Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 1 of 86

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BRETT LORENZO FAVRE PLAINTIFF

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-cv-00095-DHG

SHADRACK TUCKER WHITE DEFENDANT

SHADRACK TUCKER WHITE COUNTER-PLAINTIFF

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-cv-00095-DHG

BRETT LORENZO FAVRE,

ROBERT L. CULUMBER
AND FAVRE ENTERPRISES, INC. COUNTER-DEFENDANTS

ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT SHAD WHITE

TO THE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND
COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST BRETT FAVRE, ROBERT L. CULUMBER
AND FAVRE ENTERPRISES, INC.

COMES NOW the Defendant Shad White (“Defendant,” “White,” or “State

Auditor”), by and through counsel, in his official capacity as the State Auditor of

Mississippi and to the extent necessary in his personal capacity, and files this his Answer

and Defenses to the Complaint filed against him by Plaintiff Brett Lorenzo Favre (“Favre”

or “Plaintiff”) and asserts a a Counterclaim against Favre, Bobby L. Culumber

-1-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 2 of 86

(“Culumber”) and Favre Enterprises, Inc., (“Favre’s business”) herein,1 as follows:

GENERAL STATEMENT

2017-07-29
The assertion of any04:54:05
matter below as a “Defense” is not an admission that this

Defendant bearsNancy
the burden of to
do I nttd persuasion,
involve theburden of and
governor proof, or burden of producing
or Dr.B
if need
evidence with respect to be.
anyJon made
such the comment about using
matter.
money you allocated to athletic dept thus far and
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
although signed off on by all could raise negative
FIRST
concerns etc... with this DEFENSE
project and others. My fear is
he doesn 't except all that you and John can allocate
The Defendant asserts the affirmative defense of fraud by concealment and by false
even if it is legally signed off on. It's obvious that you
statements. The Defendant
and John are incorporates
tremendous theassets
Counterclaim set forth
for USM and in below.
order for us to get ahead in the game we have to
On July 29, 2017, Favre offered to donate or gift the recording of a public service
utirize you guys in every way.
announcement to “help” Nancy New (“New”).

2017-07-29 04:55:53

Also I want to help you and was thinking a PSA is

one option that could be done quick and easy to put
together@

You are thinking the same wa)' we are. So "'

Yet, Favre now claims that he did this “quick and easy” act of help— a few
have a couple of other non profits invo~ied
moments of light effort he offered to do for free to help his new friend— not for free but
some of the money will come from those. T
in exchange for $1.1 Million. That claim is false and is at the black heart
extremely ofleaasscheme
reputab well. '.•1/hat I would li
is continue
Favre hatched with Nancy New (“New”) and John Davis (“Davis”) —bothto work in that
of whom nowdirection which w
best. We do not ,..vant any eyebrows raised 1
ever and we both kno w how people are! E
1Nothing in this Answer or Counterclaim suggests or implies that the State of Mississippi
is and
or the Mississippi Department of Human Services approved any actwill
orcontinue
omissiontoofbeJohn
done ethically bu
Davis (“Davis”) or Nancy New (“New”) or any other person canor entity. All actions
turn anything of New
good into awful. We rnre
and Davis described herein were unlawful, illegal and often confessed as criminal. New
want that. The attorneys and budget folks t
and Davis had access to public funds and their relevant expenditures were illegal and
unauthorized. a coup le of us are meeting Tue. to finalize a
plan. let's come up wrth that first and then
-2-
Bennett.
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 3 of 86

stand convicted of various bribes, frauds and criminal wrongs— to use secret transactions

to conceal the true purpose of those transactions, i.e., fraudulent violation of the known

restriction on those funds.

Favre himself described these funds as “state money”2 and knew full well the

prohibition barring this “state money” from being spent on construction or to use the

nomenclature of Favre “brick and mortar.” In spite of this knowledge, Favre, New,

Culumber, and Davis shared a common goal of diverting this restricted “state money” to

construct a building and reduce the financial liabilities of Favre in relation to the

construction of a building despite the known prohibition on spending this “state money”

in these manners.

THAT WHICH IS DONE IN THE DARK

“There is not a crime, there is not a dodge,

there is not a trick, there is not a swindle,
there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy.”

― Joseph Pulitzer

Between July 2017 and November 6, 2019,3 within this judicial district and

Forrest, Lamar and Harrison Counties, Favre engaged in a fraudulent scheme with New,

Culumber, and Davis to obtain $1.1 Million —almost 4% of total grant funds4 which

2 It does not matter whether Favre knew this “state money” was TANF Funds. His
claimed lack of knowledge that this “state money” was TANF Funds is a red herring and
should not distract from the clear evidence that Favre knew the funds were “state money”
and were restricted in use.
3 This is the date Nancy New signed documents closing out the TANF Fund Subgrant for
fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017 - September 30, 2018).
4 Control over $10,797,226.23 was provided to New under Subgrant Agreements for FY
2017, i.e., 4.63%. Control over $18,437,792.29 was provided to New under Subgrant
Agreement No. 6012990 for FY 2018, i.e., 3.25%.

-3-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 4 of 86

were supposed to benefit poor children and their families and which were made available

to the entity controlled by New and Davis— in restricted grant funds from the State of

Mississippi.

During this time period and at these places, Favre, New, and Davis each knew the

restricted funds could not be used for construction of buildings.

During this time period and at these places, Favre, New, and Davis each knew the

restricted funds were state funds and were to be directed at meeting the needs of that

economic class of people who need state shelters for habitation, state schools, or state

homes.

During this time period and at these places, Favre, New, Culumber, and Davis each

knew the restricted funds could not be used for gifts or transfers in which no value was

exchanged or in exchange for vague and uncertain promises as to future events.

During this time period and at these places, Culumber acted as the authorized

agent and representative of Favre and Favre’s business, possessing both apparent and

actual authority to act and speak on behalf of Favre and Favre’s business.

During this time period and at these places, New acted as the authorized agent and

representative of Favre and Favre’s business, possessing both apparent and actual

authority to act and speak on behalf of Favre and Favre’s business in making

representations to government officials or concealing information in furtherance of the

fraudulent scheme and/or obtaining government funds which Favre and New could

expend as they wished.

During this time period and at these places, Favre, New, and Davis agreed to

launder said restricted grant funds through Favre or Favre’s business and then cause the

-4-
 2017-07-31 07:05:15
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 5 of 86

restricted grant funds to be used for the forbidden purpose of construction of a building

or buildings or to be pocketed by Favre

MCEC_0094

This laundering was carried out in total secrecy at Favre’s insistence. Favre made

no secret that he received money from sources such as Wrangler, Copperfit, etc. Favre’s

insistence on secrecy is clear and convincing proof of guilty knowledge and bad intent.

During this time period and at these places, Favre repeatedly took affirmative

actions which were designed or intended to prevent and which did prevent, the discovery

of the material facts giving rise to this fraud claim and defense. These actions include —at

these times and places— repeatedly insisting on secrecy as to the transfers, the amounts,

and the source of funds.

At these times and places, Favre was under the legal duty —whether he knew it or

not— to make reasonable inquires which would have lead to the recognition of the duty

to disclose these material facts to the Funding Division of the Mississippi Department of

Human Services (“MDHS”), and in particular to the MDHS Funding Division Director,

various Fiscal and Integrity Officers at MDHS, and gain necessary written approvals.

At these times and places, Favre was under the legal duty to refrain from insisting

that his agent New not disclose these material facts and fail to meet her duty to disclose

these material facts to the Funding Division of the Mississippi Department of Human

Services (“MDHS”), and in particular to the MDHS Funding Division Director, various

-5-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 6 of 86

Fiscal and Integrity Officers at MDHS and gain necessary written approvals.

Favre knew, should have known or was at least on notice to inquire with the State

or competent, honest independent consultants about the other restrictions on the funds

which New and Davis seemed to be handing out like candy.

In furtherance of the fraudulent scheme, $1.1 Million was transferred to Favre’s

control or possession without any corresponding exchange of value.

Favre, New, and Davis further agreed that if a separate scheme to divert and

misappropriate $4 Million in restricted funds was rejected by those prudent persons leery

of and concerned about legality and propriety of the proposals of Favre, New and Davis

then the $4 Millions in restricted funds would simply be divert and misappropriated to

Favre to be under the common control by Favre, New, and Davis.

Favre himself described the first $500,000.00 transfer from New and Davis as a

gift from Santa. 2017-12-27 20:22:36

2017-12-27 20:22:36

Nancy Santa came today and dropped some money

off@@ thank you my goodness thank you. We
need to setup the promo for you soon. Your way to
kind

Yes, he did. He felt you had been prett-; goo

At all relevant times and at these places, Favre, New, andyear! After
Davis these holidays
concealed from the lefs get our calen
together on a fe.v acti,, ities, etc . pleast kno w
Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division Director and other MDHS
asked you to do rnmething and you can't, i
Fiscal and Integrity Officers that Favre was receiving state funds,
Weand
willhad
get done
it all v.nothing of
orked out.

value in exchange for the transfer of $1.1 Million.

-6- How 1s the budding coming along and Be

l/olle1 ball, Is it the way :,, ou had hoped?
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 7 of 86

At all relevant times and at these places, Favre, New and Davis concealed from the

Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division Director and other MDHS

Fiscal and Integrity Officers the exorbitant, unreasonable, and illegal amounts which

Favre received for doing nothing.

The Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division Director and

other MDHS Fiscal and Integrity Officers had the right to expect that New and Favre

would disclose their transactions through a pre-approval process.

New and Davis were under a duty not to expend funds or to have New return to

MDHS funds not spent in compliance with her approved budget, objectives and

purchasing regulations and compliance with the other restrictions of federal and state law,

federal and state regulations, and applicable contract documents.

Favre was under the duty to not accept transfers of restricted state funds when he

had done nothing to earn such funds. Favre was under the duty to not accept transfers of

restricted state funds when the restrictions he knew or should have known were violated,

including but not limited to those laws, regulations and restrictions applicable to

contractors or subcontractors of a subgrantee of MDHS.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Instead, Favre demanded secrecy to defeat —and which did in fact defeat— the

safeguards which the Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division

Director and other MDHS Fiscal and Integrity Officers could bring to bear, and MDHS,

and very poor children and families, were damaged thereby.

THE COVER-UP

Between July 9, 2019 and February 9, 2023, within this judicial district and

-7-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 8 of 86

Forrest, Lamar and Harrison Counties, Favre engaged in a conspiracy and fraudulent

scheme with New and Culumber to conceal and cover-up the above described fraudulent

scheme by which Favre gained possession or control of $1.1 Million in restricted grant

funds from the State of Mississippi.

During this time period and at these places, Culumber acted as the authorized

agent and representative of Favre and Favre’s business, possessing both apparent and

actual authority to act on behalf of Favre and Favre’s business.

On or about July 9, 2019, the State Auditor directed the Financial and Compliance

Audit Division of the Mississippi Department of Audit —also known as the Office of the

State Auditor (“OSA”)— to conduct a single audit of MDHS for Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1,

2018, to September 30, 2019), with a particular focus on funds obtained from MDHS by

New and the entity New controlled named Mississippi Community Education Center

(“MCEC”).5 Another Division within OSA also sprang to action.

On July 18, 2019, in the places described above, Favre —while trying to lay his

hands on even more state money— falsely told then Governor Phil Bryant that Favre had

“been involved in several of Nancy’s families first activities.”

Favre —knowing he had done nothing and even inquiring as to the “little” he

might have done— made this false statement mere seconds after New basically informed

Favre that the most he had done was an announcement and that he was present —

apparently accidentally and with no coordination— at some events where New’s

organization also had “activities.” New gave no indication to Favre that he engaged in

such activities or even knew they were, or had, occurred. That same day, New told Favre:

“We have the necessary paperwork on file and I worked with your accountant on

5 It was later learned that New claims that MCEC fell under the controlled of Davis
through his role as Executive Director of MDHS.

-8-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 9 of 86

anything [sic]. Actually, it is ok and perfectly legal had I paid you.”

On September 1, 2019, Favre asked New “Did you speak to Bobby?”

During the course of the single audit and related inquires, OSA requested MCEC

provide all documents concerning any financial arrangements with Favre or Favre’s

business. OSA obtained or secured the following document from MCEC signed by New

and bearing the purported signature of Culumber:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first written above.

MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY EDUCATION

CENTER, a Mississippi 501(c)3 non-profit
corporation ,,

Favre
Enterprises,
Inc.

PrintNrune

ns: __.iG~,.~~O:___ ______

The records of MCEC also included the following documents:

Scope of Work to be Performed:

ervices shall be available beginning with the start date of this contract and shall terminate upon
conclusion of the contract.

Serv:ices to be pe11ormed include: public speaking at events, keynote speaking, radio and
promotional events, and business partner development.
I. Speak at three (3) total speaking engagements
2. Provide one (l) radio spot during the contract period
3. Provide one (1) keynote speaking engagement

All trnvel, room and board shall be the responsibility of the contractor and are not reimbursable
as part of this contract.

-9-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 10 of 86
.
•
''
Friday, November 1, 2019 at 2:29:58 PM Central Daylight Time

Subject: draft
Date: Monday, December 18, 2017 at 5:03:24 PM Central Standard Time
From: Nancy New
To: Zach New
CC: Nancy New

To: Brett Farve

CC: Bobby lculumber

Services to be rendered from July 1, 2017 through July 31, 2018.

1. 3 PSA's and/or commercials supporting Families First (our Media department will help with necessary
preparation of information. Also,, recordings/tapings will be arranged as local as possible(Hattiesburg)
Most media representatives will come on location, as well.
2. Public appearances/photos for special events; for an example, Governor's Healthy Teens for a Better
Mississippi. These are to be scheduled only upon available time of the client.
3. Autograph particular marketing material for special occasion or fund raising

All communication of the above services will be primarily coordinated by Nancy New or Zach New to Brett
Favre or his designee.

Payments will be made in

Brett Favre

Public Speaking as requested- Ongoing

Jackson Healthy Teens 9/07/17
Biloxi Healthy Teens 01/24/18
Radio Recording 08/13/18
Hattiesburg Healthy Teens 10/18/18
Football Camp Remote 11/30/18
Summer Camp -Ongoing

That was it. No other written documents of a contractual nature concerning Favre were

provided by MCEC. No other written documents of a contractual nature concerning

Favre were found by OSA personnel.

