All of the articles on the SF v. Hood hearing have (with good reason) focused on one particular exchange, the one where State Farm attorney James Robie asked Jim Hood whether, at a meeting with Patterson and Balducci, they had threatened Hood would face Democratic opposition in 2007 if he did not do Scruggs’s will. Here’s the testimony from the transcript, which Rossmiller has posted here, followed by my questions for discussion:
Robie: Mr. Hood, before Scruggs settled with State Farm — and by “Scruggs” I mean Dickie Scruggs and the SKG, Scruggs Katrina Group. Before they settled the case with 640 plaintiffs, which generated a fee in excess of $20 million for Mr. Scruggs and his partners, did they dispatch Mr. Patterson and Mr. Balducci to have a dinner with you in a restaurant in Jackson to talk about that?
Hood: I don’t know. [Objection omitted] I answered your question, I thought. I didn’t know that.
Robie: I’m asking you whether or not Mr. Scruggs sent Mr. Balducci and Mr. Patterson to have dinner with you here at a restaurant in Jackson to talk about settlement of that case.
Hood: I don’t know what Mr. Scruggs did with Balducci and Patterson.
Robie: Did you have dinner with Mr. Balducci or Mr. Patterson at Crechale’s restaurant where they discussed Scruggs’ desire to settle that case?
Hood: No sir. I haven’t been to Crechale’s in a long time.
Robie: You did not have dinner with them where they discussed–
Hood: When are you talking about? And you said “Crechale’s.” I haven’t been to Crechale’s so I know I didn’t have dinner with anybody at Crechale’s.
Robie: My real question is: Did Mr. Patterson and Mr. Balducci have dinner with you and tell you that if you did not particpate or assist Mr. Scruggs in settling that mass tort action which was going to generate a 20-million-dollar-plus fee, that he would fund an alternative candidate to run against you for attorney general?
Hood: If you’re asking me did somebody come to me and threaten me, the answer is no. Now, out of all candor in this, I don’t want to mislead you. I remember having dinner on one occasion with Mr. Balducci and Mr. Patterson, but that conversation was about they were leaving the firm they were presently– that Mr. Balducci was presently with. They didn’t convey any threats to me about settling the case or anything like that.
Robie: They never suggested that if you didn’t participate in dropping your criminal investigation that Dickie Scruggs would fund an alternative candidate and Mike Moore would support that?
Hood: No, sir. Absolutely not.
That’s on pages 157-159 of the transcript.
I’ll start by noting that Hood ends up denying what Robie had asked– though the question leave open a lot of other possible threats that were delivered.
The threat Robie suggests was delivered to Hood– if it occurred– obviously brings to mind what actually happened to Insurance Commissioner George Dale. It is a fact that he did not do Scruggs’s will, had Democratic opposition strongly supported by Scruggs, was defeated, and there is sworn testimony that just such a threat was delivered to him.
The assumption is that Robie, being a professional lawyer of good reputation, would not have asked this question without some factual basis to have done so. So what’s the deal? Is this a leak from the prosecution? Has he somehow heard it directly from Patterson or Balducci? Where did this come from, and, even more importantly, why did the source tell him? Or is it baseless?
I’m going to throw open comments for discussion of what you think and why.
I think there was a LOT of money thrown around during the last election by Scruggs, Langston, Balducci, Patterson among others. Who knows who the direct “bag men” were? We have reason to believe that maybe Patterson and Blake may have been the ones with more direct political connections. Point is how many other political races were tainted with this money–maybe senate,house elections or even public service commissioners? If Robie did his homework he could have picked up this info from a variety of places.
I’m talking about a very specific bit of info, here– that Patterson and Balducci had dinner with Hood in Jackson, where they delivered a threat of Democratic opposition to Hood.
Well NMC it had to come from Baducci or Patterson–either directly or indirectly or through a leak from the pleas. Would the Feds possibly share info? In my post above I was referring more to the indirect route–where is Patterson’s friend Blake in all of this? Is he talking to someone?
You’re getting very close to my theory, Jim. I wanted to leave this open for discussion for a while and then will suggest some possibilities.
