States Supreme Court Corruption
(Last Updated July 31, 2008) State Supreme Court Corruption Involving Our States Highest Courts Justices (Judges), Insurance Companies And Their Law Firms Has Been Going On Very Quietly And Having A Cumulative Effect For The Past 1-2 Decades. (An Explosive FBIC Exclusive). It Is Truly Unbelievable And Outrageous That Judges Of Our Highest State Courts Are Rendering Biased Decisions As A Result Of Bad Faith Insurance
Companies Conflicts Of Interest And Corruption ... And There Is No Independent Government Agency Oversight To Stop It? How Could Our Highest State Courts Judges Have Shamefully Sunk So Low? Over The Years Having Seen Such Signs Of Prejudiced State Court
Judges Decisions, FBIC and the American People Demand That The U.S. Congress, The Department Of Justice (DOJ) And The Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI) Conduct A Thorough And Independent Investigation Of The Corrupt Relationships Between Justices (Judges) Of Our Highest States' Courts,
Our Country's Major Bad Faith Insurers And Their Law Firms, NOW ... It's Long Overdue.
FBIC is mobilizing it's own effort and requesting that our U.S. Congress, The DOJ, The FBI (and the media) investigate bias and corruption by judges and justices of our highest states' courts ... and strongly suggest
they start their investigations with one state's supreme court justices and judicial system where we have witnessed first-hand an egregious error in a split decision in a case involving significant insurer $$$ and
such alleged corrupt activity ... and expose how insurance companies' special interests have been/are allegedly illegally influencing and corrupting high state court judges and justices to render biased judicial
opinions against American citizens and wrongful decisions in the favor of insurers.
Plaintiff lawyers and legal experts have observed for years biased wrongful decisions being rendered favoring defendant insurance companies
(and insurers law firms and lawyers) over plaintiffs consumers and businesses of all sizes by prejudiced state high court judges and justices. The effect of such shameful illegal activities has been
cumulative with wrongful opinions in one state effecting and corrupting decisions eventually in all other states, on and on like a perpetual merry-go-round over many years until the system is no longer reasonable and
objective but corrupt as it stands today. (In addition, when an exception opinion and decision occurs in favor of the
plaintiff, insurers law firms and insurance company lawyers generally and immediately go to work in having the case removed from publication and public records, and accordingly, such cases are gone forever
(see "Vacatur". The vacatur practice alone speaks volumes if not confirms the corrupt intrinsic nature of the states' highest courts. The practice of "vacatur" is outrageous and should be made illegal or at the very least be permanently banned).
The result of many such biased state high court cases being brought to our attention nationally in the past came to a head recently and to FBIC's attention with that of a flagrant and wrongful error in judgment in one such case, a terribly biased and wrong 3 to 2 split dissenting pro-insurer majority anti-consumer decision rendered June 30 2008 in a case by one of our states' highest court, it's Supreme Court. The wrongful decision is one which goes against this one state's insurance laws and to FBIC's knowledge that of all other states (insurance) laws, and such that FBIC, along with legal and insurance experts statewide and nationally consider the case decision as grossly biased if not a dereliction of duty by some of the justices/judges of the State Supreme Court in question. The case involved a substantial 7-figure $$$ unpaid 12 year old insurance claim against the defendant insurer.
With no independent investigative body or oversight, this alleged biased case decision flies so much in the eyes of impropriety that it wreaks of fraud and apparent corruption to the point where all Americans constitutional rights have been/are further compromised, eroded and jeopardized ... and obviously leads to the question: Are some of our highest states' courts rendering alleged biased decisions in the favor of bad faith insurers as a result of impropriety, conflicts of interest and corruption involving some (bad faith) insurance companies and their law firms ... as the system has been and as a result continues to be so manipulated and is so rigged to favor insurers and the insurance industry? The answer is a shameful resounding 'Yes'. (Reference two articles both entitled "Justice for Sale" 'Headline 1a' and 'Headline 1b' below on the selection process of state judges and justices. Where there's a will there's a way! Accordingly, corruption finds it's way into the selection process of state judges and justices regardless of whether candidate judges and justices are voted on by state citizens, or appointed by the state governor and state commission).
The specific state in question where the referenced high state supreme court is located is well-known for past political corruption and scandal including being wrought with fraudulent insurance industry and insurance companies activities. It's previous Governor was forced to resign July 2006 in scandal and was sentenced to serve one year in prison for corruption. The state's last insurance commissioner (IC) was also plagued in scandal questioning the office of the IC's honesty. In addition, the insurance commissioner is best remembered for disallowing the state's attorney general access to the Department of Insurance files for investigative fraud purposes. Having also fallen in disfavor by the state's citizens and FBIC, FBIC called for the insurance commissioner's ouster. Subsequently the insurance commissioner was forced to resign in December 2006. Following a federal probe, six other state commissioners were quietly asked and forced to resign in 2006. This being the case only adds to the state's citizens feeling the same about the honesty and ethical nature of the state's supreme court justices? (In the referenced high state court case, it is apparent that there is a such a problem with
at least three of the seven state's Supreme Court Justices.)