Page 1 of 1

Neither Favre, New, Davis, nor Culumber have produced any documents which

support Favre’s claims to the $1.1 Million for a single recording of a 57 word script. Not

a single document.

Having these few documents in hand, Stephanie C. Palmertree, CPA, CGMA, then

Director, Financial and Compliance Audit Division (“Palmertree”), made official contact

-10-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 11 of 86

and spoke with Culumber concerning the transactions in December 2017 and June 2018.

On or about November 8, 2019, Culumber, acting as an authorized representative

of both Favre and Favre’s business with both real and apparent authority, represented to

Palmertree that Favre was paid by MCEC for “speaking engagements and events which

Favre attended.”

When Palmertree emailed Culumber that same day, and asked him “to confirm our

phone call, Mr. Favre was paid by MCEC for speaking engagements, and events that he

attended” and verify that Culumber had in fact signed the document appearing above,

Culumber responded:

All is good. Have a great weekend! It’s going to be cold!

Taking the care necessary to make sure these matters were clear, Palmertree

emailed Culumber again asking “[s]orry to be such a pest, but I need you to confirm yes

or no that it’s your signature so I can move on to the next grantee.”

On November 8, 2019, Culumber emailed Director Palmertree and stated:

“yes.”

In February 2020, Nancy New, Zachary New, and John Davis were arrested for

defrauding MDHS.

In May, 2020, Favre wrote to New, “I want to stick it to them so bad. Your a good

person Nancy and you have to dig in!! We have to get our reputation[s] back.”

In May, 2020, Favre and New started trying to get their stories straight about what

was done and paid.

In May, 2020, Favre —with full knowledge of his acts and omissions— began

-11-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 12 of 86

trying to trick the authorities into making a false statement of exoneration.

On May 7, 2020, Favre —with full knowledge of his acts and omissions— caused a

$500,000.00 check to be delivered to a Special Agent of OSA.

A short time latter, Favre told ESPN Wisconsin’s “Wilde & Tausch” radio show

was he was just being paid for his role in radio public service announcements and

advertisements that ran for a few years in Mississippi.

“I did ads that ran for three years, was paid for it, no different than any other time

that I’ve done endorsements for other people, and I went about my way,” Favre said.

Favre reportedly “emphasized Friday the money had nothing to do with scheduled

speaking engagements.”

This statement and statements like it are, and were, intended by Favre to cover up

the true facts and particularly his involvement in the fraudulent scheme set forth above.

It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s statement that he did multiple “ads” when he

recorded a single 57 word script. Moreover, Favre recorded the single 57 word script on

August 13, 2018. When he claimed in May 2020 “ads … ran for three years” less than

three (3) years had passed since the recording.

It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s May 2020 claim that all he was required to do

was record a single 57 word script, with his statement in July 2017, that he “could record

a few radio spots.”

It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s statements in May 2020, with his July 18, 2019

statement to then Governor Phil Bryant, that Favre had “been involved in several of

Nancy’s families first activities.”

It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s statements in May 2020, with the statements of

-12-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 13 of 86

his authorized representative that Favre was paid for “speaking engagements and events”

which he actually attended.

It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s statements in May 2020 with the numerous

text messages of New to Favre where New stated: “just a few things here and there spread

out, will be plenty”; “let’s get our calendars together on a few activities”; “in the next few

days could I send you a draft proposal to do a couple of psa’s, etc. for Families First”; “if

you get a chance let John know you will do things to help me promote Families First. I

have just been waiting to get with you. Actually. I am saving you for a few special times”;

“If you have a few minutes to spare to speak to 7th-12th graders and some community

college students that will be great”; and “Zach has developed a list of a few big things

that we were going to ask you to appear this year [2019].”

On May 14, 2020, New summed it up by telling Favre “Stick to you doing the

work. That’s enough because they will twist anything else we say. Anything…. Anyway,

you are definitely right to say you did the work, but best not to say too much more as it

definitely will be twisted.” To which Favre replied: “Ok.”

On October 12, 2021, the State Auditor issued demand letters to Favre, Favre’s

business and Culumber for principal and interest. The matter continued to be investigated.

On October 25, 2021, Favre —with full knowledge of his acts and omissions—

caused a $600,000.00 check to be delivered to OSA.

On November 10, 2021, Culumber caused a letter to be sent to the State Auditor

representing that Culumber had done nothing for Favre and Favre’s business other than

prepare tax returns and act as the agent for service of process for Favre’s business. The

letter demanded retractions and implied legal action would be taken personally against

the State Auditor.

-13-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 14 of 86

These representations cannot be reconciled with Culumber’s interactions with

Palmertree and Favre’s communications with New.

No retraction or apology was given and Culumber went silent.

On April 22, 2022, Nancy New and Zachary New pleaded guilty in State Court to

defrauding MDHS. Their guilty pleas reflected bribes and fraud starting as early the first

quarter of 2017.

On September 26, 2022, Davis pleaded guilty in State Court to conspiring with

New to defraud MDHS and to, with Nancy New and others, defrauding MDHS.

On February 6, 2023, counsel for Favre —instead of sending Favre’s check to make

whole MDHS and its program to help the poorest of the poor— sent the Defendant a

letter demanding that he retract and apologize to Favre for alleged defamatory statements

and threatening vindication and the imposition of “substantial damages.”

On February 9, 2023, counsel for Favre —instead of sending Favre’s check to make

whole MDHS and its program to help the poorest of the poor— filed a lawsuit seeking

money from the Defendant. 2020-05-08 18:38:33

Favre has failed and refused to pay the funds demanded of him. His fraudulent

scheme to cover up the true material facts has caused damage to the State of Mississippi,

and very poor children and families which MDHS serves.

SECOND DEFENSE

The complaint represents an abuse of process and improper malicious prosecution.

-14-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 15 of 86

THIRD DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can

be granted, and Defendant moves for dismissal.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that at all times pertinent to the events made the subject of

Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant was acting in his official capacity as State Auditor of

Mississippi, and Defendant hereby invokes the defense of absolute privilege in bar of

Plaintiff’s claims and moves to dismiss this action in its entirety.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendant asserts the defense of truth in bar of Plaintiff’s claims.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is a public figure or a vortex/quasi-public figure,

and Defendant further alleges an absence of actual malice in bar of Plaintiff’s claims.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The statements of the Defendant were true. Defendant never had a high degree of

awareness of any probable falsity of any relevant statement. Defendant never entertained

serious doubts as to the truth of his statements.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

All relevant communications by the Defendant were made without malice and in

good faith and on a subject matter in which he had an interest, or in reference to which he

had a duty. In addition such communications were made to a person or persons having a

corresponding interest or duty. Therefore, the Defendant is immune from this suit.

-15-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 16 of 86

NINTH DEFENSE

Defendant alleges that the statements made the subject of Plaintiff’s Complaint are

statements of opinion made in good faith and/or predicated upon conclusions of the State

Auditor and of the Office of the State Auditor regarding the interpretation and/or

operation of Mississippi law, and accordingly Defendant has and can have no liability for

defamation.

TENTH DEFENSE

Defendant invokes any and all rights and protections afforded to Defendant by any

applicable privileges and/or immunities, both absolute and qualified, governmental or

otherwise, not already invoked hereinabove.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendant invokes all rights and protections afforded to him under MISS. CODE

§85-5-7.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Defendant invokes the provisions and protections of MISS. CODE §11-1-69 in bar

of Plaintiff’s claims or damages sought.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant invokes the provisions and protections of Miss. Code §11-1-60 in bar,

or partial bar, of Plaintiff’s claims or damages sought.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant invokes any and all rights, immunities and protections afforded to him

under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, if and to the extent deemed applicable.

-16-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 17 of 86

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant asserts the defense of illegality in bar of Plaintiff’s claims.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

The claims asserted by the Plaintiff violate the First Amendment and Fourteenth

Amendment to the U.S Constitution by infringing the Defendant’s right to free speech.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

The claims asserted by the Plaintiff violate the MS Const. Art. 3, §13 (right to free

speech). The subject statements made by the Defendant were made with good motives and

for justifiable ends.

EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendant asserts the defenses of unclean hands, laches, lack of good faith,

estoppel, and waiver.

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

No damages were suffered by the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s acts, if any, in reference

to the matters and things alleged in the compliant, were not the proximate or legal cause

of the Plaintiff’s damages, if any. Alternatively, any damages suffered by the Plaintiff were

the result of the acts or omissions of Plaintiff or his agents, confederates, or independent

third parties and not the result of any act or omission of Defendant or anyone for whom

Defendant may be legally responsible. Alternatively any damages suffered by the Plaintiff

were the result of intervening or super-ceding causes for which the Defendant cannot be

held liable.

-17-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 18 of 86

TWENTIETH DEFENSE

The plaintiff has failed to join indispensable and necessary parties.

TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE

The plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any.

TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE

The plaintiff cannot establish special damages.

TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendant is not chargeable with the negligent and/or intentional acts of any

person or persons over whom the Defendant exercised neither dominion nor control.

TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE

With the facts not having been fully developed, the Defendant incorporates and

asserts all relevant affirmative defenses set forth in Rules 8(c) and 12 of the Mississippi

Rules of Civil Procedure.

TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE

The Defendant reserves and/or invokes any and all defenses which are available or

to which he is entitled pursuant to any applicable state and/or federal law and/or policies,

standards, regulations, laws, statutes, authorities and/or ordinances.

TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is governed

and limited by Miss. Code §11-1-65, and Defendant hereby pleads and invokes the

provisions and protections of same, including but not limited to the bifurcation of

-18-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 19 of 86

punitive damages from other issues in this cause.

The claim for punitive damages cannot be sustained because an award for punitive

damages under Mississippi law would violate the Defendant’s due process rights

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by

Article 3, §14 of the Mississippi Constitution and may result in violation of the

Defendant’s right not to be subjected to an excessive award in violation of the Excessive

Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 3,

§28 of the Mississippi Constitution.

TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFENSE

The Defendant asserts the affirmative defenses of set off, recoupment, assumption

of the risk and contributory negligence.

TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE

Defendant denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint by which

Plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon Defendant, and Defendant denies that he has been

or can be guilty of any actionable conduct in the premises.

RESERVATION OF DEFENSES AND RIGHTS

Due to the lack of discovery, the Defendant is without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief at this time as to whether other affirmative defenses may apply

in this cause of action. The Defendant reserves the right to amend his Answer and

Affirmative Defenses and to assert any additional defenses or matter of avoidance that

may become apparent following the completion of additional investigation and/or

discovery.

-19-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 20 of 86

AND NOW, having presented his Affirmative Defenses, the Defendant responds to

the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint, paragraph by paragraph, as follows:

The averments contained in the first unnumbered paragraph under the heading

“JURY TRIAL DEMANDED” require no response from the Defendant but to the extent

required the averments are denied.

1. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

2. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

3. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint, except to admit that the Defendant is a party in the described other lawsuit.

To the extent not expressly admitted, the averments of Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint are denied.

4. Except to state that before the instant Complaint was filed, Plaintiff’s counsel

sent Defendant a letter, which will speak for itself in terms of its content, Defendant denies

the averments contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To the extent not

expressly admitted, the averments of Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

5. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

6. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint, except the Defendant admits that he has not retracted or apologized for any

-20-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 21 of 86

statements made about Plaintiff, there having been no defamation. To the extent not

expressly admitted, the averments of Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

7. Except to state that Plaintiff is a public figure, Defendant is without knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained in Paragraph 7 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore denies the same.

8. Defendant admits that he is an elected public official of the State of Mississippi,

and an attempt is being made to sue him in his individual capacity, and that he may be

served as described in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant denies the

remaining averments contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

9. Except to admit that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter,

and except to further state that the law, where applicable, will speak for itself, Defendant

denies the averments contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

10. Except to admit that venue is proper in Hinds County, and except to further

state that the law, where applicable, will speak for itself, Defendant denies the averments

contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

11. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore denies

those averments.

12. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the averments contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore denies

those averments.

13. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

-21-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 22 of 86

the averments contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore denies

those averments.

With respect to the heading “B. White’s Egregious Falsehoods About Favre”

immediately preceding Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant denies that he

has made any “[e]gregious [f]alsehoods [a]bout Favre” as alleged therein.

14. Defendant, won reelection and admits the averments contained in Paragraph

14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

15. It is denied that the Plaintiff has repaid all funds improperly paid to him.

Defendant admits that on or about May 7, 2020, $500,000.00 was received by OSA in

payment to replace TANF Funds for which the Plaintiff was liable. It is admitted that OSA

issued a press release containing the statement quoted in the second sentence of Paragraph

15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant admits that as of May 7, 2020, Defendant had

seen no records indicating that Plaintiff knew that MCEC used TANF funds to pay

Plaintiff. Defendant admits that in October 2021, Plaintiff received a demand and

thereafter partially repaid the State of Mississippi an additional $600,000.00 for

unlawfully received welfare money for which Plaintiff was liable, leaving a balance of

principal and statutory interest exclusively due and payable to the OSA under the

controlling statute. Defendant denies the remaining averments contained in Paragraph 15

of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To the extent not expressly admitted, the averments of Paragraph

15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

16. Except to state that additional information developed after May 2020 revealed

that Plaintiff’s involvement in the welfare scandal was much more extensive than

previously believed, Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 16 of

-22-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 23 of 86

Plaintiff’s Complaint. To the extent not expressly admitted, the averments of Paragraph 16

of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

17. Except to state that Defendant was asked about Plaintiff’s role in the welfare

scandal, as investigated by OSA, during multiple official media interviews, including

interviews with CNN, ESPN, and WORLD, Defendant denies the averments contained in

Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent not expressly admitted, the

averments of Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

18. Except to state that Defendant is aware that clips from official interviews of

Defendant have been published by various media outlets, Defendant is without knowledge

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments contained in Paragraph 18

of Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore denies the same. To the extent not expressly

admitted, the averments of Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

19. Defendant admits that in the course of a television interview with CNN’s Kate

Bolduan, on or about September 15, 2022, and while acting in his official capacity as

State Auditor of Mississippi, Defendant made a statement substantially in accord with the

quotation appearing next to the bullet in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. It is

denied that the September 15, 2022 statement accused Favre of any crime. It is denied that

the September 15, 2022 statement was false. Defendant denies the remaining averments

contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To the extent not expressly admitted,

the averments of Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

20. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the averments contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and therefore denies the

same.