It is some of our better “food for thought”–so glad you put it up. Will be interesting!
Lately, I have seen many “professional lawyers of good reputation” get in the mudpit and sling innuendo without much support. I don’t think the good reputation part of Robie’s resume would prevent him from asking Hood about a rumor.
The most likely source for that rumor, judging from the other questions, is Jeff Jackson or some other insider at State Farm. As things were swirling around during the negotiations in late 2006, Jackson or someone else on the SF team could have heard the dinner conversation rumor.
This is just my opinion, but I think it will turn out to be unsupported, and I don’t think it came from the prosecution. And Robie’s surely not above asking Hood about an unsupported rumor if his client who is paying him lots of money per hour directs him to ask about it. It’s not anything sanctionable. He asked it; Hood denied it; they went on.
Merkel & Cocke v Scruggs case is interesting. What is the date that is was filed? Could this be a bridge to somewhere?
The take on Hood meeting with Tim and Patterson comes from the AG’s own words,”We talked,ugh, oa,about them leaving the firm that they were with. Now does this mean Patterson was being paid out of Langston firm as a what? Tim was asking if we support you with cash donations as Joey has done will you give to me what you have given to Joey..Patterson is the connection to P L BLAKE…Debate….Does Moore spell Blake????
No doubt Patterson and Blake are connected as they go back together to the now defunct Mississippi Bank–lae i970′s early 1980′s.
Folks, I’ve another post up about things Jim Hood said
Silas may be injecting a note of reality, or at least alternate reality, into the picture. I’m going to post a couple of suggestions later today.
No matter what the explanation, Robie came off like a complete amateur, and an unprofessional amateur. If he had even a kernel of non-rumor material to impeach Hood with, I imagine he would have impeached him.
I agree with Silas. State Farm’s lawyers got the information from SKG lawyers, who were assuring State Farm that they were keeping the pressure on Hood to accept the deal.
Remember the 1/18/07 letter from Barrett to Sheila Birnbaum that essentially asked State Farm not to pack up and leave if Hood does not have the wisdom to accept the deal. I do not doubt that off-line they were telling State Farm that they were using hard sell tactics on Hood.
Doesn’t this whole line of questioning completely refute State Farm’s allegation that Hood conspired with SKG to use the criminal case to coerce State Farm to settle? Hood appears to be the one who caved to coercion.
Also, Robie intentionally mistated the deal in his question. Hood did not drop the criminal case for the 640-member SKG settlement. He dropped the criminal case for the 35,000 or so member class settlement. The SKG settlement was separate, but was being held hostage by State Farm to force SKG to get Hood to drop the criminal probe.
Silas, I wasn’t reading thinking “how is Robie doing here”, and wouldn’t go so far as to say he comes off as an amateur, but he didn’t really nail Hood down on a lot of stuff, and Hood is not exactly a sophisticated witness. Robie’s questions keep giving Hood some room to wiggle out.
I was far more struck by how Hood seemed ill prepared and not a very good witness. He consistently tangled up dates and where things were in the various cases. I’m not talking credibility here at all– Hood just didn’t present a very clear or even very coherent point of view. There were times when the confusion may have been that he didn’t want to out-and-out say what had happened, but I had more of a sense of unclarity than that.
Right on. Any argument that anybody is extorting State Farm goes nowhere with me anyway. I think what happened was that one or two of the higher ups got nervous about going to jail, and pressed Birnbaum, et al. to work things out with the class action. Then when the litigation momentum turned, they decided to make the case that they were “extorted.” It’s always been a non-starter argument to me. Yes there was pressure put on, but pressure is put on in every single civil case that ever gets filed. Lawyers who can’t put pressure on the other side are unsuccessful lawyers. Not that everything is excusable, mind you, but the simple fact that SF was under pressure does not mean they were extorted.
I agree NMC. He didn’t seem to know much, and it sounded like he genuinely didn’t know much. It didn’t seem like sandbagging.
Who would have had the assignment to prepare Hood for this? Anyone? Because he certainly doesn’t sound anything like a prepared witness (the Crechale’s go-round as just one pathetic example).
