“State Farm is the Poster Child for What is Wrong with the System”

“State Farm is the poster child for what is wrong with the system, and the commissioner has given them too much latitude,” said Winslow of Texas Watch.

April 14, 2010 | Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – To leading lawmakers and even some insurance industry experts, State Farm hasn’t exactly been like a good neighbor in recent dealings with state regulators.

The state’s largest property insurer shows no sign of compromising on its marathon legal battle over the state’s ruling that it overcharged homeowners hundreds of millions of dollars.

“I don’t think any insurance company should be allowed to get to the point where they are too big and powerful to be regulated,” said Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a consumer group active in insurance issues. He accused State Farm of “taking advantage of the marketplace.”

Public Insurance Counsel Deeia Beck noted that the company has used similar tactics in Louisiana and in Florida, where State Farm declared last year that it was going to pull out of the state. It reversed course only after state regulators agreed to let the company raise homeowner rates nearly 15 percent and drop about 125,000 policies.

The state’s public insurance counsel said last year that the company owed nearly $1 billion in overcharges and penalty interest. Geeslin offered to settle the case for $310 million in refunds, but State Farm held firm that it owed nothing. The case is back in court again.

insurancenewsnet.com

New Action Committee – ACHEMMIC- Urges Transparency in EPA Policy Over Mold & Microbial Contaminants

FEMA Using US Chamber Fraud in Katrina Trailer Litigation; EPA, GAO & Both Isle$ of Congre$$ Turn Blind Eye$

Sociological Issues Relating to Mold: The Mold Wars

Certain Corporate and Government Interests Have Spent Huge Sums of Money and Resources DENYING THE TRUTH about the HEALTH EFFECTS of TOXIC MOLD

Political Action Committee – National Apartment Association (NAA) files Amicus Brief in mold case (two infant deaths in mold filled apt – Wasatch Prop Mgmt) citing US Chamber/ACOEM ‘litigation defense report’ to disclaim health effects of indoor mold & limit financial risk for industry

“Changes in construction methods have caused US buildings to become perfect petri dishes for mold and bacteria to flourish when water is added. Instead of warning the public and teaching physicians that the buildings were causing illness; in 2003 the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, a think-tank, and a workers comp physician trade organization mass marketed an unscientific nonsequitor to the courts to disclaim the adverse health effects to stave off liability for financial stakeholders of moldy buildings. Although publicly exposed many times over the years, the deceit lingers in US courts to this very day.” Sharon Noonan Kramer

Information on Riverstone Residential, the Louisiana Housing Finance Agency, and the owners of Toxic Mold Infested Jefferson Lakes Apartments in Baton Rouge, Louisiana continuing to allow tenants to be exposed to extreme amounts of mold toxins

Irrefutable evidence indicates that Riverstone Residential, Guarantee Service Team of Professionals, & plaintiffs’ attorney, J Arthur Smith III, must have agreed to exclude evidence that would have shown the owners of Jefferson Lakes Apartments & Riverstone Residential had knowledge of the severe MOLD INFESTATION at the complex before we moved in

Toxic Mold Infested Jefferson Lakes Apartments managed by Riverstone Residential

Riverstone Residential Litigation

Mold Inspection Reports

Photos of Mold in Apartment

Attorney Malpractice

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to “State Farm is the Poster Child for What is Wrong with the System”

  1. John Thibodeaux says:

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

    )
    United States of America, )
    )
    Plaintiff, )
    )
    vs. ) 2:02-cr-00078-ILRL
    )
    ) Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle
    Maier, et al )
    Defendant

    MOTION OF MICHAEL HENRY TO INTERVENE AND
    FOR IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS FILED UNDER SEAL

    NOW COMES Michael Henry who presents, and moves this Honorable Court to allow him to intervene in this matter for the limited purpose of objecting to the sealing of, and obtaining access to Sealed Documents and investigator evidence
    filed in this case.

    Henry motions this Court to grant and allow his intervention and to grant this

    motion to unseal the records of all of the clients of the Canal Street Madam, the 5000 plus

    phone calls and all other sealed investigation material.