-23-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 24 of 86

21. Defendant admits that in the course of an ESPN Daily Podcast interview on or

about September 29, 2022, and while acting in his official capacity as State Auditor of

Mississippi, Defendant made a statement substantially in accord with the quotation

appearing next to the bullet in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the number of people

who listened to the aforementioned podcast. It is denied that the September 29, 2022

statement accused Favre of any crime. It is denied that the September 29, 2022 statement

was false. Defendant denies the remaining averments contained in Paragraph 21 of

Plaintiff’s Complaint. To the extent not expressly admitted, the averments of Paragraph 21

of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

22. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

23. Except to state that before the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff’s counsel sent

Defendant a letter, which will speak for itself in terms of its content, and except to further

state that Defendant did not respond to this letter, Defendant denies the averments

contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To the extent not expressly admitted,

the averments of Paragraph 23 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

24. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

25. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

26. Defendant adopts and incorporates by reference his defenses and answers to

the averments contained in the preceding paragraphs in response to the averments

-24-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 25 of 86

contained in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To the extent not expressly admitted,

the averments of Paragraph 26 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

27. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

28. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

29. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

30. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

31. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

32. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

33. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

34. Defendant adopts and incorporates by reference his defenses and answers to

the averments contained in the preceding paragraphs in response to the averments

contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. To the extent not expressly admitted,

the averments of Paragraph 34 of Plaintiff’s Complaint are denied.

35. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

-25-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 26 of 86

36. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

37. Defendant denies the averments contained in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.

38. Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any payment in the premises. To

the extent not expressly admitted, the averments of Paragraph 38 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

are denied.

Defendant denies the averments contained in the unnumbered paragraph and Sub-

paragraphs a. through e. thereunder, following Paragraph 38 of Plaintiff’s Complaint

under the heading “PRAYER FOR RELIEF” and commencing “WHEREFORE,

PREMISES CONSIDERED,” and Defendant further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to a

judgment, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, or costs,

or to any sum or relief whatsoever of, from, or against Defendant herein.

COUNTERCLAIM

The State Auditor Shad White (“State Auditor”) makes this counterclaim against

Brett Favre (“Favre”), Favre Enterprises, Inc., (Favre’s business), and Robert L. Culumber

(“Culumber”):

EXCLUSIVE STANDING

This State Auditor has standing and the exclusive right to pursue the claims

asserted below. Miss. Code §7-7-211(g). See also Miss. Code §7-7-75. See general MS

Const. Art. 5, § 134.

On October 21, 2021, OSA made demand on Favre, Favre’s business and

Cucumber for payment of public funds which New and Davis had transferred to Favre or

-26-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 27 of 86

Favre’s business and for which Favre, Favre’s business and Culumber were culpable and

legally obligated to pay.

Miss. Code §7-7-211(g) provides that after a demand is made by OSA, the demand

“shall6 be paid into the proper treasury of the state, county or other public body through

the office of the department in the amount demanded within thirty (30) days from the

date thereof, together with interest thereon in the sum of one percent (1%) per month

from the date such amount or amounts were improperly withheld, misappropriated and/

or otherwise illegally expended.”

“In the event, however, such person or persons or such surety shall refuse, neglect

or otherwise fail to pay the amount demanded and the interest due thereon within the

allotted thirty (30) days, the State Auditor shall have the authority and it shall be his duty

to institute suit, and the Attorney General shall7 prosecute the same in any court of the

state to the end that there shall be recovered [by the State Auditor] the total of such

amounts from the person or persons…; and the amounts so recovered shall be paid …

through the State Auditor.” Miss. Code §7-7-211(g)(emphasis added).

Rule 13 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure compels assertion of this

Counterclaim or at least grants permission for it to be asserted in this action.

PARTIES

1. The Counter-Plaintiff is the State Auditor Shad White brings this counterclaim in

his official capacity as State Auditor of the State of Mississippi and Head of the

Department of Audit, whose principal office is at 501 North West Street, Suite 801,

Jackson, First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi 39201. In his official capacity,

the State Auditor is authorized to seek relief for the State of Mississippi and all of its

6When interpreting statutes, the word shall is a mandatory directive. Univ. of Mississippi
Med. Ctr. v. Aycock, 369 So. 3d 534, 540 (Miss. 2023)(quotations and citations omitted).
7 Miss. Code §7-5-39 (process for Attorney General to decline representation).

-27-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 28 of 86

subdivisions under the Mississippi Constitution, the common law, and various statutes,

including but not limited to §7-7-75, §7-7-211, §7-7-213, §31-7-57, §21-35-17, and

§25-1-73 of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended.

2. The Counter-Defendants are:

a. Brett Favre;

b. Favre Enterprises, Inc., which is a Mississippi corporation which may be

served by service upon its registered agent Robert L. Culumber at 2300 20Th St.,

Gulfport, MS 39501; and,

c. Robert L. Culumber. Culumber is an adult resident citizen of Mississippi and

may be served with process at 2300 20Th St., Gulfport, MS 39501.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in this

Counterclaim. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties. Venue in this cause is proper in

this Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4. On December 27, 2017, New transferred $500,000.00 to the possession or

control of Favre.

5. In June 2018, New transferred $600,000.00 to the possession or control of

Favre.

6. As detailed below, Favre had no legal right to the possession or control of this

$1.1 Million.

7. MCEC has no legal right or equitable claim to this $1.1 Million or any portion

thereof. All legal rights and equitable claims rest with the State of Mississippi.

8. On or about May 5, 2020, Favre owed the State of Mississippi $1,100,000.00 in

principal along with accrued statutory interest of $437,000.00.

-28-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 29 of 86

9. On or about May 6, 2020, Favre admitted he was personally responsible, that he

did not contest his responsibility and promised the State of Mississippi that he would pay

all he owed to the State in the “coming months.”

10. On May 7, 2020, Favre paid $500,000.00, which satisfied the accrued interest

to that date, and left a principal balance owing of $740,000.00, in unpaid principal which

continued to bear statutory interest and $132,000.00 in accrued interest.8

11. On October 25, 2021, Favre tendered a payment of $600,000.00, which

reduced the principal owed by Favre to $437,000.00 with no further accrued interest

owed at that time.

12. Since October 25, 2021, an additional $292,790.00 in interest has accrued.

13. As of this date Favre is liable for least $437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along

with statutory interest which currently amounts to at least $292,790.00.

14. On or about September 27, 2016, Nancy New (“New”) signed a series of $1

Million Subgrant Agreements with MDHS which provided New access to over $10

Million in TANF Funds which MDHS had received from the federal government. These

Subgrant Agreements were in the name of MCEC, the non-profit entity New controlled,

and covered a period from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017 (“FY 2017”).

15. None of the approved budget narratives submitted by New for these Subgrant

Agreements contained a line item for “advertising” and the Funding Division of MDHS

had not approved expenditure of the funds entrusted to New for “advertising.” Likewise,

there was no approved budget item for “public relations.”

16. These subgrant agreements provided in Section VII that if MCEC “advertises

8 See Miss. Code §75-17-9 (“When partial payments are made, the interest that has
accrued to the time of payment, if any, shall be first paid, and the residue of such partial
payment shall be placed to the payment of the principal, except that the parties may agree
in writing that such partial payment, or any portion thereof, shall be applied first to the
payment of principal, in which case the residue shall be applied to the payment of interest
that has accrued to the time of payment.”).

-29-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 30 of 86

…relating to, or promoting, the services which it is providing through this Subgrant, it

shall acknowledge that said funding for said Subgrant and for said advertising was

provided by MDHS.”

17. For example, 2 CFR §200.421 (Advertising and public relations) imposed very

strict limitations of the use of TANF Funds for advertising and public relation. This

regulation disallows “[c]osts of advertising and public relations designed solely to

promote the non-federal entity.”

18. Upon information and belief, the federal award to MDHS did not authorize or

require sub-grantees to incur advertising cost for program outreach and other specific

purposes set out in the award.

19. The regulations of MDHS limited and controlled the procurement and

payment of contractual services and in almost every case required review and approval by

the Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division Director and other

MDHS Fiscal and Integrity Officers. See MDHS Subgrant/Agreement Manual (Revised

11/2/2016).

20. The regulations of MDHS placed the approval of budgets, budget

modifications and allowance of expenditures with the Funding Division of MDHS, and

the MDHS Funding Division Director and other MDHS Fiscal and Integrity Officers.

21. As early as the first quarter of 2017, Nancy New (“New”) and John Davis

(“Davis”) then holding the position of Executive Director of MDHS, were actively

engaged in multiple sham transactions which defrauded MDHS and funded —with TANF

Funds and other public funds— New and MCEC, the entity New and Davis controlled.

22. As early as the first quarter of 2017, New and Davis were actively engaged in a

criminal bribery scheme which had as its source TANF Funds and other restricted public

funds held by MDHS.

-30-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 31 of 86

23. In 2017, Favre became involved with New and Davis.

24. Upon information and belief, Favre, prior to meeting New and Davis, was

unaware of their criminality and the system of sham funding they were criminally

operating.

25. Favre met New on July 18, 2017 in Hinds County, Mississippi.

26. Favre initiated contact with New to request that she join in his plan to

construct a volleyball building on the campus of the University of Southern Mississippi

(“USM”).

27. Prior to July 18, 2017, Favre had made certain personal financial commitments

to fund at least part of the cost of constructing the volleyball building.

28. New agreed to Favre’s request in Hinds County, Mississippi and the two (2)

joined forces to achieve Favre’s goal of construction of the volleyball building with as little

Favre’s money as possible.

29. Shortly after meeting New, Favre attended a meeting that was also attended

MDHS Executive Director Davis.

30. That meeting was held July 24, 2017 in Forrest County, Mississippi and the

topic was the volleyball construction project at USM.

31. On July 24, 2017, and well prior thereto, it was common knowledge that

MDHS was the State of Mississippi’s lead welfare agency serving the poor and needy

within the state.

32. By July 24, 2017, Favre knew the funds controlled by New and Davis were

restricted to limited uses.

33. By July 24, 2017, Favre knew the funds controlled by New and Davis could

not be used to pay for “brick and mortar” construction.

34. In July 2017, Favre, Nancy New, and Davis reached an agreement to work

-31-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 32 of 86

together to obtain funds to construct a building or buildings on the campus of the USM

with the least amount of Favre’s financial expenditures as could be achieved.

35. On July 29, 2017, Favre offered to donate or gift a public service

announcement to help New.

36. By July 29, 2017, Nancy New, in response to Favre stating he was thinking of a

quick and easy PSA, countered with the idea of Favre “contracting with Families First and

some of its programs as a spokesperson. We are really trying to influence community

college and university athletes.”

37. “Influenc[ing] community college and university athletes is, and was, not a legal

use for TANF Funds or any other funds which New obtained or could obtain from

MDHS.

38. In response to New’s “spokesperson” idea, Favre responded, “Ok. I could

record a few radio spots here initially, I'm sure, right here. See how it is received and

whatever compensation could go to USM.”

39. In response, New stated, “4 Million Dollars… Just kidding. The first phase

could be $500,000 and after [September] we can renew. This is a good approach. What do

you think?”

40. This is not the last time New would propose funneling $4 Million through

Favre.

41. Favre replied to New: “Was just thinking that here is the way to do it.”

42. Thereafter Favre and New discussed putting their agreement in writing with

Favre stating: “My biggest concern is time commitment so we can manage that I'm good.”

43. On July 31, 2017, Favre declared that he would go along with New as long as

the money he received could be used “any way we choose.”

-32-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 33 of 86

44. By July 31, 2017, Favre realized that funneling the restricted funds to the

volleyball building construction project through him might be a way to “solve the brick

and mortar issue.”

45. On July 31, 2017, Favre and New agreed that funneling the restricted funds to

the volleyball building construction project through him was a way to “solve the brick

and mortar issue.”

46. As of July 31, 2017, Favre knew that the restricted funds he and New were

discussing were funds of the State of Mississippi.

47. As of July 31, 2017, Favre knew that the restricted funds were funds intended

to help the poor and not to construct volleyball buildings.

48. On July 31, 2017, Favre realized that funneling the restricted funds to the

volleyball building construction project through him would need to be kept secret: secret

as to to the transfers, the source of funds and any relationship between Favre and the

poor and needy and the institutions by which the state served the poor and needy.

49. On July 31, 2017, Favre demanded secrecy and New agreed with Favre to keep

the transfers to him secret.

50. After reaching this agreement on secrecy, Favre, wrote to New: “Ok perfect. I'll

send you my CPA Bobby Culumber cell if ok?

51. A little while later on July 31, 2017, Favre wrote New: “So if we keep

confidential where money came from as well as amount I think this is gonna work.”

52. On August 2, 2017, New wrote Favre informed him that she had spoken with

Culumber and “We both are on the same page.”

53. On August 3, 2017, Favre wrote New and stated:

If you were to pay me is there anyway the media can find out where it came
from and how much?

54. That same day, New wrote Favre and stated:

-33-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 34 of 86

No, we never have had that information publicized. I understand you being
uneasy about that though….

55. Favre thanked New for her agreement to keep the source and amounts of

payments to him a secret.

56. On August 6, 2017, Favre and New again discussed the hesitance of the USM

Administration to go along with the plan of Favre, New, and Davis. During this exchange

New —who had been bribing Davis and defrauding MDHS— wrote to Favre: “I do know

this, if Dr. Cannon questions or even suggests that he is worried about the integrity of this

process, John Davis and I both may loose it. That is insulting to both of us.”

57. To which Favre replied: “Well again I'm with you!!! If they won't take it I will.”

58. In response to Favre’s suggestion that the $4 Million be paid to him, New

replied: “For sure! That's exactly what John Davis said… ‘well, we will just give it to Brett

if Southern can't come to their senses’. John is tired of fooling with them.”

59. After New and Davis met with officials from USM, she texted Favre that

“What we can do if they don't get on board is contract with you.”

60. To which Favre responded: “Ok Nancy I’m all in!! Thank you.”

61. New replied: “With or without them.”

62. On August 8, 2017, New wrote Favre that “[I]f they don't figure this cut soon

maybe we should fund your foundation??”

63. To which Favre responded: “Some for sure!!” But Favre added that his

foundation could not fund “athletics.” Then Favre once again returned to getting around

the prohibition on the use of funds in New’s control “for brick and mortar.”

64. Two (2) days later, Favre sent a text to New which stated: “My goal is for you

and I to build what state and ole miss have or at least close.”

65. By October 19, 2017, the multi-million dollar transaction with TANF Funds

which Favre, New and Davis had been pushing received final approval.