FBIC, having direct knowledge, learned of the recent June 2008 case decision of a 12 year old court case by the state's supreme court,
where a major insurer was in court for not having paid a significant 7-figure $$$ claim some 13 years ago. The insurer had unanimously been found guilty of breach of contract for not paying the claim by a jury trial in 2002. (FBIC believes it is not coincidental as the insurer has consistently been ranked for the past 10 years (as long as such rankings have been made) as one of the country's worst three bad faith insurers with just cause and a substantial share and significant numbers of complaints against it.) Then the insurer appealed the trial court's jury decision as the state's appellate court justices upheld the trial court's decision 'as correct' by a unanimous 7-0 vote o/a 2005. The insurer's law firm then further appealed to the state's highest court asking the court justices to accept the case for review and reverse the unanimous decisions by the two previous courts. It should be noted that as the state's highest court, this state's highest court, the state supreme court accepts only a very few cases (i.e. 1-2 %) for review and was under no apparent reason to accept the case for review. In fact to experts, the alleged case appeared to be just another traditional example of an insurer not wanting to pay a claim having been cleanly won by the insured plaintiff against the insurer in a jury trial and was subsequently unanimously confirmed 7-0 by an appellate court review of this case.
It was considered by legal experts under normal circumstances to be highly unlikely and therefore unexpected that the state's high court would ever accept such a case for review. The highest court in the state was under no obligation to review the case which was thought to be a slam dunk by experts and which did not justify the supreme court's time. But the high court in a surprising move agreed to review one small aspect of the case on the basis of a mythical "alleged late notice" and of which had been nothing more than a footnote in the case at trial, and where the insurer's own adjuster and experts employed by the defendant insurance company gave testimony at trial (the only evidence adduced at trial that specifically concerned the issue of prejudice) demonstrated that the defendant insurer "had suffered none" ... and that such alleged late notice at hand if it existed at all was due to an error and the fault of the insurer) subsequently did not prejudice the insurer in any way and would have made no difference whatsoever to the defendant insurer.
Furthermore in this case "the insurer was notified in writing early on" by the plaintiff's attorney giving notice that the plaintiff's business was "unable to operate" as a result of the claim related mishap. This written notice was followed up by the President of the insurer's largest underwriting insurance agency in the state also giving notice to the defendant insurer. With such appropriate duplicate notice being given by and on behalf of the plaintiff claimant, the insurer's senior adjuster mistakenly and evidently did not interpret plaintiff's attorney's in writing notice and the defendant insurer's largest independent agency (alleged to have appropriately) corroborated such business interruption and "unable to operate" and therefore mistakenly erred and did not send the appropriate business interruption form to the plaintiff claimant. Therefore it was reasonable for the trial judge not to require the jury to render a decision on the late notice issue which clearly the defendant insurer's own expert said the insurer was not prejudiced and regardless and therefore it would have made no difference to the insurer.
But in spite of the defendant insurer acknowledging receipt of the plaintiff attorney's letter and being properly and timely notified of the impending claim and the defense evidence acknowledging that there was no prejudice against
the insurer as a result, the majority 3 State Supreme Court Justices decided in their opinion that there was prejudice against the insurer as a result of 'business interruption' late notice (of which there was no late notice by the plaintiff, and wouldn't the average American and average insurance company adjuster equate "unable to operate" with business interruption and subsequently also send out a Business Interruption claim form which the insurer neglected to do? So with no evidence supporting prejudice against the insurer and with more than prompt and timely notice given by the plaintiff, the majority 3 state Supreme Court Justices find against the plaintiff ... Huh? That's why all agree that with such bias there's more going on here that Americans don't know about that needs to be exposed).
Legal experts agree that the high court's acceptance to review was the first sign of alleged potential bias by the high court that something indeed was very wrong and was about to take place. Everyone observing the potentially precedent setting case suspected and started to ask themselves, "was there something unforeseen here" and "could there be a fix in"? (Had the situation been reversed, would the Court have agreed to accept the case for review? The experts all agree that had the situation been reversed the Court would not have agreed to review the case ... just more bias). (Pending approval from plaintiff's attorney(s) which presently are requesting "Reconsideration" by the State High Court Justices, FBIC will publish the referenced (1) state supreme court case opinion decision, (2) justices dissenting opinion, and (3) identify the state pending final legal jostling and formalities by and between the involved parties attorneys.)