That’s a good question. I bet Danny Cupit and Bill Liston prepped him, if anyone. He may not have been prepped.
Or maybe he’s just like some of my long-ago juvie clients: essentially unpreppable.
That could very well be. It’s hard to woodshed the attorney general.
Um-hum.
Didn’t he attempt to avoid getting on the stand at all by sending someone else that morning? Maybe he thought he wouldn’t reeeeeally have to take the stand.
I don’t know, if you asked me if Scruggs sent Balducci and Patterson to have dinner with me, I’d say Idon’t know. How can I testify as to what Scruggs did. Did you have dinner with Balducci and Patterson at Chrechales? (Me thinking: Crechales? I haven’t been to Crechales in a long time). That is his first observation. Doesn’t sound like, uh oh, I am screwed, because I know I had dinner with them at Crechales. He did “in all candor” say he had dinner with them, but obviously he doesn’t remember it being at Crechales. So, the question is where did Robie get this information? And that is probably what Hood is wondering. If he didn’t have dinner with them at Crechales who was saying he did?
I was far more struck by how Hood seemed ill prepared and not a very good witness. He consistently tangled up dates and where things were in the various cases. I’m not talking credibility here at all … Hood just didn’t present a very clear or even very coherent point of view.
I disagree. He was being purposefully evasive and was sand bagging.
When you read the transcript on one hand Hood feigns ignorance about the delivery mechanisms for NFIP coverage. Then, later, when he is being quizzed about his Congressional testimony he steps up to say that he has learned a great deal about insurance.
Y’all are giving him way too much credit. Throughout his testimony Hood keeps bringing in non-related items regarding his first term accomplishments almost as if he was on the campaign stump. I mean, what in the Haiti did the Edgar Killen prosecution have to do with anything but Hood brings that up also.
It was all a show and he “settled” to keep Schloemer off the stand. Maybe you have to live in Jackson and catch that glory hound in action to be able to see it was all bull.
The dude is a hack and a puppet. He’s a bought and paid for politician.
SF should get whats coming to them. But the folks on the coast should be marching on Hood’s office demanding his resignation because he screwed them over with his lack of integrity and ineptitude.
My Thoughts, no, that was in reference to Snyder being a witness before:
Q. I believe this was not known to you when I asked the
14 question last time, but you were sent here instead of Attorney
15 General Hood to testify last time. Is that correct?
16 A. I don’t know how I got here.
Bud Fox: “Throughout his testimony Hood keeps bringing in non-related items regarding his first term accomplishments almost as if he was on the campaign stump. ”
Would you care to point out where he did this? I didn’t hear that.
Would you care to point out where he did this? I didn’t hear that.
Read the transcript.
Did State Farm think the letter agreement prohibited Hood from tesifying to a congressional committee?
That was another B.S. move by Robie. He tries to imply that the McIntosh case documents were subpoenaed documents that should not have been discussed or released, but long before Hood went to Washington, the duplicate reports and the Lecky King post-it note had been in the Sun Herald, on ABC News, on CNN, and included in the Rigsby qui tam filing.
In Hood’s congressional testimony, he advised that he could not discuss or release information that was under grand jury seal.
Belle, honestly don’t know what you mean in reference to my comment…. but it’s not the first time either
I’m with Jane: Crechale’s is an unlikely venue for a high-level confab unless the diners do not want to be observed by people in the know. I haven’t been there in years. Don’t loke my nchances in the parking lot.
God, my typing is pitiful!
Jane, have mercy one time, dammit.
BudFox, I’m with you..His answers were not given in a professional manner..Maybe he has dementia, now there’s a subject I am well versed in.
You notice that he also brought up the fact that he was prosecuting two capital murders of children, in addition to mentioning Killen. Can’t find line and page, but I definitely remember it.
My Thoughts, you said:
Didn’t he attempt to avoid getting on the stand at all by sending someone else that morning? Maybe he thought he wouldn’t reeeeeally have to take the stand.