-34-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 35 of 86

66. On October 26, 2017, Favre told New he was “a little disgruntled when I was

told a million is going elsewhere.”

67. On November 6, 2017, New caused MCEC to pay $2.5 Million to the USM

Athletic Foundation.

68. On December 5, 2017, New caused MCEC to pay a $2.5 Million payment to

the USM Athletic Foundation.

69. By agreement with Favre, New worked to ensure that these funds went to brick

and mortar construction in accordance with their wishes..

70. A little over five (5) months after his first meetings with New and Davis, Favre

obtained control or possession of $500,000.00 from New.

71. This $500,000.00 constituted public funds which had been entrusted to New

by MDHS in Hinds County.

72. This transfer occurred on December 27, 2017 and originated in Hinds County,

Mississippi.

73. Favre was not entitled to receive, possess, control, or disburse this

$500,000.00 which constituted public funds entrusted to New.

74. On December 27, 2017, Favre and Favre’s business were not entitled to receive

TANF Funds.

75. On December 27, 2017, Favre and Favre’s business were not entitled to receive

“state money.”

76. On December 27, 2017, Favre and Favre’s business were not entitled to receive

restricted funds originating from MDHS.

77. On December 27, 2017, neither Favre nor Favre’s business had performed any

work or service or given anything of value in exchange for the transfer of $500,000.00 by

New.

-35-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 36 of 86

78. The day Favre received the $500,000.00 in restricted state funds, Favre relayed

to New that “Santa came today and dropped” off the $500,000.00.

79. In reply, New wrote Favre that Santa felt he had been “pretty good this year”

and that after the holidays, they should “get our calendars together on a few activities,

etc.”

80. By May 7, 2020, Favre —with full knowledge of his acts and omissions—

delivered, or caused to be delivered in Forrest County, $500,000.00 to a Special Agent of

OSA.

81. In March 2018, Favre hosted Davis at a social function at Favre’s home.

82. New encouraged Favre to use the visit to “let John know you will do things to

help me promote Families First. I have just been waiting to get with you. Actually, I am

saving you for a few special times.”

83. On May 2, 2018, Favre and his wife Deanna signed a donor agreement with

the USM Athletic Foundation obligating themselves to pay up to $1.4 Million to fund the

construction of the volleyball facility. The agreement provides that “[d]onors shall

personally contribute any funds not collected from third parties.”

84. In April 2018, New and Favre communicated about getting even more money

through Davis to meet Favre’s obligations with relation to the USM construction.

85. On May 10, 2018, New sent a text to Favre which stated “Hey Bret, I am

making some progress on our money needs; What amount out of the whole loan that you

signed would be most helpful right now? John and I may have a plan.”

86. Favre replied: “I only signed a guarantee for 1.4. I won't owe until the money

that's there runs out, then I have to come up with the rest. Probably about 6 months ….”

87. Favre followed up with: “So however you think we should proceed.”

88. To which New responded: “Ok We are definitely working on a good plan.”

-36-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 37 of 86

89. On May 17, 2018, New wrote Favre and stated: “Morning! Good news. I have

a little money for the project —$500,000! Do you want me to send to Athletic Dept. Or

to your foundation? NN.”

90. Favre responded that he “guessed” the Athletic Department, to which New

stated: “I want to think about sending it to the Dept. I want to make sure it is used on

our project, we want to help get that note pd. off that you and we will continue to work

toward that!”

91. Three (3) days later, New wrote Favre that “Tomorrow I am going to call Jon

Gilbert or Daniel to make sure that the money we are sending tomorrow, the whole

amount, will go toward the building. We don’t want it spread across other areas. I will let

you know. The amount is … $650,000.00. We will kept chipping away to get it down

even more.”

92. In June 2018, Favre obtained $600,000.00 from New in restricted state funds

to which neither New, MCEC, nor Favre were entitled to receive, possess, or disburse.

93. In August, 2018, Favre communicated with New about “doing something

quick” in terms of a recording while he was in Jackson on other business.

94. On August 13, 2018, Favre travelled to Jackson and recorded the following 57

word script:

This is Brett Favre with Families First for Mississippi and the Governor's
Healthy Teens for a Better Mississippi. Being healthy is about physical and
emotional wellbeing. Healthy Teens encourages youth through social
interaction and leadership to build a better future for our next generation.
So get involved with Families First to support health and wellness across
Mississippi.

95. On September 11, 2018, New asked Favre to speak to young people at Reed

Green Coliseum on October 18, 2018.

96. Favre communicated to New on September 11, 2018 that Brett Favre thought

he would be in “Montana elk hunting that day.”

-37-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 38 of 86

97. New replied that “There will be other things going on later.”

98. Favre did not speak at Reed Green Coliseum on October 18, 2018.

99. On July 8, 2019, MDHS announced the resignation of Davis effective July 31,

2019.

100. On July 16, 2019, Favre texted New: “Nancy if I can help you in any way you

know I will. Please know that.”

101. He followed that message up with: “About to see Governor Bryant. Anything

I can say to him that could help?

102. To which New replied: “Let him know how much we work together on youth

development, sports programs that instill leadership and future work skill.”

103. Favre agreed to convey this false statement to then Govenor Bryant.

104. Before July 16, 2019 was over, Favre texted New: “I love John so much. And

you too.”

105. On July 18, 2019, Favre asked New to tell the Govenor that Favre asked New

to fund a new indoor football facility at USM.

106. New responded: “I am fine with that as we can do a lease on it and Families

First can use it for many activities.”

107. That same day, New wrote Favre: “Did you tell him you were already

involved with some of our activities?

108. To which Favre replied: “No I will though this morning … Well check that I

actually did a little.”

109. This inquiry prompted New to write:

You did. You have been a pubic figure through OSA; and some events where
we have activities. Conference USA, etc. honestly, Zach has developed a list
of a few big things; that we were going to ask you to appear this year.
Governor's Healthy Teens Rally which will be late fall like last year. We have
had other retired professional wrestlers, Athletes, etc. the last 2 years.

-38-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 39 of 86

110. After reading New’s response, Favre chose to mislead the Govenor by sending

a text which read:

Hey Governor I have been involved in several of Nancy's families first

activities and our plan was after completing Vball construction we were/are
building a spectacular indoor facility on campus that we can use for just
about anything.

111. Favre’s false message drew the following message out of New:

Oops I meant PSA's, All is good We did not pay you directly but we could
have. Financial support was made available to your foundation but that is
absolutely ok. We have the necessary paperwork on file and I worked with
your accountant on anything. Actually, it is ok and perfectly legal had I paid
you. Some folks probably will like knowing that I didn't should they ask.
They love knowing you are very generous with your time. Please know I we
understand grant Regulations and it's common to be creative. they do allow
fund, to get speakers, motivators, etc. It is all ok…. Even though we cant
fund brick and mortar, renting/ leasing is fine. This will be a great place for
us to do many programs./ activities for all ages…. Sorry for all the
information but I just want to keep you in the loop.

112. On July 25, 2019, Favre learned that the State Auditor’s Office was working

on a report on MDHS.

113. By July and August, 2019, Favre undeniably knew that the funds New paid

out came from MDHS and that the funds could only be spent helping children and was

limited to certain specific purposes.

114. Yet Favre still retained the $1.1 Million New had transferred to him.

115. On September 12, 2019, Favre texted New and asked: “Did you speak to

Bobby?”

116. To which New replied that she was attempting to make contact.

117. On November 25, 2019, Favre sent New a message which read: “I'm sorry

Nancy but know that I am with you all the way. You are good for this state and I'm proud

to be your friend.”

118. On December 12, 2019, Favre informed New he had sent the following

-39-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 40 of 86

message: “Hey Gov I think your meeting with Nancy tomorrow. This money will be used

for state programs as well as help USM but w/ a director in place good things will happen

and The University is all in as well. I know your doing all you can and we appreciate you

very much.”

119. In February 2020, Nancy New, Zachary New, and John Davis were arrested

for defrauding MDHS.

120. Yet Favre still retained the $1.1 Million which New had transferred to him.

121. On March 3, 2020, Favre sent New the following message: Deanna and I

want you to know we are thinking about you and praying that all is well.”

122. Prior to April 22, 2020, the State Auditor directed the Financial and

Compliance Audit Division of the Mississippi Department of Audit —also known as the

Office of the State Auditor (“OSA”)— to conduct a single audit of the Mississippi

Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) for Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2018, to

September 30, 2019), with a particular focus on funds obtained from MDHS by

Mississippi Community Education Center “MCEC”).

123. At all times relevant hereto, MCEC was an entity controlled by Nancy New

and Davis and employed her son Zachary New.

124. During test-work for activities allowed and allowable costs, the assigned

auditor(s) noted the following violations:

Favre Enterprises was [allegedly] contracted9 to appear at several events,

record promotions, and provide autographs for marketing materials from
July 1, 2017 through July 31, 2018. Additional contract information
provided that the contract fee would be paid in installments and would
include three (3) speaking engagements, one (1) radio spot and one (1)
keynote address. There was no mention of the contract price in the contract
supplied to auditors.

When auditors requested further details on the performance of the contract,

9 Later acquired information reflected that there was no contract.

-40-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 41 of 86

specifically the dates of any speaking engagements,

MCEC provided a list of dates and events that fulfilled the contract terms;
however, upon a cursory review of those dates, auditors were able to
determine that the individual contracted [Brett Favre] did not speak nor was
he present for those events. Two payments were made to Favre Enterprises
– one for $500,000 in December 2017 and one for $600,000 in June 2018.

Due to the inability to verify that any work was performed in order to fulfill
the contract, and due to the unreasonable amount paid, the entire payment
of $1,100,000 paid in FY 2018 is questioned.

Single Audit Management Report dated April 22, 2020.

125. During the audit, the audit team was provided a document purportedly signed

by Culumber and other information by MCEC concerning an alleged contract between

Favre Enterprises and MCEC.

126. At all times relevant hereto, Culumber was the authorized representative of

Favre and Favre’s business Favre Enterprises, Inc.

127. During the single audit, Stephanie C. Palmertree, CPA, CGMA, then Director,

Financial and Compliance Audit Division (“Palmertree”), personally contacted Culumber

concerning the transactions in December 2017 and June 2018.

128. On November 8, 2019, Director Palmertree emailed Culumber and stated:

Mr. Culumber,

If you could just email me back and verify that this is your signature, we can
move on to the next grantee.

Also, to confirm our phone call, Mr. Favre was paid by MCEC for speaking
engagements, and events that he attended.

Thank you for your assistance!

129. On November 8, 2019, Culumber emailed Director Palmertree and stated:

Stephanie,

All is good.

-41-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 42 of 86

Have a great weekend! It’s going to be cold!

Robert L. Culumber, CPA

130. However, “all [was not] good” as falsely represented by Culumber in the

scope and course of his representation of Mr. Favre and Mr. Favre’s business.

131. The facts later revealed, while Mr. Favre was paid $1.1 Million, he had not

attended speaking engagements and events.

132. On November 8, 2019, Director Palmertree again emailed Culumber and

stated:

Mr. Culumber,

Sorry to be such a pest, but I need you to confirm yes or no that it’s your
signature so I can move on to the next grantee.

133. On November 8, 2019, Culumber emailed Director Palmertree stated:

“yes

Robert L. Culumber, CPA”

134. Culumber, acting in the scope and course of his agency for Favre and Favre’s

business and in concert with Favre, Nancy New, and MCEC, had lied to OSA during an

official investigation of the transfer of $1.1 Million to the possession or control of Favre.

135. Unfortunately, the lies had just began.

136. Additional facts are set forth below.

COUNT I - UNJUST ENRICHMENT

137. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

138. No contract existed under which the subject $1.1 Million was payable to

Favre or Favre’s business.

139. Favre and/or Favre’s business are in possession of $437,000.00, and unpaid

-42-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 43 of 86

interest of at least $292,790.00,10 which in good conscience and justice neither of them

should retain, but should be delivered to the Counter-Plaintiff for placement in the

appropriate treasury of the State of Mississippi.

140. MCEC has no legal right or equitable claim to this $1.1 Million or any

portion thereof. All legal rights and equitable claims rest with the State of Mississippi.

141. Due to this unjust enrichment, the Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment

against Favre and/or Favre Enterprises, Inc., for at least $437,000.00 in unpaid principal,

along with statutory interest which currently amounts to at least $292,790.00, and all

other relief set forth below.

COUNT II - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

142. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained in

the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

143. On or about May 5, 2020, Favre owed the State of Mississippi $1,100,000.00

in principal along with accrued interest of $437,000.00.

144.On or about May 6, 2020, Favre admitted he was personally responsible, that

he did not contest his responsibility and promised the State of Mississippi that he would

pay all he owed to the State in the “coming months.”

145. On May 7, 2020, Favre paid $500,000.00, which satisfied the accrued interest

to that date, and left a principal balance owing of $740,000.00, in unpaid principal which

continued to bear statutory interest and $132,000.00 in accrued interest.11

10Miss. Code §7-7-211(g) provides for interest of “one percent (1%) per month from the
date such amount or amounts were improperly withheld, misappropriated and/or
otherwise illegally expended.”
11 See Miss. Code §75-17-9 (“When partial payments are made, the interest that has
accrued to the time of payment, if any, shall be first paid, and the residue of such partial
payment shall be placed to the payment of the principal, except that the parties may agree
in writing that such partial payment, or any portion thereof, shall be applied first to the
payment of principal, in which case the residue shall be applied to the payment of interest
that has accrued to the time of payment.”).

-43-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 44 of 86

146. On October 25, 2021, Favre tendered a payment of $600,000.00, which

reduced the principal owed by Favre to $437,000.00 with no further accrued interest

owed at that time.

147. Since October 25, 2021, an additional $292,790.00 in interest has accrued.

148. As of this date Favre is liable for least $437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along

with statutory interest which currently amounts to at least $292,790.00.

149. Favre failed to perform as promised and he should be estopped from denying

or failing to fulfill his promises.

150. The State of Mississippi was and continues to be damaged as the direct,

foreseeable and proximate result of Favre’s failure to perform as promised.

151. A refusal to enforce these promises would virtually sanction the perpetration

of fraud or would result in an injustice.

152. The Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Favre for at least

$437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory interest which currently amounts

to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth below.

153. Alternatively, to the extent that Favre’s promises are found to operate only

against and only bind Favre Enterprises, Inc., the latter should be estopped from denying

or failing to fulfill Favre’s promises.