Then in a shockingly
stunning and surprising June 2008 opinion decision reversal, The state supreme court in question reversed the trial court's and appellate court's decisions by a 3-2 margin dissenting justices vote. The state's Supreme Court majority '3' vote is unanimously believed by experts to be a major and blatant error including the '2' dissenting justices who disagreed with the majority '3' justices opinions. In addition, more and more other legal and insurance experts in their review of
the decision unanimously agree with the '2' dissenting justices opinions that their decisions were
not only completely correct and spot on but are equally concerned and find it incomprehensible and alarming how the '3' justices in the majority could have made such an incomprehensible and egregious error in judgment ... or as it strongly suggests there has to be something much more sinister in nature going on behind the scenes within the referenced state's highest court? ... whether it be more corruption, bias and impropriety that is not visible to the Public eye but that has already been shown to be so pervasive and prevalent within the state's highest court government?
(In this case it should be noted that both the insurer's corporate headquarters and the supreme court location have co-existed in the same small-midsize city for more than 200 years and the insurer's law firm for 75 years. Knowing the widespread illegal acts and influences of the
insurance industry in the state, it would be naive to think that there was no undue influence between the two over so many years ... and moreso now). FBIC, legal and insurance experts agree in this case that the error is so simple and obvious that at the very least the 3 majority justices in this case erred to the benefit of the insurer, (if not bent over backwards, did somersaults and cartwheels to be able to find a reason, in this case an extremely unjustified, poor and lame one) so as to be able to vote for the insurer and against the plaintiff-policyholder-claimant. All Americans should be outraged as we have learned after 11 years of being a nationwide consumer insurance advocacy the ways of national bad faith insurers and feel that if this kind of alleged activities are happening in this one state then they are most certainly happening in all the other states as well. All Americans should be outraged by the prospect if not likelihood of this very real goings-on and occurrence is happening against all citizens and policyholders in their state.
FBIC and the citizens of this state urgently request that U.S. Congress, The DOJ and the FBI investigate ... and because of the nature of the unlimited legal powers and super-financial resources of the parties to be investigated in question, is the reason why experts agree that the only way a fair and thorough investigation can take place is with the legal authority of The U.S. Congress, DOJ and The FBI (with the possibility of retired honest federal court judges lending their insight, that understand that the law favors American citizens over Insurers in cases where there is doubt) investigating in concert. Experts further agree that such super-investigative powers are necessary to be granted in order to mount and conduct a fair and impartial thorough investigation of the parties involved in the case and decision without having to surmount repeated legal obstacles by the entities being investigated that will otherwise most certainly arise.
It is suggested that the initial parties to be investigated should include for consideration the referenced state high court justices, insurer, and the insurer's law firm which will be announced here on this website as indicated. (Note: Federal Congressional, DOJ and FBI authorities can email FBIC and FBIC will respond and identify the state, insurer, insurer law firm, the specific case and State Supreme Court in question). The Citizens of our United States Of America agree that such potential conflicts of interest, bias and corruption that exist as in this case and this states' highest courts, also exists and is intrinsically embedded in other states highest court judicial systems ... and therefore, All Americans demand that a thorough, intensive and independent Federal Congressional, DOJ and FBI investigation be done ... and conduct such a probe into the referenced biased and corrupt parties that FBIC alleges are involved in this case along with other biased cases which effort FBIC is undertaking to collect in other states!
It is required by law that the insured be given the benefit of doubt because in the claims process, insurers have always held a big advantage over their insureds. Insurers armed with a battery of legal and forensic experts
with extensive resources is equated to that of a "David vs. Goliath" when dealing with an insured who challenges the settlement of claims. It is typical that the insured does not understand the claim process when a loss
occurs. Without knowledge of the policy, coverage, exclusions and interpretations, most often the insured or claimant feels helpless when confronted with today's major insurance company's adversarial postures taken when a claim is made, the
insurer makes a lowball settlement offer, or denies coverage.
Insurance is a promise to protect you in the future in exchange for present payment of a premium. Possibly in past times that was a reasonable and better bet but that is not so anymore. Since the 1980s and early 1990s,
insurance companies have put profits ahead of the promise to protect you. They use hundreds of tricks, misinterpret your/their insurance policy, pay less than what they should and what you are owed. They delay, delay, and
delay until you agree to accept less or are forced to get a lawyer to sue them to receive your policy benefits. In addition, bad faith insurance companies have become nothing more than litigation machines. They have the expert attorneys to defend their literally 100s of reasons if not technicalities for their positions and not paying claims in return for greater profits ... very simply in most cases the policyholder, insured or claimant doesn't stand a chance.