So, I posted that it wasn’t February 6th that he was attempting to send someone else. I don’t have any doubt he reeeeeally thought he wouldn’t have to take the stand. So, I referred you to the transript where Robie asked Snyder if Hood hadn’t sent him the last time he took the stand, (not on Feb. 6th) and Snyder said he didn’t know how he got to be on the stand! Is that clear enough for you MyThoughts!? Maybe you could go back and read what you posted in you have problems with CRS.
Bud Fox, I have read the transcripts, that’s why I asked.
Links to documents and video of the congressional hearings in which Hood was a witness:
House Financial Services Committee
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing, February 28, 2007
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/hr022807.shtml
Senate Commerce Committee hearing, April 11, 2007
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=1846
Did I read the transcript correctly–Hood testified that he never even read Judge Acker’s order!? Yet he wrote a letter to defend his confidential informant from that order?
Could he possibly be that out of touch with what’s going on?
There are many words that come to my mind after reading the transcript. Unfortunately clear, concise, professional, credible, consistent, prepared are not among them.
Yes, I remember that. I thought that was in reference to an on-going investigation:
7 I’m sorry. I didn’t catch your name.
8 Q. My name is Jim Robie. I’m a Jim too.
9 A. Mr. Robie, I’m dealing today with two capital murder cases
10 of children and I have a lot of other responsibilities I have
11 as attorney general. I don’t direct and point and micromanage
12 my prosecutors. I trust what they do. In this investigation
13 they keep me apprised of what actions are taken, but I don’t
14 tell them to go do this or that as far as questioning what
15 witnesses.
16 Q. So you can’t tell us what issues were investigated by your
17 grand jury.
18 A. The issues that we were looking at — I can tell you
19 that — I’m not going to tell — well, I will tell you if the
20 court orders me to — what was said in that grand jury.
As to Killen:
10 Q. And her sister, Cori, also was paid $150,000 a year — has
11 been paid $150,000 a year.
12 A. I don’t know that to be a fact. I’ve read it in the
13 papers.
14 Q. Well, wouldn’t that fact have to be disclosed to your grand
15 jury if Kerri or Cori Rigsby was going to testify?
16 A. If I were in there — I always show the grand jury the
17 good, bad and the ugly of the case. The Killen murders over in
18 Philadelphia: I point out the good parts of the case and the
19 bad. I told you before, I was not in that grand jury. If I
20 were, I wouldn’t be able to tell you what was — I don’t
21 believe what actually went on in that grand jury itself.
22 Perhaps the court can elicit that from some other witness that
23 was there. But I would say I would have told them the good
24 parts of this witness and the bad parts and, you know — try to
25 give them a whole picture because I don’t want an indictment
Page 156
1 that I can’t convict on at trial.
But if that reads as if he is gloating about all of his accomplishments, (as BF said: Throughout his testimony Hood keeps bringing in non-related items regarding his first term accomplishments almost as if he was on the campaign stump) so be it. I read it in the context that was given.
I guess this is one of those capital murder cases he was working on — Immediate Release February 7
Jackson, MS-Attorney General Jim Hood today confirmed that an arrest has been made in the 16 year old murder of a three-year old girl in Noxubee County. Albert Johnson (age 51), of Brooksville, MS, was arrested on Monday, February 4, 2008 by Investigators with the Attorney General’s Office. He is charged with capital murder in the death of three-year-old Christine Jackson in Noxubee County on May 3, 1992. The little girl was taken from her home in the middle of the night and was raped and murdered. Johnson made his initial appearance on February 5 before Noxubee County Justice Court Judge Dirk Dickson, and was denied bond. Johnson is being held in the Chickasaw County jail.
One reason why juries’ verdicts deserve deference: they factor in the nonverbals no transcript can convey.
Way up there, I made a comment about how illprepared Hood sounds, noting that I was not talking about credibility. Bud Fox answered that Hood has no credibility, and attacked him on that basis. I still stand by my original point: Reading the transcript without regard to a point of view about Hood, he is just not a well-prepared witness. Stuff he could say that helps his side, he doesn’t say very well. He’s not dissembling on that stuff, he’s just not prepared to get his points across.
Belle, it was reported that Hood’s own counsel was surprised that he was not present in court on the morning of the hearings. That is what my comment was referencing.