154. The State of Mississippi was and continues to be damaged as the direct,

foreseeable and proximate result of the failure of Favre Enterprises, Inc., to perform as

Favre promised.

155. A refusal to enforce these promises would virtually sanction the perpetration

of fraud or would result in an injustice.

156. Alternatively, the Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Favre

Enterprises, Inc., for at least $437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory

-44-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 45 of 86

interest which currently amounts to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth

below.

COUNT III - EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL

157. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

158. On or about May 5, 2020, Favre owed the State of Mississippi $1,100,000.00

in principal along with accrued interest of $437,000.00.

159. On or about May 6, 2020, Favre admitted he was personally responsible, that

he did not contest his responsibility and promised the State of Mississippi that he would

pay all he owed to the State in the “coming months.”

160. Favre represents as fact that he was personally responsible and that he did not

contest his responsibility.

161. Favre represented as fact that he would pay all he owed to the State in the

“coming months.”

162. Believing Favre to be a man of his word, the State of Mississippi forbore in

collection efforts, something different from what otherwise would have been done.

163. Favre failed to perform as represented.

164. The State of Mississippi experienced detriment as “coming months” turned

into over 1 year, 5 months, 20 days and then only a partial payment was received contrary

to Favre’s representations.

165. Favre failed to perform as represented.

166. The State of Mississippi was and continues to be damaged as the direct,

foreseeable and proximate result of Favre’s failure to perform act in accordance with his

representations.

167. Equity demands that Favre be estopped from denying his representations or

-45-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 46 of 86

failing to act in accordance with his representations

168. The Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Favre for at least

$437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory interest which currently amounts

to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth below.

169. Alternatively, to the extent that Favre’s representations are found to operate

only against and only bind Favre Enterprises, Inc., the latter should be estopped from

denying or failing to fulfill Favre’s representations.

170. The State of Mississippi was and continues to be damaged as the direct,

foreseeable and proximate result of the failure of Favre Enterprises, Inc., to perform as

Favre represented.

171. Equity demands that Favre Enterprises, Inc., be estopped from denying Favre’s

representations or failing to act in accordance with his representations

172. Alternatively, the Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Favre

Enterprises, Inc., for at least $437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory

interest which currently amounts to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth

below.

COUNT IV - FASHIONED EQUITABLE REMEDY

173. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

174. Equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy.12

175. Equity and justice should not tolerate Favre and/or Favre Enterprises, Inc., to

retain any of the $1.1 Million of public funds or trust funds which were transferred by

New and/or Davis.

176. Equity and justice should not tolerate Favre and/or Favre Enterprises, Inc.,

12 MRCP 18 allows the joinder of all claims in this action.

-46-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 47 of 86

having use, possession and control of any of the $1.1 Million of public funds or trust

funds which were transferred by New and/or Davis without paying statutory interest or

interest at the statutory rate found in Miss. Code §7-7-211(g).

177. If it is determined that Counter-Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and

that traditional recognized equitable claims are inadequate to prevent these inequities,

injustices and wrongs, then the Court should fashion a remedy adequate to avoid these

inequities, injustices and wrongs and award Counter-Plaintiff is a judgment against Favre

and Favre Enterprises, Inc., for at least $437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with

statutory interest which currently amounts to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set

forth below.

COUNT V - ILLEGAL GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS

178. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

179. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §66 prohibits public officials from using public funds to

make donations or gifts or other transactions not supported by an exchange of value.

180. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §66 may be enforced, and is routinely enforced, by the

Counter-Plaintiff.

181. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §96 is self executing.

182. At all times relevant hereto, Davis was a public official.

183. At all time relevant hereto New and Davis controlled MCEC.

184. The criminal and fraudulent conduct of New and Davis demands that MCEC

be disregarded as an entity separate from either New or Davis.

185. As such, MCEC should be viewed as a fraudulent conduit by which Davis —

a public official— without legal right or authority transferred $1.1 Million in public funds

to Favre or Favre’s business.

-47-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 48 of 86

186. Alternatively, that the funds in the $1.1 Million placed in the hands of Favre

or Favre’s business were the public funds of the State of Mississippi placed in trust with

New and at no time lost the nature or character of the public funds of the State of

Mississippi, i. e., remained the public funds of the State of Mississippi

187. The transfers to Favre or Favre’s business of $1.1 Million were not supported

by any contemporaneous exchange of consideration.

188. The transfers to Favre or Favre’s business of $1.1 Million and any related

contract, if any, were illegal.

189. The transfers to Favre or Favre’s business of $1.1 Million were not made in

relation to any bona fide legal or legally enforceable contract.

190. The transfers to Favre or Favre’s business of $1.1 Million were not made in

relation to any enforceable contract or obligation having terms upon which the minds of

the parties were in agreement.13

191. As described below in the next count, Davis made an illegal gift to Favre and/

or Favre’s business by postponing enforcement of the liability and obligation of Favre or

Favre’s business as to the $1.1 Million and by failing to require Favre or Favre’s business

to place these funds in the proper treasury.

192. As such, the transfers to Favre or Favre’s business of $1.1 Million and other

gifts by Davis violated the prohibition of Miss. Const., Art., 4, §66 entitling the Counter-

Plaintiff to a judgment against Favre and/or Favre Enterprises, Inc., for at least

$437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory interest which currently amounts

to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth below.

COUNT VI - VIOLATION OF SECTION 100

193. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

13For example, in July 2019, New expressed the expectation to Favre that he would
appear at “few big things” in 2019.

-48-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 49 of 86

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

194. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §100 provided:

No obligation or liability of any person, association, or corporation held or

owned by this state … shall ever be remitted, released or postponed, or in
any way diminished by the Legislature, nor shall such liability or obligation
be extinguished except by payment thereof into the proper treasury; nor
shall such liability or obligation be exchanged or transferred except upon
payment of its face value; but this shall not be construed to prevent the
Legislature from providing by general law for the compromise of doubtful
claims.

195. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §100 may be enforced, and is routinely enforced, by the

Counter-Plaintiff.

196. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §100 is self executing.

197. At all times relevant hereto, Davis was a public official bound by Miss.

Const., Art., 4, §100.

198. At all times relevant hereto, MDHS was a creature of the Mississippi

Legislature having only those limited express and reasonably implied powers.

199. The limited express and reasonably implied powers did not include the ability

to violate Miss. Const., Art., 4, §100.

200. At all time relevant hereto New and Davis controlled MCEC.

201. The criminal and fraudulent conduct of New and Davis demands that MCEC

be disregarded as an entity separate from either New or Davis.

202. As such MCEC should be viewed as a fraudulent conduit by which Davis —

a public official— transferred $1.1 Million in public funds to Favre or Favre’s business.

203. The entirety of the subject $1.1 Million is not currently in the proper treasury.

204. At all times relevant hereto Davis, while serving as executive director of

MDHS, knew that Favre or Favre’s business was liable and under the obligation to return

to the State of Mississippi the $1.1 Million which Davis had illegally authorized to be

-49-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 50 of 86

paid to Favre or Favre’s business.

205. For Favre’s benefit and to conceal misdeeds, Davis postponed the liability and/

or obligation of Favre or Favre’s business and conspired with New and Favre to conceal

such liability or obligation so that it would not be deposited in proper treasury nor full

payment to be made at its face value.

206. As such the Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Favre and/or

Favre Enterprises, Inc., for at least $437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory

interest which currently amounts to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth

below which constitute the postponed liability or obligation and as those funds may be

placed in the proper treasury.

COUNT VII - VIOLATION OF §96

207. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

208. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §96 prohibits public officials from using public funds to

authorize payment, or part payment, of any claim under any contract not authorized by

law.

209. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §96 may be enforced, and is routinely enforced, by the

Counter-Plaintiff.

210. Miss. Const., Art., 4, §96 is self executing.

211. At all times relevant hereto, Davis was a public official.

212. At all time relevant hereto New and Davis controlled MCEC.

213. The criminal and fraudulent conduct of New and Davis demands that MCEC

be disregarded as an entity separate from either New or Davis.

214. As such MCEC should be viewed as a fraudulent conduit by which Davis —

a public official— transferred $1.1 Million in public funds to Favre or Favre’s business.

-50-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 51 of 86

215. Alternatively, the funds in the $1.1 Million placed in the hands of Favre or

Favre’s business were the public funds of the State of Mississippi placed in trust with New

and at no time lost the nature or character of the public funds of the State of Mississippi,

i. e., remained the public funds of the State of Mississippi.

216. No legal contract existed by which Favre or Favre’s business was entitled to

the subject $1.1 Million or entitled to retain any portion thereof.

217. Any attempted contract between Favre and/or Favre’s business and New,

MCEC and/or Davis was not authorized by law. See e.g., Miss. Code §43-17-1.

218. Particularly the law did not authorize New and/or Davis to contract to

expend public funds on advertising or public relations contrary to those applicable federal

regulations as cited elsewhere herein.

219. Particularly the law did not authorize New and/or Davis to contract to

expend public funds on advertising or public relations contrary to full compliance with

the applicable MDHS regulations.

220. Particularly the law did not authorize New and/or Davis to contract to

expend public funds on advertising or public relations contrary to those applicable

MDHS contracts as cited elsewhere herein.

221. Particularly the law did not authorize New and/or Davis to contract to

expend public funds on “brick and mortar” construction via a contract, if any, created to

conceal the true purpose of the transfer(s).

222. The transfers to Favre or Favre’s business of $1.1 Million constitutes a

prohibited payment, or part payment, of a claim under any contract not authorized by

law.

223. As such transfers to Favre or Favre’s business of $1.1 Million violated the

prohibition of Miss. Const., Art., 4, §96 entitling the Counter-Plaintiff to a judgment

-51-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 52 of 86

against Favre and/or Favre Enterprises, Inc., for at least $437,000.00 in unpaid principal,

along with statutory interest which currently amounts to at least $292,790.00, and all

other relief set forth below.

COUNT VIII - VIOLATIONS OF MISS. CODE §31-7-57

224. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

225. Miss. Code §31-7-57 may be enforced, and is routinely enforced, by the

Counter-Plaintiff.

226. Miss. Code §31-7-57(1) prohibits any appointed public officer or the

executive head of an agency from authorizing the expenditure of “any money” to an

object not authorized by law.

227. At all times relevant hereto, Davis was an appointed public officer or the

executive head of an agency.

228. At all time relevant hereto New and Davis controlled MCEC.

229. The criminal and fraudulent conduct of New and Davis demands that MCEC

be disregarded as an entity separate from either New or Davis.

230. As such MCEC should be viewed as a fraudulent conduit by which Davis —

a public official— transferred $1.1 Million in public funds to Favre or Favre’s business.

231. Davis unlawfully authorized the expenditure of money — $1.1 Million— to

Favre or Favre’s business.

232. This expenditure of money — $1.1 Million— to Favre or Favre’s business was

not authorized by Miss. Code §43-17-1 or any other provision of law or implied

authority.

233. This expenditure of money — $1.1 Million— to Favre or Favre’s business was

not authorized by any statute or regulations which sets the legal parameters of the limited

-52-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 53 of 86

authority of MDHS.

234. No provision of law authorized New or MCEC to expend the $1.1 Million in

public funds to Favre or Favre’s business.

235. Miss. Code §31-7-57(1) provides no safe harbor for a person or entity which

receives an expenditure of “any money” to an object not authorized by law.

236. The State of Mississippi has been damaged receipt of these funds by Favre

and/or Favre’s business and each is liable in the full amount of the appropriation or

expenditure as will fully and completely compensate and repay such public funds for any

actual loss caused by such appropriation or expenditure.

237. The violation of Miss. Code §31-7-57(1) by Davis entitles the Counter-

Plaintiff to a judgment against Favre and/or Favre Enterprises, Inc., for at least

$437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory interest which currently amounts

to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth below.

238. Miss. Code §31-7-57(3) provides:

The individual … officers … of any agency or governing authority as

defined in Section 31-7-1 causing any public funds to be expended … in any
manner whatsoever, contrary to or without complying with any statute of
the State of Mississippi, regulating or prescribing the manner in which such
… payment or expenditure made, shall be liable, individually, and upon
their official bond, for compensatory damages, in such sum up to the full
amount of such contract, purchase, expenditure or payment as will fully and
completely compensate and repay such public funds for any actual loss
caused by such unlawful expenditure.

239. At all times relevant hereto, Davis was an appointed public officer or the

executive head of an agency.

240. At all time relevant hereto New and Davis controlled MCEC.

241. The criminal and fraudulent conduct of New and Davis demands that MCEC

be disregarded as an entity separate from either New or Davis.

242. As such MCEC should be viewed as a fraudulent conduit by which Davis —

-53-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 54 of 86

a public official— transferred $1.1 Million in public funds to Favre or Favre’s business.

243. Davis unlawfully authorized the expenditure of money — $1.1 Million— to

Favre or Favre’s business.

244. Davis repeatedly caused public funds to be expended, in a manner whatsoever,

contrary to or without complying with any statute of the State of Mississippi, regulating

or prescribing the manner in which such payment or expenditure are to be made. Specially

these expenditures include the subject $1.1 Million transferred to Favre or Favre’s

business.

245. Miss. Code §31-7-51(3) provides no safe harbor for a person or entity which

receives an expenditure made contrary to or without complying with any statute of the

State of Mississippi, regulating or prescribing the manner in which such payment or

expenditure are to be made.

246. The State of Mississippi has been damaged by Favre and/or Favre’s business

receipt of these funds and is entitled to compensatory damages, in such sum up to the full

amount of such expenditure or payment as will fully and completely compensate and

repay such public funds for any actual loss caused by such unlawful expenditure.

247. The violation of Miss. Code §31-7-51(1) by Davis entitles the Counter-

Plaintiff to a judgment against Favre and/or Favre Enterprises, Inc., for at least

$437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory interest which currently amounts

to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth below.

COUNT IX - DEBTS DUE UNDER MISS. CODE §43-1-27

248. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

249. Miss. Code §43-1-27 provides, “Any sums paid to or on behalf of any person,

entity or subgrantee … obtained or received under any state or federally funded assistance

-54-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 55 of 86

program as a result of any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of a material

fact, … or by whatever means, becomes a debt due to the state department of public

welfare.” (Emphasis added).

250. Miss. Code §43-1-27 may be enforced, and is routinely enforced, by the

Counter-Plaintiff.

251. MDHS is the state agency formerly known as the state department of public

welfare.

