came from Romei.  If so, do we
   not start with a termination level of arbitrary and capricious?
   Did we actually have a deposition of Savastano and Murray?
   (I know - forget Murray - even I cannot hold her responsible
   for her actions.)  Is there a transcript of our deposition,
   of Savastano and Murray?  If so, I would certainly like to see it.


   On Deposing Sandra Romei:
   I assume, since I haven't heard otherwise, that Sandra Romei
   has not yet been deposed, and has successfully evaded deposition
   for six months, though she is practically next door.  How has she
   avoided deposition for six months?  Does the judge's advice to
   "work it out" rather than sign an "order to compel" still hold?
   We once discused that It was within the deposition of Romei, that we
   might find the necessary component of egregiousness, that
   transcends what, anyplace else, would already stand as tortuous
   Bad Faith.  You do remember that Romei "had words" with Alan,
   and that the denials of benefits followed not long after,
   against all reason.  Malice, perhaps?

   On Deposing Carole Rickelmann:
   What about deposing Carole Rickelmann since she seems to be a major
   contributor to yet further delay and BF of SF?  Why is she doing this?
   We both know the real answer: the all too typical extortion game.
   But, what will her excuse be?  Can there be an excuse that will hold,
   and avoid fitting into the overall picture of Bad Faith?

   On Egregiousness:
   In this case, it seems to me that egregiousness
   might be established by the sum of its parts and not just in any
   one isolated action or inaction by State Farm.  The attempt by
   their attorneys to settle in "Good Faith", since it has essentially
   been withdrawn, can not really be considered an offer.  In that case,
   there has been not only no offer made to do anything, there has
   been a consistent posture of delays and stonewalling.

   For Bad Faith in NJ, you told me that we need to establish an
   egregiousness of action.  How long does delay upon delay, against
   all reason have to be before it becomes egregious?  Is the point
   of qudraplegia or death sufficient, when we are considering a span
   of years?

   On a Change of Venue:
   We once discussed moving to Federal Court; you seemed to consider
   that, and you did not dismiss the idea as either impossible or lunatic.
   The original denial was in NJ; and then again a denial for
   surgery at Duke University Medical Center while I was living in NC,
   ergo an interstate matter.  Yet further denial was to Dr. O'brien,
   and Smoky Mountain Mental health here in NC, which came directly
   from the Franklin, NC office of State Farm, through one Jim Zitney.

   Can a Federal Court have jurisdiction in such a case?

   If NJ laws are so corrupt in favor of insurance companies,
   and since McCarren-Fergusson gives regulatory control to States,
   it seems to me that more leeway would be had in a Federal
   Court on charges of a tortuous action by SF, if it is possible.
   Would SF have something to gain from such a move?

   On Precedents:
   State courts in PA have held that the concept of Bad Faith
   and actions of BF even into the litigation process should be considered 
   in determination of the extent and egregiousness of BF and and any
   determined awards.  Most courts seem to weigh the consequences
   of the Bad Faith actions, which in my case are beyond count
   and recovery - Yes, I remember that legally this turns on Haglund.

   Although precedent in NJ apparently can't be found (vacatur?),
   in that case, many State Courts will look at, and to, precedents
   of other State Courts in the instance considered, especially in
   matters of insurance.  Such precedents I can and have found.
   Some of them are on the web and are also links on my insurance
   webpage.  I can provide what decisions I have found.
   Sometime, you really ought to look at my webpages.
   When you want to, I can direct you to the appropriate areas;
   there are over 450 pages, so you will need a guide.
   SF hits my webpages often, but I don't think they would want
   to question me on them in court.  Who knows?

   Reality Checks:
   It is my understanding that neither compensatory damages, nor
   punitive damages are denied by law in NJ. In what specific
   action were our punitive damages initially denied?
   PIP?

   As I understand we actually have three actions
        PIP - subject to arbitration by law and within which
              compensatory damages are to be sought.
        UIM - a separate action also subject to arbitration
        BF  - which is a separate action?
              - or is this another swindle that gets stuck into
                one of the above.  Net result is that your insurance
                company can do anything it wants and never be held
                responsible.  True or False?

   How would any of this change in a Federal Court?

   A Suggestion:
   I realize that answering these questions is a pain in the ass.
   It might be easier if you copied me on all of these documents;
   I can read, and wouldn't have to ask such elementary questions.

   I am finished; I stop.


   My Best, as Always

        -- Bill