I’m aware that he got on a (state) plane from Jackson some time after 11:00 am. He is the defendent in the case, so I thought it odd that even YOU were there before him.
Was it Legal News Line that did an article stating his rambling couldnot be understood by the committee members and wondered if General Hood knew what he himself was talking about.. Also Paul Gallo had a segment on General Hood going to Washington and each person was asked to explain what he said and no one had a good explanation..Now in General Hoods defense Insurance Law is a complicated field of which I’m sure he was out gunned at the onset..There is were the State should have invested our money..In Lawyers that could combat BIG INSURANCE , not in Lawyers who were up to there arse in alligators from buying his office and bribing Judges.
And my thought about his referencing these other things that take up oh so much time is because he was aware how ridiculous it sounded that he either 1) was completely unprepared to testify; or b) doesn’t have a blue clue what is going on in the AG office
May I bum “doesn’t have a blue clue” sometime, MT? Ver’ appealing in the right spot.
With my sincere compliment, L
Exxxcellent.
He did fine in Congress. He read the testimony that had been written for him by Courtney Schloemer. You can read it yourself at the links above.
The whole hearing in Natchez was a fiasco. Judge Bramlette has limited knowledge of the history of the Katrina insurance disputes, only the spin of the two sides in their motions on this case, which was a side argment from other cases;
State Farm’s lawyers routinely misrepresented basic facts and threw out innuendo without evidence;
and Hood did not know enough or was not sharp enough to counter Robie’s misinformation by correcting the record.
So an issue of huge importance to thousands of South Mississippians was decided by a bunch of people with very limited knowledge of, and perhaps even less interest in, what was at stake to the public.
Researcher, I would love a list of the misrepresentations by SF in the hearing. Please help point me to documents.
rog, the same statements shocked me too. The AG said he had never read Judge Acker’s order, but wrote a letter regarding the order to defend Scruggs?!
Throughout Hood’s testimony, Hood states that he doesn’t know this and that, and I’m thinking, “Who’s running the AG’s office?” Has he heard of weekly staff meetings where the leader gets aprised of what the staffers are doing?
Hood says he learns things about his investigations from reading the newspapers! Does he have PL Blake clipping articles for him like MooreScruggs did?
For a crack investigator/prosecutor, Hood doesn’t remember many details. I couldn’t decide whether his “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall” were a ruse or not, because in his explanations in later questioning he would often state information that he had said he didn’t “know” or “recall” in earlier questions.
I started thinking how hard it is to be a witness on the stand. On the one hand, answering yes or no to Robie’s questions might be perjury if you answer definitively and it’s discovered that you gave the wrong answer. So you just talk around the question with explanations.
Yet in talking around the question and explaining, you give up information that you didn’t mean to give up or contradict something you said earlier. It’s hard.
But my main impression from Hood’s testimony was the appearance that Hood is working for somebody other than the people of Mississippi.
Here’s a question:
What are the chances that at the back of Atty Gen. Hood’s mind throughout was that there is a grand jury in Oxford poking around about this and there are some witnesses (who he could not be sure) who have already probably described his role in that grand jury. And he has no way of knowing what was said.
Quite the distractor that would be, NMC. So hard to keep your ducks in a row when you don’t know ducks from geese from peafowl.
Certainly I think that the thought of the Fed GJ was on his mind. I also suspect that his lack of knowledge as to exactly what the SF lawyers may have known was equally unsettling. And the passage quoted in your original post was perhaps,at least partially, brought up to highlight that point for the witness.
My first impression regarding the dinner was that Patterson and Balducci were offering Hood a job with their new firm because Scruggs had told them that Hood would need a job if he didn’t settle with SF.
I’m remembering Balducci’s offer to Judge Lackey that when Lackey “hung up his robe” Patterson & Balducci would be happy to have him join their new firm.
With me its simple. The State can not threaten our suggest criminal charges or investigations to force or prod along a civil case settlement. Its against the law.
The fact that one of Hoods assistants has hand written notes prove it. It would not matter to me if it were a big insurance company or a mom & pop store. The AG’s office BROKE THE LAW! They should be punished and in due time I hope they will be.