252. At no time did MCEC receive any funds from MDHS which were not funds

from a state funded assistance program or a federally funded assistance program.

253. On the dates which New transferred all or part of the subject $1.1 Million to

Favre or Favre’s business, MCEC had no funds with which to complete such transfers

other than funds received under state funded assistance program or a federally funded

assistance program.

254. The funds transferred to MCEC, New and Davis were sums obtained or

received under a state funded assistance program or a federally funded assistance

program.

255. MCEC, New and Davis obtained such funds by false statement,

misrepresentation, concealment of a material fact or by whatever means.

256. The $1.1 Million in funds transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business were

sums obtained or received under a state funded assistance program or a federally funded

assistance program.

257. Favre and/or Favre’s business obtained such funds by concealment of a

material facts from Funding Division of the Mississippi Department of Human Services

(“MDHS”), and in particular to the MDHS Funding Division Director, various Fiscal and

Integrity Officers at MDHS.

-55-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 56 of 86

258. Favre and/or Favre’s business obtained such funds by “whatever means”

within the prohibition of Miss. Code §43-1-27. Particularly, Favre and/or Favre’s business

engaged in those means outline in this Counterclaim.

259. On or about October 21, 2021, OSA made demand on Favre and Favre’s

business14 and Favre and Favre’s business have failed and refused to pay this debt in full

with interest.

260. Favre and Favre’s business failed to pay in breach of the obligations imposed

on them by Miss. Code §43-1-27; the State of Mississippi has been damaged, and

continues to be damaged by this breach; and the Counter-Plaintiff is now discharging his

duties under Mississippi law, including but not limited to Miss. Code §7-7-211(g) and the

exclusive rights and processes set forth therein.

261. The violation of Miss. Code §31-7-51(1) by Davis entitles the Counter-

Plaintiff to a judgment against Favre and/or Favre Enterprises, Inc., for at least

$437,000.00 in unpaid principal, along with statutory interest which currently amounts

to at least $292,790.00, and all other relief set forth below.

COUNT X - MISSISSIPPI UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT

262. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

263. The Counter-Plaintiff has claims as defined by Miss. Code §15-3-101(c)

against MCEC, including but not limited to the claims for those unlawful transfers

totaling $1.1 Million made to Favre and Favre’s business. Those transfers breached

contracts, violated state law and regulations and federal law and regulations and were

part of a scheme by, at least New, Zach New and Davis to defraud the State of

Mississippi.

14This demand had inadvertently incorrectly calculated the amounts then due from Favre
and/or Favre’s business.

-56-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 57 of 86

264. The Counter-Plaintiff is a creditor of MCEC as defined by Miss. Code

§15-3-101(d).

265. On the dates and at the times of those unlawful transfers totaling $1.1

Million made to Favre and Favre’s business, MCEC was insolvent.

266. No value was given by Favre and Favre’s business on the dates and at the

times of those unlawful transfers totaling $1.1 Million were made to Favre and Favre’s

business, as required by Miss. Code §15-3-105.

267. This creditor’s claims against MCEC arose as early the first quarter of 2017

and predate the transfers to Favre and Favre’s business.

268. MCEC made the transfers, in part, with actual intent to hinder, delay or

defraud any creditor of the debtor as described in Miss. Code §15-3-107.

269. MCEC made a transfer to Favre and/or Favre’s business in December 2017

without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation.

270. MCEC made a transfer, within the meaning of Miss. Code §15-3-109, to

Favre and/or Favre’s business in December 2017 while insolvent.

271. In December 2017, MCEC was engaged a business or a transaction or

transactions for which the remaining assets of MCEC were unreasonably small in relation

to the business or transactions.

272. In September 2017, MCEC had entered into a contract under which it was

bound to provide up to $21,006,065.00 in services to qualified poor people and related

administrative services and was obligated to pay for such services and administrative cost

up front and seek reimbursement or to seek a cash advance limited to sixty (60) days of

cash needs approved after full disclosures to Funding Division of the Mississippi

Department of Human Services (“MDHS”), and in particular to the MDHS Funding

Division Director, various Fiscal and Integrity Officers at MDHS.

-57-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 58 of 86

273. Moreover MCEC had breached and defrauded MDHS with regard to the

SubGrant Agreements covering the previous fiscal year such that MCEC’s liability

exceeded already its assets.

274. Alternatively in December 2017, MCEC believed or reasonably should have

believed that it would incur, debts beyond its ability to pay as they became due.

275. The facts set forth above about the December 2017, transfer, are equally true

for the transfer to Favre and Favre business made in June of 2018.

276. Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment providing for the avoidance of the

transfers of $1.1 Million to the extent necessary to satisfy the Counter-Plaintiff’s $1.1

Million claim against MCEC; an attachment or other provisional remedy against the $1.1

Million transferred or other property of the Favre or Favre’s business.

277.Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against further disposition by the

Favre or Favre’s business, of the $1.1 Million transferred or of other property of the Favre

or Favre’s business; or any other relief the circumstances may require.

COUNT XI - FRAUD

278. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

279. On July 29, 2017, Favre offered to donate or gift the recording of a public

service announcement to “help” Nancy New (“New”).

280. In the coming days and months after this “quick and easy” donative gesture

was made, it was abandoned, casted aside and replaced with a fraudulent scheme to

obtain money from the State of Mississippi.

281. Between July 2017 and November 6, 2019,15 within this judicial district and

Forrest, Lamar and Harrison Counties, the Plaintiff engaged in a fraudulent scheme with

15 This is the date Nancy New signed documents closing out the TANF Fund Subgrant for
fiscal year 2018 (July 1, 2017 - September 30, 2018).

-58-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 59 of 86

Nancy New (“New”), Culumber and John Davis (“Davis”) to obtain $1.1 Million in

restricted grant funds from the State of Mississippi.

282. During this time period and at these places, Favre, New, and Davis each knew

the restricted funds could not be used for construction of buildings.

283. During this time period and at these places, Favre, New, and Davis each knew

the restricted funds were state funds and were to be directed at the meeting the needs of

that economic class of people who need state shelters, state schools or state homes.

284. During this time period and at these places, Favre, New, Culumber and Davis

each knew the restricted funds could not be used for gifts or transfers in which no value

was exchanged or in exchange for vague and uncertain promises as to future events.

285. During this time period and at these places, Culumber acted as the authorized

agent and representative of Favre and Favre’s business possessing both apparent and

actual authority to act and speak on behalf of Favre and Favre’s business.

286. During this time period and at these places, New acted as the authorized

agent and representative of Favre and Favre’s business possessing both apparent and

actual authority to act and speak on behalf of Favre and Favre’s business in making

representations to government officials or concealing information in furtherance of the

fraudulent scheme and obtaining government funds which Favre and New could expend

as they wished.

287. During this time period and at these places, Favre, New, and Davis agreed to

launder said restricted grant funds through Favre or Favre’s business and then cause the

restricted grant funds to used for the forbidden purpose of construction of a building or

buildings or to be pocketed by Favre. This laundering was carried out in total secrecy at

Favre’s insistence or under the false guise of a spokesperson role for a state funded entity

which was supposed to be serving the poor.

-59-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 60 of 86

288.During this time period and at these places, Favre repeatedly took affirmative

actions which were designed or intended to prevent and which did prevent, the discovery

of the material facts giving rise to this fraud claim and defense. These actions include —at

these times and places— repeatedly insisting on secrecy as to the transfers, the source of

funds and any relationship between Favre and the poor and needy and the institutions by

which the state served the poor and needy.

289. At these times and places, Favre was under the legal duty —whether he knew

it or not— to disclose these material facts — or refrain from insisting that his agent New

not disclose these material facts— to the Funding Division of the Mississippi Department

of Human Services (“MDHS”), and in particular to the MDHS Funding Division Director,

various Fiscal and Integrity Officers at MDHS and gain necessary written approvals.

290. Favre knew, should have know or was at least on notice to inquire with the

State about the other restrictions on the funds which New and Davis seemed to be

handing out like candy.

291. In furtherance of the fraudulent scheme, $1.1 Million —almost 4% of total

grant funds16 which were supposed to be benefiting poor children and their families and

which were made available to the entity controlled by New and Davis— was transferred

to Favre’s control or possession without any corresponding exchange of value.

292. Favre, New and Davis further agreed that if a separate scheme to divert $4

Millions in restricts funds was rejected by those leery of and concerned about legality and

propriety then the laundering operation through Favre would just be increased.

293. Favre himself described the first $500,000.00 transfer from New and Davis as

a gift from Santa.

16 Control over $10,797,226.23 was provided to New under Subgrant Agreements for
FY 2017, i.e., 4.63%. Control over $18,437,792.29 was provided to New under Subgrant
Agreement No. 6012990 for FY 2018, i.e., 3.25%.

-60-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 61 of 86

294. At all relevant times and at these places, Favre, New and Davis concealed

from the Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division Director and

other MDHS Fiscal and Integrity Officers that Favre was receiving state funds, and had

done nothing of value in exchange for the transfer of $1.1 Million.

295. At all relevant times and at these places, Favre, New and Davis concealed

from the Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division Director and

other MDHS Fiscal and Integrity Officers the exorbitant, unreasonable, and illegal

amounts which Favre received for doing nothing.

296. The Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division Director

and other MDHS Fiscal and Integrity Officers had the right to expect that New and Favre

would disclose their transactions through a pre-approval process.

297. New and Davis were under a duty not to expend funds or to have New return

to MDHS funds not spent in compliance with her approved budget, purchasing

regulations and compliance with the other restrictions of federal and state law, federal and

state regulations and applicable contract documents.

298. Favre was under the duty to not accept transfers of restricted state funds

when he had done nothing to earn such funds. Favre was under the duty to not accept

transfers of restricted state funds when the restrictions which he knew or should have

known were violated, including but not limited to those laws, regulations and restrictions

applicable to contractors or subcontractors of a subgrantee of MDHS.

299. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

300. Instead, Favre demanded secrecy which defeated all of the safeguards which

the Funding Division of MDHS, and the MDHS Funding Division Director and other

MDHS Fiscal and Integrity Officers could bring to bear, and MDHS, and very poor

children and families, were damaged thereby.

-61-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 62 of 86

301. Between July 9, 2019 and February 9, 2023, within this judicial district and

Forrest, Lamar and Harrison Counties, the Plaintiff engaged in a fraudulent scheme with

New and Culumber to conceal and cover-up the fraudulent scheme by which Favre gained

possession or control of $1.1 Million in restricted grant funds from the State of

Mississippi.

302. During this time period and at these places, Culumber acted as the authorized

agent and representative of Favre and Favre’s business possessing both apparent and

actual authority to act on behalf of Favre and Favre’s business.

303. On or about July 9, 2019, the State Auditor directed the the Financial and

Compliance Audit Division of the Mississippi Department of Audit —also known as the

Office of the State Auditor (“OSA”)— to conduct a single audit of MDHS for Fiscal Year

2019 (July 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019), with a particular focus on funds obtained

from MDHS by New and the entity New controlled named Mississippi Community

Education Center (“MCEC”).17 Another Division within OSA also sprang to action.

304. On July 18, 2019, in the places described above, Favre —while trying to lay

his hands on even more state money— falsely told then Governor Phil Bryant that Favre

had “been involved in several of Nancy’s families first activities.”

305. Favre —knowing he had done “little” or nothing— made this false statement

mere seconds after New had basically informed Favre that the most he had done was an

announcement and that he was present —apparently accidentally and with no

coordination— at some events where New’s organization also had “activities.” New gave

no indication to Favre that he had engaged in such activities. That same day, New told

Favre: “We have the necessary paperwork on file and I worked with your accountant on

anything [sic]. Actually, it is ok and perfectly legal had I paid you.”

17 It was later learned that New claims that MCEC fell under the controlled by Davis
through his role as Executive Director of MDHS.

-62-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 63 of 86

306. On September 1, 2019, Favre asked New “Did you speak to Bobby?”

307. During the course of the single audit and relate inquires, OSA requested

MCEC provide all documents concerning any financial arrange with Favre or Favre’s

business. OSA obtained or secured a document from MCEC signed by New and bearing

the purported signature of Culumber.

308. The records of MCEC also included a documents entitled “Scope of Work to

be Performed” which outlined Favre being an active spokesperson and to be engaged in a

wide range of duties.

309. The records of MCEC also included a draft email to Favre and Culumber

which outlined Favre being an active spokesperson and to be engaged in a wide range of

duties and a document with a list of dates for activities for Favre to attend in 2017 and

2018.

310. That was it. No other written documents of a contractual nature concerning

Favre were provided by MCEC. No other written documents of a contractual nature

concerning Favre were found by OSA personal.

311. Neither Favre, New, Davis, nor Culumber have produced any documents

which support Favre’s claims to the $1.1 Million for a single recordings of a 57 word

script. Not a single document.

312. Having these few documents in hand, Stephanie C. Palmertree, CPA, CGMA,

then Director, Financial and Compliance Audit Division (“Palmertree”), made official

contact and spoke with Culumber concerning the transactions in December 2017 and

June 2018.

313. On or about November 8, 2019, Culumber, acting as an authorized

representative of both Favre and Favre’s business with both real and apparent authority,

represented to Palmertree that Favre was paid by MCEC for “speaking engagements and

-63-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 64 of 86

events which Favre attended.”

314. When Palmertree emailed Culumber that same day, and asked him “to

confirm our phone call, Mr. Favre was paid by MCEC for speaking engagements, and

events that he attended” and verify that Culumber had in fact signed the document

appearing above, Culumber responded:

All is good. Have a great weekend! It’s going to be cold!

315. Taking the care necessary to make sure these matters were clear, Palmertree

emailed Culumber again asking “[s]orry to be such a pest, but I need you to confirm yes

or no that it’s your signature so I can move on to the next grantee.”

316. On November 8, 2019, Culumber emailed Director Palmertree and stated:

“yes.”

317. In February 2020, Nancy New, Zachary New and John Davis were arrested

for defrauding MDHS.

318. In May, 2020, Favre wrote to New, “I want to stick it to them so bad. Your a

good person Nancy and you have to dig in!! We have to get our reputation[s] back.”

319. In May, 2020, Favre and New started trying to get their stories straight about

what was done and paid.

320. On May 7, 2020, Favre —with full knowledge of his acts and omissions—

caused a $500,000.00 check to be delivered to a Special Agent of OSA.