FBIC and others believe this case is an alleged prime example of how a major powerful insurer can very well infiltrate and influence the veracity and inner workings of a state's highest court to result in such an egregious wrongful decision in favor of the
insurance company (and against many if not all states but all American citizens and policyholders in the U.S.) even when it clearly goes contrary to and against the U.S. and all states Constitutions, state laws and statutes and defies reasonable judgment. The state in question
statute of limitations requires claims to be submitted within 2 years. In addition, lawyers for insurers are repeatedly in front of the same high courts judges 100s if not 1000s of times more than plaintiff attorneys for policyholders, insureds and claimants, thereby setting up the very great possibility and prospect for impropriety and conflicts of interest resulting in biased and unfair decisions. Another of the same state's statutory laws if not all states' statutes provides that when there is a matter of doubt in regards to a claim, 'the court must favor the
inexperienced insureds and not the claims savvy and legally experienced and seasoned insurers'. So there is everything to support the insured plaintiff in this wrongfully decided case and the '2" judges that
dissented and agreed with the plaintiff insured and little or nothing in the law to support the obscure opinion if not potential factual errors misapplied in the insurer's favor by the "3" majority vote
decision in this case.
FBIC is a consumer insurance advocacy and are not lawyers but it's about time that the Public, the American People learned about these issues and in this regard what the legal profession
already knows ... that is about the foregoing illicit activities that erode their Constitution and their rights as American Citizens. FBIC knows that the plaintiff legal community and organizations along with others
have wrestled the big boys for the past three decades about such issues with little or no success. With the help of legal groups and organizations, FBIC is going to at least begin to coordinate an effort through it's
website, network and own contacts within the country's state and national legal groups and organizations to communicate and gather the support of the American People and join the fight against biased high court state
judges and justices, who consistently favor insurers even when insureds were/are clearly in the right, corrupt (bad faith) insurers and their law firms.
FBIC has never once shirked its responsibilities of maintaining confidentiality and will do so with any contact made by any of the following entities. FBIC requests anyone or any of the following entities
to submit biased case decisions, information and identify of their state's highest court's suspected and alleged prejudiced justices
and judges that repeatedly or always render decisions favoring insurers and against states citizens, plaintiff insureds and consumers. To submit information, click on the appropriate email link to submit:
FBIC, as usual, does not expect the effort and
process to happen by itself, FBIC
will begin networking and making contact with it's eleven years of own contacts within these groups to see how we can coordinate and work together in this joint effort.
The Support of the American People
As always, FBIC has counted on whistleblowers for insight and for help to right what they know is wrong since it's existence in 1998 and has never once shirked its responsibilities, betrayed anyone's trust and/or
confidentiality in this regard. As always, State Supreme Court Whistleblower's
and other's confidentiality will be maintained as requested (as best as possible barring subpoenas and alike). If you have and are sending sensitive or incriminating evidence and you do not want your identity known
and do not want to use your real name, we suggest you use an anonymous or equivalent generic email address (i.e. 'hotmail', etc.) to ensure your anonymity and confidentiality.
Note that FBIC picks and chooses it's issues to fight carefully. After 11 years of suspected state high court bias, conflicts of interest
and corruption being brought to our attention, this is the first time in FBIC's history that it's taken on the suspected issue of states high courts biased and prejudiced judges involving major insurers and insurers law firms in a
significant number of our states which is highlighted here and now by this one state's outrageous high court case decision.
FBIC knows this and others insurance industry related efforts will only succeed with the support of the American People. All Groups and Associations that were once considered to be among
the most powerful in the country, (for example, The American Medical Association aka AMA which should not be embarrassed by this reference), heretofore have gone up against the powerful insurance industry and LOST, learning that they
were simply no match against the supreme power of the insurance industry and thus repeatedly failed terribly in their issues and such efforts. FBIC, as a consumer insurance advocacy, has taken up and fought against the insurance
industry on select issues in the past and WON. (At least 3 such issues, 1 national and 2 state issues referenced in FBIC's headlines along with others readily come to mind.) FBIC won because it learned from the experiences of others in the past and right from its inception in 1998, that to win such an issue, it needs to have the support of the American People. Of supreme importance, FBIC asks for:
An overwhelming majority of legal experts agree that these parties are alleged to be very much involved in such illegal and corrupt activities for years. FBIC requests it's growing nationwide membership and it's network constituents to weigh in and let their voices be heard in this effort. FBIC and The American People ask the U.S. Congress and our political representatives to support and along with The DOJ And FBI see that such
independent investigation(s) are vigorously carried out and done. This issue effects ALL of our political representatives constituents (consumers and businesses alike). FBIC further asks all to stay involved and tuned to this website as efforts by authorities and the media are mobilized to investigate states' highest courts pro-insurers biased judges and justices, (bad faith) insurers, and these insurers' primary law firms of record ... and as to what is
expected to be a lengthy investigation.
NOW is the time for such important illicit activities against the American People to be investigated and stopped.