It is sad that their actions may lead to many home owners not getting a fair shake. I really feel bad for the Scruggs clients, this whole thing stinks for everyone.
Where did the Quote Scruggs had told them that Hood would need a job if he didn’t settle with SF come from..
Hatfield, I think the notes you refer to are those of Brian Ford, an engineer for Forensic Engineering. It has amazed me all along that everyone has taken the Ford notes as the gospel truth, and not just the notes of a guy whose notes may or may not be exactly right.
My take on Ford’s notes – He is noting a phone call with Derek Wyatt of Nutt & McAllister, where Wyatt explained that Ford is not going on the payroll as a consultant, because Courtney Schloemer wants SKG to back off and let Ford testify to the grand jury.
She was not saying, “We will indict State Farm for you.” She was saying, “If you don’t taint our witnesses, we will indict State Farm.”
The statement that a criminal conviction helps a related civil case is unquestionably true, no matter who says it. Stating so is not an admission that the motive of the criminal case is to help the civil case, except to David Rossmiller.
There was one way in which Hood’s criminal case was a hindrance to the civil litigation: key SF witnesses took the fifth. Even though the negative inference comes in, it is more useful to be able to cross-examine witnesses about what happened.
here are Brian Ford’s notes that Researcher mentioned above. here is Rossmiller’s State Farm-centric description of the notes, who Ford is and what they mean.
Magonlia, I was not referrring to a “quote” that Scruggs had told Patterson and Balducci that Hood would need a job if he didn’t settle. I said that was my first impression—just my thinking when I first read about the dinner with Hood, Patterson and Balducci after Hood testified that he did have dinner with them but they didn’t threaten him on behalf of Scruggs to settle.
The quote regarding Balducci to Judge Lackey came from Judge Lackey or the tapes from his chambers. I’m not certain, but it was part of Balducci’s indictment.
nomiss, the job offer to Lackey wasn’t in the indictment. It was in the proffer of Lackey’s testimony made by Grady Tollison in the Jones, Funderburk v. Scruggs hearing.
Bud Fox answered that Hood has no credibility, and attacked him on that basis.
Gimme a break NMC. Stop playing games with words. I expressed my opinion, plain and simple. If you want to characterize that as an attack so be it as long as you don’t mind my classifying your interpretation as apologia.
RE: Brian Ford
He was the engineer who wrote the 1st McIntosh assessment blaming wind damge; Lecky King killed the report with the “Do not pay, do not discuss” post-it note. These duplicate reports are central to the Rigsby qui tam case.
However, at the time of the phone call and discussions in these notes, neither SKG nor the AG had the engineering firm (FAEC) emails that are more incriminating.
Those emails were released to the media by SKG in April 2007.
Hood says his office opened the new investigation of State Farm after receiving new information in April 2007.
Bud Fox wrote about Hood: “He was being purposefully evasive and was sand bagging. … Maybe you have to live in Jackson and catch that glory hound in action to be able to see it was all bull.” In his next comment he wrote: “Maybe you have to live in Jackson and catch that glory hound in action to be able to see it was all bull.”
Since he had used a disagreement with a post of mine to launch this invective, I wrote: “Bud Fox answered that Hood has no credibility, and attacked him on that basis.”
Bud then responded: Gimme a break NMC. Stop playing games with words.”
Ok, Bud. There are your quotes. Now I’ll say it again: Bud Fox attacked Hood and said he had no credibility.
Bud then described what I’ve written about hood that he saw my “interpretation as apologia.”
Exactly what have I written that supports that, Bud? You’re just making that up.
NMC @ 4:38
NMC, I’d say there’s about a 100% chance of Hood pondering what’s going on in Oxford Town.
NMC keep setting yourself up as the grand arbiter. Your head is as big as they come.
There are a few things that have not been brought up here I’m going to go ahead and address.
Go look at Ya’ll Politics and look at just the comments on the side. All you see is fighting with one another, name calling and so on. I’m glad we stay mostly civil over here.