321. At the same time Favre represented to the State of Mississippi that he

accepted responsibility and would not contest his liability and would he would pay all he

owed to the State in the “coming months.”

322. Favre’s promise to pay in the “coming months” was false. Favre knew the

falsity or was ignorance of its truth.

323. Favre intended that it should be acted on by hearer.

-64-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 65 of 86

324. It now appears clear that his vow to “stick them” involved over a year delay

in making any partial payment and the claim of entitlement to an interest free loan of

taxpayer money, especially money intended for benefit the poor.

325. Favre’s representations concerning accepted responsibility and would not

contest his liability and would he would pay all he owed to the State in the “coming

months” were materiality, and the hearer of his representations were ignorant of the

falsity.

326. The State of Mississippi reliance on its truth and had a his right to rely

thereon.

327. The State of Mississippi temporally forbore in collection from Favre and as

the result of his fraudulent statement suffered consequent and proximate injury.

328. A short time latter, Favre told ESPN Wisconsin’s “Wilde & Tausch” radio

show was he was just being paid for his role in radio public service announcements and

advertisements that ran for a few years in Mississippi.

329. “I did ads that ran for three years, was paid for it, no different than any other

time that I’ve done endorsements for other people, and I went about my way,” Favre said.

Favre reportedly “emphasized Friday the money had nothing to do with scheduled

speaking engagements.”

330. This statement and statements like it are, and were, intended by Favre to

cover up the true facts and particularly his involvement in the fraudulent scheme set forth

above.

331. It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s statement that he did multiple “ads” when

he recorded a single 57 word script. Moreover, Favre recorded the single 57 word script

on August 13, 2018. When he claimed in May 2020 “ads … ran for three years” less than

three (3) years had passed since the recording.

-65-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 66 of 86

332. It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s May 2020 claim that all he was required

to do was record a single 57 word script, with his statement in July 2017, that he “could

record a few radio spots.”

333. It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s statements in May 2020, with his July 18,

2019 statement to then Governor Phil Bryant, that Favre had “been involved in several of

Nancy’s families first activities.”

334. It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s statements in May 2020, with the

statements of his authorized representative that Favre was paid for “speaking

engagements and events” which he actually attended.

335. It is impossible to reconcile Favre’s statements in May 2020 with the

numerous text messages of New to Favre where New stated: “just a few things here and

there spread out, will be plenty”; “let’s get our calendars together on a few activities”; “in

the next few days could I send you a draft proposal to do a couple of psa’s, etc. for

Families First”; “if you get a chance let John know you will do things to help me promote

Families First. I have just been waiting to get with you. Actually. I am saving you for a few

special times”; “If you have a few minutes to spare to speak to 7th-12th graders and some

community college students that will be great”; and “Zach has developed a list of a few

big things that we were going to ask you to appear this year [2019].”

336. On May 14, 2020, New summed it up by telling Favre “Stick to you doing the

work. That’s enough because they will twist anything else we say. Anything…. Anyway,

you are definitely right to say you did the work, but best not to say too much more as it

definitely will be twisted.” To which Favre replied: “Ok.”

337. On October 12, 2021, the State Auditor issued demand letters to Favre,

Favre’s business and Culumber for principal and interest.

338. On October 25, 2021, Favre —with full knowledge of his acts and omissions

-66-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 67 of 86

— caused a $600,000.00 check to be delivered to OSA.

339. On November 10, 2021, Culumber caused a letter to be sent to the State

Auditor representing that Culumber had done nothing for Favre and Favre’s business

other than prepare tax returns and act as the agent for service of process for Favre’s

business. The letter demanded retractions and implied legal action would be taken

personally against the State Auditor.

340. These representations cannot be reconciled with Culumber’s interactions with

Palmertree and Favre’s communications with New.

341. No retraction or apology was given and Culumber went silent.

342. On April 22, 2022, Nancy New and Zachary New pleaded guilty to

defrauding MDHS. Their guilty pleas reflect bribes and fraud starting as early the first

quarter of 2017.

343. On September 26, 2022, Davis pleaded guilty to conspiring with New to

defraud MDHS and to, with New, defrauding MDHS.

344. On February 6, 2023, counsel for Favre —instead of sending Favre’s check to

make whole MDHS and its program to help the poorest of the poor— sent the Defendant

a letter demanding that he retract and apologize to Favre for alleged defamatory

statements and threatening vindication and the imposition of “substantial damages.”

345. On February 9, 2023, counsel for Favre —instead of sending Favre’s check to

make whole MDHS and its program to help the poorest of the poor— filed as lawsuit

seeking money from the Defendant.

346. Favre had failed and refused to pay the funds demanded of him. His

Fraudulent Scheme to cover up the true material facts has caused, and continues to cause,

damage to the State of Mississippi, and very poor children and families which MDHS

serves.

-67-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 68 of 86

347. The fraud committed by Favre is also borne by Favre Enterprises Inc., as the

former is vicarious liable for torts committed y Favre within the scope of employment or

agency.

348. Favre, Favre Enterprises, Inc., and Culumber acted intentionally, in bad faith,

and were willful or grossly negligent.

349. This willful, reckless or grossly negligent conduct by Favre and Favre

Enterprises, Inc., and Culumber was attended by such malice, insult, and abuse that it

constitutes an independent tort by Favre, Favre Enterprises, Inc., and Culumber thus

entitling the Counter-Plaintiff to recover punitive damages and/or extra-contractual

damages from Favre and Favre Enterprises, Inc., as well as the actual damages and other

relief.

COUNT XII - NEGLIGENCE

350. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

351. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that the funds transferred to Favre

and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were “state funds.”

352. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that the funds

transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were “state funds.”

353. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that expenditures of “state funds”

could not be kept secret or confidential.

354. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that expenditures of

“state funds” could not be kept secret or confidential.

355. In fact a reasonable person exercising ordinary prudence in the same or

similar circumstances using ordinary care would take a willingness to keep such matters

secret or conditional as a serious red flag warning against such a transaction with the

-68-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 69 of 86

failure to decline such a transaction or the failure to make further inquires of a reliable

source being negligent.

356. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that the funds transferred to Favre

and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were funds which had the State of Mississippi

as the source.

357. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that the funds

transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were funds which had the

State of Mississippi as the source.

358. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that the funds transferred to Favre

and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were restricted funds.

359. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that the funds

transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were restricted funds.

360. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that the funds transferred to Favre

and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were restricted funds which could not be spend

on construction of buildings.

361. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that the funds

transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were restricted funds

which could not be spend on construction of buildings.

362. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that the funds

transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were restricted funds

which could not be spent on advertisement and public relations.

363. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that the funds

transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were restricted funds

which could not be spent contrary to federal law and regulations.

364. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that the funds

-69-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 70 of 86

transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were restricted funds

which could not be spent contrary to state law and regulations.

365. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that the funds

transferred to Favre and/or Favre’s business by New or MCEC were restricted funds

which could not be spent contrary to the contractual agreements by which New gained

control over such funds.

366. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that he and New agreed and intended

for New to control how Favre or Favre’s business spent the $1.1 Million he received.

367. A reasonable person exercising ordinary prudence in the same or similar

circumstances using ordinary care would take a person’s insistence at controlling allegedly

earned funds of another person as a serious red flag warning against such a transaction

with the failure to decline such a transaction or the failure to make further inquires of a

reliable source being negligent.

368. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that he and New agree and intended

for New to control how the $1.1 Million he received even after he transferred the money

to someone else.

369. A reasonable person exercising ordinary prudence in the same or similar

circumstances using ordinary care would take a person’s insistence at controlling allegedly

earned funds of another person after the former transferred the funds to yet another

person as a serious red flag warning against such a transaction with the failure to decline

such a transaction or the failure to make further inquires of a reliable source being

negligent.

370. At all time relevant hereto, Favre should have known that funds which could

not be used for construction could not be laundered through a possible personal service

contract where each party knew for a fact that the possible personal service contract only

-70-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 71 of 86

would exist as a vehicle to launder funds which they each wanted to the money to go to

construction and be spent on such construction only in ways which they wished.

371. A reasonable person exercising ordinary prudence in the same or similar

circumstances using ordinary care would take such a laundering scheme as a serious red

flag warning against such a transaction with the failure to decline such a transaction or

the failure to make further inquires of a reliable source being negligent.

372. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that expenditures involving these

restricted funds required due diligence by the recipient of such funds and consultation

with independent expert advisers.

373. A reasonable person exercising ordinary prudence in the same or similar

circumstances using ordinary care would in advance of accepting restricted decline such a

transaction until the completion of further inquires of and consultations with a reliable

source or sources being negligent.

374. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that careful, prudent and reasonable

people using ordinary care did not take the word of New that an expenditure involving

these restricted funds was proper and instead further inquiry and consultations were

necessary with the failure to do so being negligent.

375. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that careful, prudent and reasonable

people using ordinary care did not take the word of Davis that an expenditure involving

these restrict funds was proper and instead further inquiry and consultations were

necessary.

376. In fact Favre had witnessed the fact that careful, prudent and reasonable

people using ordinary care did not take the word of New or Davis that an expenditure

involving these restrict funds was proper and instead further inquiry and consultations

were necessary.

-71-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 72 of 86

377. A reasonable person exercising ordinary prudence and care in the same or

similar circumstances would in advance of accepting the opinions of New and/or Davis

would decline such a transaction until the completion of further inquires of and

consultations with a reliable source or sources. The failure to do so being negligent.

378. Favre had been told by New that they would need a written agreement.

Receiving $1.1 Million with no contract was negligent.

379. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that careful, prudent and reasonable

people using ordinary care did not accept and retain $500,000.00, received out of the

blue, with no agreement as to what the money was for and when having done absolutely

nothing to deserve a $500,000.00 transfer. Receiving and retaining $500,000.00 in such

circumstance was negligent.

380. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that careful, prudent and reasonable

people using ordinary care did not accept and retain $600,000.00, received out of the

blue, with no agreement as to what the money was for and when having done absolutely

nothing to deserve a $600,000.00 transfer. Receiving and retaining $600,000.00 in such

circumstance was negligent.

381. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that careful, prudent and reasonable

people using ordinary care would not retain any part of money which they had received

from persons arrested for criminal fraud and bribery and instead had a duty to seek out

the victim/rightful owner or their representative and return all of the money received and

any interest which has been accrued or obtained. Retaining and failing to promptly deliver

to any part of such money and interest to the victim/rightful owner in such circumstance

is negligent.

382. At all time relevant hereto, Favre knew that careful, prudent and reasonable

people using ordinary care would not retain any part of money which they had received

-72-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 73 of 86

from persons convicted for criminal fraud and bribery and instead had a duty to seek out

the victim/rightful owner or their representative and return all of the money received and

any interest which has been accrued or obtained. Retaining and failing to promptly deliver

to any part of such money and interest to the victim/rightful owner in such circumstance

is negligent.

383. Favre either knew or by the exercise of reasonable care or should have known

of the wrongful nature of the deliver by New of $1.1 Million to his possession or control

and the wrongful nature of a plan to attempt to convert restricted funds and apply such

funds to construction expenses and should have objected and taken steps to prevent it.

384. Favre’s failure to know wrongful nature of the delivery by New of $1.1

Million to his possession or control and the wrongful nature of a plan to attempt to

convert restricted funds and apply such funds to construction expenses was negligent. A

careful, prudent and reasonable people using ordinary care would have known.

385. Favre’s failure to object to the delivery by New of $1.1 Million to his

possession or control and failure to object a plan to attempt to convert restricted funds

and apply such funds to construction expenses was negligent. A careful, prudent and

reasonable people using ordinary care would have objected.

386.Favre’s failure to take steps to stop the delivery by New of $1.1 Million to his

possession or control and failure to stop the plan to attempt to convert restricted funds

and apply such funds to construction expenses was negligent. A careful, prudent and

reasonable people using ordinary care would have stopped it.

387. The State of Mississippi suffered, and continues to suffer, damages as a direct

and proximate result of the negligence of Favre as described in the forgoing paragraphs of

this Count.

388. At all time relevant hereto, Favre authorized New to act on his behalf in

-73-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 74 of 86

dealing with official of the State of Mississippi concerning expenditures of restricted state

funds.

389. While acting on behalf of Favre, New omitted to inform the Funding Division

of the Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”), and in particular to the

MDHS Funding Division Director, various Fiscal and Integrity Officers at MDHS that she

was, or had, delivered state money to Favre.

390. At the same time, Favre insisted on secrecy concerning as to the transfers, the

source of funds and any relationship, real or contrived, between Favre and the poor and

needy and the institutions by which the state served the poor and needy. In absence of his

insistence of secrecy concerning the transfers and source and relationship, real or

contrived, Favre could have easily identified that he needed to disclose information to

Funding Division of the Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”), and in

particular to the MDHS Funding Division Director, various Fiscal and Integrity Officers at

MDHS.

391. These omissions were material and significant.

392. Favre failed to exercise that degree of diligence and expertise the public was

entitled to expect of him.

393. The Funding Division of the Mississippi Department of Human Services

(“MDHS”), and in particular to the MDHS Funding Division Director, various Fiscal and

Integrity Officers at MDHS reasonably relied upon Favre or his agent New to disclose the

proposed or completed transactions with Favre or Favre’s business.

394. The State of Mississippi suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of

its reasonable reliance upon the omissions of Favre or his agent New.

395. In May 2020, Favre made representations that he took full responsibility for

his receipt of $1.1 Million from New, that he did not, and would not, contest his

-74-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 75 of 86

responsibility and that he would pay all funds due from him within a “couple of months.”

396. In May 2020, Favre omitted to disclose that he intended to delay for more

that a couple of months and that he would not take full responsibility for his receipt of

$1.1 Million from New, that he would not contest his responsibility.

397. These representations and omissions were material and significant.

398. Favre failed to exercise that degree of diligence and expertise the public was

entitled to expect of him.

399. The State of Mississippi reasonably relied Favre to fully disclose his intent and

reasonably relied on Favre’s representations.

400. The State of Mississippi suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of

its reasonable reliance upon Favre’s representations and omissions.

401. During the relevant time period and at the places indicated, Culumber acted

as the authorized agent and representative of Favre and Favre’s business possessing both

apparent and actual authority to act on behalf of Favre and Favre’s business.

402. On or about November 8, 2019, Culumber, acting as an authorized

representative of both Favre and Favre’s business with both real and apparent authority,

represented to OSA’s Palmertree that Favre was paid by MCEC for “speaking

engagements and events which Favre attended.”

