Letter to WSJ: Retract False Statement Regarding Scruggs

VIA EMAIL AND FACSIMILE
E-mail: wsj.itrs@wsj.com
Editor
The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281

Re: Your Editorial of November 15,2007, "Mississippi Hoods"

To the Editor:

The Wall Street Journal should immediately retract a false statement regarding my client attorney Richard F. Scruggs contained in its November 15,2007 editorial entitled "Mississippi Hoods. "

The editorial purports to recount events leading up to a lawsuit brought by E.A. Renfroe & Co., Inc. against their former employees Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby. Renfroe sued the Rigsbys after they went public with evidence they believe shows that State Far (one of Renfroe's largest clients) wrongfully denied insurance coverage to victims of Huricane Katrina.



The Journal asserts that "Mr. Scruggs convinced two Renfroe employees-sisters Cori Rigsby Moran and Kerri Rigsby-to steal documents to aid his civil litigation against State Far."

This statement is false. First, it is not true that Mr. Scruggs "convinced" the Rigsbys to copy State Farm's documents. Many months before they first met Mr. Scruggs, the Rigsbys independently concluded that State Farm was treating its policyholders unfairly, and they began collecting evidence of what they observed. Indeed, Cori Rigsby has testified that she and Kerri Rigsby decided "on our own" to copy a batch of documents in June 2006. Mr. Scruggs commends the Rigsbys for their courage and determination.

Second, neither of the Rigsbys ever "stole" any documents. As they have testified repeatedly, they copied documents evidencing what they saw as State Farm's unfair practices, but they did not take original State Farm documents. The Rigsbys had the right to make such copies to provide them to law enforcement and others with an interest in investigating and correcting the fraud they believe has occurred.

The Journal's November 15, 2007 editorial concludes with the line "You can't make this stuff up." Yet, with the respect to the above statement, it appears that the Journal did just that. Accordingly, I insist that the Journal issue an immediate retraction.

Very truly yours,

John W. Keker

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home