The Criminal and The Appeal

October 24, 2009

Last night I watched a DVD titled, "The Criminal". I am still reeling from the surprise ending of that movie. The story involves an anti-hero who admits to bribing a judge to cut his sister and brother out of an inheritance. The movie prompts this early morning blog. Could it be that judges' rulings can be purchased? John Grisholm's bestseller book, "The Appeal" highlights such a thing in a story that involves a chemical company that "buys" a favorable legal ruling.

The Wall Street Journal recently featured an article tilted, "Justice for Sale" (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120614225489456227.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). Consider this comment from that article: "(Judge) Lloyd Karmeier, the winner of a $9.3 million campaign for the Illinois Supreme Court in 2004, was supported by $350,000 in direct contributions from employees, lawyers and others directly involved with the insurer State Farm and/or its then pending appeal, and by an additional $1 million from larger groups of which State Farm was a member, or to which it contributed. Almost immediately upon taking the bench, he cast a vote ending proceedings on a $456 million claim against State Farm. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial put it this way: 'Although Mr. Karmeier is an intelligent and no doubt honest man, the manner of his election will cast doubt over every vote he casts in a business case.'"

When perusing State Farm's website, you will find an entry where State Farm boasts of a ruling which dismissed a fraud claim regarding the use of engineering reports (see: http://www.statefarm.com/about/hurricane/judge_dismisses_fraud.asp). (The judge on this particular case was not Lloyd Karmeier).

For anyone who would like to understand the engineering report issue, just "Google" the words: "State Farm engineering reports". A myriad of articles will come up using words like "fraud", "cooking the engineering reports", and "racketeering" The issue involves State Farm's use of questionable engineering reports to prove damage was caused by a peril not covered under its insurance policy as opposed to a peril that would be covered. The whole story is a sordid one and one would question why State Farm would post something like this on its website, especially when articles like "Justice for Sale" are being featured that in some way or another mention State Farm.

One of the paradigms that has come from the distribution of bailout funds is this: people in high places DO conspire. They conspire in banks, in insurance companies, in business, in unions and in the top echelons of government. The Wall Street Journal Article referenced above concludes: "In the long term, we all lose when any decision reinforces suspicions that the biggest donor, not the best case, wins.