    Henry has the right to determine if his Case 02-0968- Henry vs IRS,

    Eastern District of Louisiana, was unlawfully influenced by the US Attorneys office

    Based on knowledge of or the Threat of Prosecution against Federal Judge Kurt Damian

    Engelhardt

    In addition the Court should also enter an order recusing James Letten and anyone

    else from his office from responding to this motion based on his donations to the

    Campaigns of one of the Central Figures in various Prostitutions rings in New Orleans

    and Louisiana, Senator David Vitter

    Henrys First Amendment and common law rights to obtain access to

    judicial proceedings and records, and to view to the fullest extent possible on what

    transpires in the courtroom, are long-standing and especially critical in criminal

    proceedings. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575 (1980) (“[i]t

    would be difficult to single out any aspect of government of higher concern and

    importance to the people than the manner in which criminal trials are conducted”).

    Those rights, and the public’s interest in their vindication, are of paramount

    importance in this case. No one could question the public’s interest in receiving

    information about a case alleging public corruption at the highest levels of State

    and Federal government, including the possible “sale” of a United States

    Federal Judges Position by a member of the House of Representatives and a United

    States Senator.

    The Supreme Court has recognized that those who seek to

    assert the right of public access to court proceedings and judicial records “‘must

    be given an opportunity to be heard.’” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct. for

    Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982) (citation omitted).

    A long line of Supreme Court decisions recognize a presumptive right of public

    access to the criminal justice system – including specifically pretrial pleadings and

    hearings, which often are as important as the trial itself. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc,

    448 U.S. at 575; Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 508-10 (1984)

    (“Press-Enterprise I”); Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984); Press-Enter. Co. v.

    Super. Ct. of Cal., 478 U.S. 1(1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”). See also Presley v. Georgia,

    No. 09-5270, 130 S. Ct. 721 (Jan.19, 2010). Indeed, embedded in our country’s rich

    history of public access to criminal trial and pretrial proceedings is the fundamental belief

    that transparency is at the heart of justice.

    In addition to the First Amendment right of access, the public also has a common

    law right of access to court files. Nixon v. Warner Comm., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); In

    reCont’l Ill. Sec. Litig., 732 F.2d 1302, 1308 (7th Cir. 1984) (noting “long-recognized”

    presumption of pubic access to judicial records which “has been characterized as

    fundamental to a democratic state”).

    The First Amendment-based presumption of access to court proceedings,

    including these sealed records, can be overcome only by a showing that closure “is

    essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”

    Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 510.

    To justify an order denying access, a trial court must:

    (1) identify an overriding interest requiring denial of access;

    (2) narrowly tailor the order to protect that interest (and, in
    doing so, specifically consider alternatives to denying
    access); and

    (3) make specific findings adequate to support the decision that
    denying access is the only alternative that can serve that
    interest. Id.

    “Overcoming the presumption [of access] . . . is a formidable task. The court

    must be ‘firmly convinced that disclosure is inappropriate before arriving at a decision

    limiting access.’” Associated Press, 162 F.3d at 506 (citing Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S.

    at 510); Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir.

    1994)

    (“[A]ny doubts must be resolved in favor of disclosure”). The common law

    presumption is equally as strong, and only can be overcome by a showing that the

    party seeking access to judicial records is doing so to use those records for

    “improper purposes”. Id.; see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

    Certainly, wholesale sealing of pleadings is entirely inappropriate. The Fifth

    Circuit has reiterated, time and again, that parties are not entitled to file entire documents

    Under seal without simultaneously filing either a public document with an accompanying

    Sealed supplement or a sealed document with an accompanying public redacted version

    of that document. United States v. Andreas, 150 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir. 1998); In re

    Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74, 75 (7th Cir. 1992).

    In short, sealing the prostitute records and phone calls in this case would be

    improper. The Government, has not been able to overcome the strong

    presumption of public access.