403. Culumber failed to disclose and omitted the truth: there was no signed

contract and Favre had failed to attend speaking engagements and events.

404. Later Culumber claimed that he had done nothing but prepare tax returns

and act as an agent for service of process.

405. Favre for his part represented that he was only obligated to record a 57 word

script and speaking engagements and events were alien to any agreement he had with

New.

-75-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 76 of 86

406.These representations and omissions were material and significant.

407. Favre and Culumber failed to exercise that degree of diligence and expertise

the public was entitled to expect of him.

408. The State of Mississippi reasonably relied Favre and Culumber to fully

disclose the truth and make no omissions. For a time the State of Mississippi reasonably

relied on Favre’s and Culumber’s representations and claimed absence omissions.

409. The State of Mississippi suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of

its reasonable reliance upon Favre’s and Culumber’s representations and claimed absence

omissions.

410. The negligence of Favre is also borne by Favre Enterprises Inc., as the former

is vicarious liable for torts committed by Favre within the scope of employment or agency.

411. Favre, Favre Enterprises, Inc., and Culumber acted intentionally, in bad faith,

and were willful or grossly negligent.

412. This willful, reckless or grossly negligent conduct by Favre and Favre

Enterprises, Inc., and Culumber was attended by such malice, insult, and abuse that it

constitutes an independent tort by Favre, Favre Enterprises, Inc., and Culumber thus

entitling the Counter-Plaintiff to recover punitive damages and/or extra-contractual

damages from Favre and Favre Enterprises, Inc., as well as the actual damages and other

relief.

COUNT XIII - CONSPIRACY/AID AND ABET

413. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained

in the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

414. The Defendants combined for the purpose of accomplishing an unlawful

purpose or a lawful purpose unlawfully.

415. Generally the Defendants conspired and agreed with each other and New,

-76-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 77 of 86

Davis to stick it to the officials who reacted appropriately to the criminal behavior of

New and Davis and who reacted appropriately to the wrongful acts and omissions of

Favre. This very lawsuit is an overt act undertaken to in further of the goals of this

conspiracy.

416. Generally the Defendants conspired and agreed with each other and New,

Davis and others to attempt to violate and to violate the following provisions of law and

binding legal agreements or cover up and conceal violations of the following provisions of

law and binding legal agreements:

416.1. Miss. Const., Art. 4, §66, §96 and §100;

416.2. Miss. Code §31-7-57, §43-17-1, §43-1-27, and §§15-3-101 et seq.;

416.3. 2 CFR § 200.439; 2 CFR 200.421; 45 CFR 260.20; 2 CFR §200.319;

2 CFR §200.320; 2 CFR §200.53; 2 CFR §200.467; 2 CFR § 200.405;

and, 2 CFR 200.465;

416.4. Applicable provisions of the Field Operations TANF Manual; MDHS

Subgrant/Agreement Manual – (Revised 11/2/2016); 18 MS ADC Pt. 8,

§§4 -8; and,

416.5. The Subgrant Agreements and related contractual documents signed by

New.

277. The Defendants conspired and agreed with each other and New, Davis and

others to attempt to wrongfully obtain and to wrongfully possess and retain $1.1 Million

to which none of the Defendants had any valid legal right or claim.

278. The Defendants conspired and agreed with each other and New, Davis and

others to attempt to wrongfully convert or direct the funds of the State of Mississippi to

illegally accomplish the personal desires of Favre and New, to enrich Favre and ton

enhance their social standing and respect in a discreet community; to further the wrongful

-77-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 78 of 86

conversions of funds and acts of criminal and non-criminal fraud by New and Davis; and

to accomplish these wrongful acts.

279. The Defendants conspired and agreed with each other and New, Davis and

others to attempt to wrongfully attempt to commit and to commit fraud as described

herein.

280. The overt acts taken in the course of the fraud and related conspiracy to

commit fraud are set forth in detail above and are incorporated here by reference.

281. The Defendants conspired and agreed with each other and New, Davis and

others to attempt to wrongfully defeat the claims and attempts of the Counter-Plaintiff to

recover all of the $1.1 Million plus interest from the Defendants. The Defendants have

overtly acted to conceal the truth, omit significant and material facts and cover up their

wrongful acts and omissions.

282. New and Davis were in control of MCEC.

417. Favre was in control of Favre’s business.

418. During the time period of the events described in this Counterclaim, Favre

and Culumber have overtly participated in the tortious acts of each other and Favre’s

business as described herein, or has authorized or directed Favre’s business, or has acted in

his own behalf, or has knowledge of, or given any consent to, the act or transaction, or

has acquiesced in it when he either knew or by the exercise of reasonable care or should

have known of it and should have objected and taken steps to prevent it.

419. Favre and Culumber, at all pertinent times, had knowledge, or reasonably

should have had knowledge, of the statutory and regulatory duties, contractual duties and

common law duties owed by MCEC, New, Favre and Davis.

420. Favre and Culumber, at all pertinent times, overtly provided substantial

assistance or encouragement to MCEC, New, Favre and Davis that allowed the breach of

-78-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 79 of 86

duties owed to the State.

421. Favre and Culumber did these tortious acts in concert with each other and

MCEC and Favre’s Business pursuant to a common design.

422. Favre and Culumber gave substantial assistance to MCEC and Favre’s

Business and accomplishing these tortious results and their own individual conduct,

separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the State.

423. Additional in furtherance of the conspiracy, New overtly caused $1.1 Million

in state funds, also being restricted funds, to be delivered to the possession or control of

Favre.

424. Thereafter Favre and New overtly took actions to make sure these funds were

either expended on construction —which they both knew was prohibited— or were used

to reduce Favre’s personal debt or obligations incurred in relations to construction.

425. During the time period of the events described in this Counterclaim, the

Defendants have participated in the tortious acts of each other and New and Davis, or

have authorized or directed it, or have acted in his own behalf, or has knowledge of, or

given any consent to, the act or transaction, or has acquiesced in it when he either knew

or by the exercise of reasonable care or should have known of it and should have objected

and taken steps to prevent it.

426. The State of Mississippi has suffered damaged, and continues to suffer

damages as the result of proximate result of the conspiracy and aid and abetting by the

Defendants.

427. This willful, reckless or grossly negligent conduct by the Defendants was

attended by such malice, insult, and abuse that it constitutes an independent tort, thus

entitling the State recover punitive damages and/or extra-contractual damages as well as

the actual damages and other relief.

-79-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 80 of 86

COUNT XIV - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

428. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained in

the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

429. Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to Rule 57 of

the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure.

430. The judgment sought will terminate any controversy or remove any

uncertainty. MRCP 57(b)(4).

431. The rights, status, or other legal relations of the Counter-Plaintiff are affected

by a statutes, instruments, or contracts and he may have determined any question of

construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, or contract and obtain a

declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. MRCP 57(b)(1).

432. Favre in his dealings with New and Davis never represented himself as solely

acting as a representative on behalf of Favre Enterprises, Inc.

433. For example Favre exclusively used, and has exclusively continued to use, the

word “I” in his dealings with New and Davis, communications with the public and

communications with the State of Mississippi.

434. Favre has disregarded the corporate structure.

435. Favre limited the role of Favre Enterprises, Inc., to that of conduit merely

taking funds in and sending funds out.

436. At all times relevant hereto, Favre Enterprises, Inc., was merely the alter ego

of Brett Favre and should be ignored and disregarded as an entity separate from Brett

Favre.

437. Maintaining the fiction of a separate corporate existence would sanction a

fraud or promote injustice or subvert the ends of justice.

438. Alternatively Favre Enterprises, Inc., was a sham or was used in fraud or

-80-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 81 of 86

equivalent malfeasance.

439. Favre has abused of the corporate form itself.

440. The acts and omissions of Favre described herein present extraordinary

factual circumstances where to recognize a corporate veil between Favre Enterprises, Inc.,

and Favre would be to subvert the ends of justice.

441. The Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Favre

Enterprises, Inc., is the alter ego of Favre and Favre Enterprises, Inc., should be

disregarded for purposes of this action and the recovery of damages.

442. At all time relevant hereto New and Davis controlled MCEC.

443. The criminal and fraudulent conduct of New and Davis demands that MCEC

be disregarded as an entity separate from either New or Davis.Favre has disregarded the

corporate structure.

444. At all times relevant hereto, MCEC, was merely the alter ego of New and

Davis and should be ignored and disregarded as an entity separate from New and Davis.

445. Maintaining the fiction of a separate corporate existence of MCEC would

sanction a fraud or promote injustice or subvert the ends of justice.

446. Alternatively MCEC was a sham or was used in fraud or equivalent

malfeasance.

447. Davis and New have abused of the corporate form itself.

448. The acts and omissions of New and Davis described herein present

extraordinary factual circumstances where to recognize a corporate veil between New and

Davis would be to subvert the ends of justice.

449. Favre has not indicated that he will seek to hide behind the corporate form of

the MCEC criminal enterprise and seek any advantage or benefit from the corporate form

of the MCEC criminal enterprise.

-81-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 82 of 86

450. It would be unjust and inequitable for Favre to hide behind the corporate

form of the MCEC criminal enterprise

451. It would be unjust and inequitable for Favre to seek any advantage or benefit

from or defense based upon the corporate form of the MCEC criminal enterprise.

452. As such MCEC should be viewed as a fraudulent conduit by which Davis —

a public official— transferred $1.1 Million in public funds to Favre or Favre’s business.

453. In sum the $1.1 Million placed in the hands of Favre or Favre’s business were

the public funds of the State of Mississippi.

454. Alternatively, that the funds in the $1.1 Million placed in the hands of Favre

or Favre’s business were the public funds of the State of Mississippi placed in trust with

New and at no time lost the nature or character of the public funds of the State of

Mississippi, i. e., remained the public funds of the State of Mississippi.

455. The Counter-Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the $1.1

Million placed in the hands of Favre or Favre’s business were the public funds of the State

of Mississippi.

COUNT XV - COSTS OF SERVICES

456. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained in

the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

457. Miss. Code Ann. §7-7-213(2) provides that the “cost of any service by the

department not required of it under the provisions of the cited sections but made

necessary by the willful fault or negligence of an officer or employee of any public office

of the state shall be recovered … (ii) from the individual, partnership, corporation or

association involved, in the same manner and under the same terms, when necessary, as

provided the department for recovering public funds in Section 7-7-211.”

458. Davis committed willful fault or negligence which made necessary the services

-82-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 83 of 86

of an investigation by OSA.

459. These services —these investigation fees exceed $30,000.00, were not services

required to be provided by the cited sections.

460. Favre, Favre’s business and Culumber were involved in Davis’ willful fault or

negligence and therefore are liable to OSA for these cost.

COUNT XVI - ON GOING COST

461. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates and reasserts herein the averments contained in

the foregoing paragraphs of this Counterclaim.

462. As the result of the acts and omissions of Favre, the State of Mississippi has

incurred and continues to incur ongoing expenses for the operation, maintenance, and

other related cost and expense related to a building which would not exist save for the

malfeasance of Favre.

463. The State of Mississippi is entitled to recover in this action all past expenses

and the present value of all future expenses

PRAYER FOR RELEIF

Accordingly the State Auditor Shad White, in his official capacity, prays for:

A. a judgment against Brett Favre and Favre Enterprises, Inc., jointly and

individually, in the principal amount of $437,000.00, along with statutory interest which

currently amounts to at least $292,790.00, plus investigation fees of the State Auditor of

OSA, reasonable attorneys’ fees and all expenses and costs, prejudgment and post-

judgment interest on such award as allowed by law and until paid in full, and such other

and further relief, both general and special, to which the State may be entitled or as may

be just and proper;

B. a judgment against Brett Favre and Favre Enterprises, Inc., jointly and

-83-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 84 of 86

individually, providing for the avoidance of the transfers of $1.1 Million to the extent

necessary to satisfy the Counter-Plaintiff’s $1.1 Million claim against MCEC; an

attachment or other provisional remedy against the $1.1 Million transferred or other

property of the Favre or Favre’s business; an injunction against further disposition by the

Favre or Favre’s business, of the $1.1 Million transferred or of other property of the Favre

or Favre’s business; or any other relief the circumstances may require including a ward of

investigation fees of the State Auditor of OSA, reasonable attorneys’ fees and all expenses

and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on such award as allowed by law and

until paid in full, and such other and further relief, both general and special, to which the

State may be entitled or as may be just and proper; and,

C. a judgement against Brett Favre, Favre Enterprises, Inc., and Robert L.

Culumber jointly and individually, for actual, compensatory, consequential, extra-

contractual, incidental and punitive damages in an amount to be decided by the Court

directly or through a jury; reasonable attorneys’ fees and all expenses and costs, post-

judgment interest on such award as allowed by law and until paid in full, and such other

and further relief, both general and special, to which the State may be entitled or as may

be just and proper.

D. a judgement against Brett Favre for all past expenses and the present value of all

future expenses related to the expenses for the operation, maintenance, and other related

cost and expense related to a building which would not exist save for the malfeasance of

Favre in an amount to be decided by the Court directly or through a jury; reasonable

attorneys’ fees and all expenses and costs, post-judgment interest on such award as

allowed by law and until paid in full, and such other and further relief, both general and

special, to which the State may be entitled or as may be just and proper.

Dated: February 5, 2024.

-84-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 85 of 86

Respectfully submitted.

Respectfully submitted,

STATE AUDITOR SHAD WHITE

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

BY: s/ James A. Bobo

James A. Bobo, MSB NO. 3604
Counsel

Mississippi Office of the State Auditor

Post Office Box 956
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Cellphone: (601) 383-4755
Facsimile: (601) 576-2686
e-mail: james.bobo@osa.ms.gov

Mary Ford
Ms. Bar No. 104040
MS Office of The State Auditor
Post Office Box 956
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Telephone: (601) 576-2739
Facsimile: (601) 576-2686
Email: mary.ford@osa.ms.gov

Counsel For The State Auditor Shad White

JOINDER

I, Shad White, join in, adopt and assert, this Answer with its Affirmative Defenses
and in the Counterclaim, in all of my capacities both personal and official.

Dated: February 5, 2024.

s/ Shad White
Shad White

-85-
Case: 25CI1:23-cv-00095-DHG Document #: 44 Filed: 02/05/2024 Page 86 of 86

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 5, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing

pleading with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system, which sent notification to all
counsel of record.

s/ James A. Bobo
James A. Bobo

-86-