    Henry asserts, on behalf of the public, that there is no valid reason to seal

    any part of this case and to do so would be out of line with precedent in this

    courthouse and in violation of the public’s First Amendment and common

    law right of access. As “the primary representative of the public interest in the

    judicial process,” the Court must carefully scrutinize any assertions by the

    Government or defense regarding the need for secrecy here, as this Court has

    done on prior occasions in this and other cases.

    The Public, Henry and every Criminal and Civil Litigant who was either a

    defendant or Plaintiff against any Branch of the Federal Government in Kurt Engelhardt

    Courtroom have an interest in reviewing these records.

    Further every other Federal Judge in the United

    States has a compelling interest to insure that the title of

    Federal Judge is not for sale.

    Additional facts and evidence have now been made public since this Court

    originally sealed the records in this case. David Vitter has admitted to using prostitutes

    in Washington DC.

    Prostitutes from New Orleans have also confirmed that Vitter was a client of

    theirs and that they received payment for their services form Campaign funds. At the

    time Vitter has admitted to using prostitutes, one of the Key people in his Campaign and

    finance Manager was Kurt Damien Engelhardt – now an Eastern District of Louisiana

    Judge, who was appointed to the bench after recommendations by David Vitter.

    At the same time Vitter was recommending Engelhardt to be a Federal Judge

    Phone records show Vitter using prostitutes in Washington DC. Several prostitutes

    In New Orleans and Washington DC have confirmed that they provided Vitter services

    and were paid for by various Vitter Campaigns.

    Falsifying Federal and State Campaign Finance reports is a criminal Offense, at

    the time of these alleged events Kurt Damian Engelhardt was David Vitters Campaign

    Finance Manager.

    At the same time as all of this is going on Vitter has been an ardent supporter

    of James Letten, the US Attorney who is at this point guaranteeing that the Louisiana

    Prostitution records and money trail are sealed from the public scrutiny.

    From a Public perspective and view it is very simple to form an opinion, Letten

    Is concealing criminal violations of State and Federal Campaign Laws and the illegal use

    Of Campaign funds to pay for prostitutes for Vitter and possibly Engelhardt. No matter

    what he is concealing evidence that Engelhardt made improper and unlawful payments

    out of Vitters Campaign funds to pay for Prostitutes for Vitter in Washington Dc and

    New Orleans.

    Either way Engelhardt has a compelling interest to be biased in favor of the

    Government in Rulings involving The United States of America, Lettens office or any

    other Government Agency.

    Based on this conduct the public has a compelling right to review all of these

    Sealed records, the Government has a duty to inform the Public how all of Vitters

    Prostitutes were paid for or procured.

    If the Campaign funds were not used the public has the right to know if

    David Vitters vote was for sale to any lobbyist who provided a night in that Sack with the

    Happy Hooker.

    Second the Public has the right to know the

    position of Federal Judge is not for sale to people

    who supply prostitutes to public officials capable of

    influencing the selection process.

    Kurt Engelhardt lied to the Senate and the FBI during his confirmation

    investigation and hearings, and failed to disclose that Under his direction and Supervision

    the Vitter Campaign filed false State election reports in order to pay in Excess of

    $50,000.00 for various New Orleans and Washington DC Prostitutes.

    Engelhardt participated and procured prostitutes with David Vitter’s Campaign
    funds from 1997 to 2000, prior to his selection as a Federal judge and while he was acting
    and running various aspects of David Vitters Election committees and as Vitters
    Campaign Finance manager.
    Engelhardt signed and presented Falsified documents to the State and Federal
    Election Commission on behalf of David Vitters Campaign. The forms shifted money to
    printing and other legitimate campaign reporting uses to conceal expenditures for
    services provided by the Canal Street brothel.

    Engelhardt failed to disclose these actions to the Senate Judiciary Committee
    prior to his confirmation hearings as a federal Judge.
    Engelhardt Transferred in excess of $50,000.00 in funds from the Campaign to
    pay for high end prostitution services for Candidate David Vitter provided at the Canal
    Street Brothel by employees of Jeanette Maier, the “Canal Street Madam” whose
    operation was shut down by a federal investigators in 2001.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s