Secondly, as I am white, a lot of people in Mississippi think they freely express themselves on their true feelings about Jim Hood to me. A lot of people hate him because he prosecuted Killen. I have had quite a few people tell me they think he is a ——- lover. Sickening this still goes on today in our modern age.
Mostly civil at least until Bud waltzes over here.
Irate, I’m trying to understand your second point in relation to anything at all on this site
It’s simple….a lot of people don’t like Hood because they are racist. Sounds pretty clear to me.
That last paragraph should read, “Secondly, as I am white, a lot of people in Mississippi think they can freely express themselves on their true feelings about Jim Hood to me.”
Please define and/or quantify what you mean by “a lot”? How much is “a lot”?
But what does that have to do with anything regarding this case?
Bud, I would say about 20% of the 50 or so people who have talked about this with me. Crazy ain’ it?
20%? Holy red beans and rice! What terminology would you assign if it was 40% or 50.1%?
Even just skimming over the transcript it’s easy to spot times when Hood’s response was he would answer only if directed by the court – indicating that protecting cases the AG’s office is working on was definitely on his mind if nothing else.
None of us can find justice if we just follow our own mental map – assumptions based on Brian Ford’s notes are another example.
Few have considered common note-taking practices like writing yourself a note of something you don’t want to forget to ask.
It’s a mistake for anyone to read another person’s hand written notes without considering the direction the writer’s own mental map was taking.
If I can find my copy of his notes, I’ll add other examples if the notes are still a topic of conversation – some I may have posted on folo when we were having related conversations after the notes were available.
My Thoughts, what exactly is your question? My post is clear as can be. You can draw your own conclusions. I’m not getting drawn into interpreting this with you.
I guess you mistake me for a Hood apologist, of which I am not. Sadly, my thoughts are that he will probably get a surprise one day soon.
I don’t think it’s at all inappropriate to ask what your statement has to do with this case…. or this site.
Bud, what is your point?
Bud Fox doth protest too much, methinks
My Thoughts, what is so hard for you to grasp? A small number of people don’t like Hood because they are racist.
Oh, it is really straight forward. I’m sorry you missed it. You used the phrase “a lot” to produce an emphasis on racism. Did you not?
So, I’m asking you what language you would have used if your sample of “50 or so people” had produced a return of 40% or 50.1%?
Bud Fox doth protest too much, methinks
Btw, let me state that I’m really diggin’ that.
When it comes to racism, I would say 20% is not only a lot, but it’s 100% too much as well.
Considering you are always over here trying to start something with everyone is very telling.
NOMISS I didn’t question your statement, this is out there, and I have read it before today, but this one has to put everything togeather because there is not an intuitive cell in my body.
How sad all of this is for all the katrina victims who still wait for payment from state farm. State farm has done the classic insurance defense tap dance by making the case about something else. Unforunately, scruggs’s cutesy-tutesy behavior added fuel to the fire that was only the typical SF smokescreen.
Robie was fishing with his dinner at crechales question. This is a common tactic in the world of insurance counsel. It’s a deposition type discovery question rather than a evidentiary hearing type question where someone in robie’s position would usually have a point to make, not an unsupportable allegation to let fall to the floor.
State farm threatened to leave Mississippi. Hood said, don’t let the doorknob hit you in the @ss. This freaked the scruggs group out because they may have actually had to try a lawsuit instead of giving the ole pl Blake one two.
My bet is that balducci sensed a rift growing between hood and scruggs and sought to capitalize on it by bringing the business into his new firm. Or any business the AG would throw his way.
Considering you are always over here trying to start something with everyone is very telling.
Oh please, that is not the case. That is an exaggeration. But if 20% is your threshold then maybe I can understand your position.
I’ve been more than abiding but I also feel free within the confines of this wonderful place to present a different opinion.
If you are looking for group thunk then maybe I could suggest a place in Fondren?
Not sure why you I’ve solicited hostility with asking you the question, Irate. Seems legitimate to me, but you’re free to answer or not.
Sorry Bud, Donna Ladd doesn’t do it for me (although I do like her beating up on Frankie!). HAA!
Not at all hard to grasp, iratetoday, but maybe hard for some to recognize because it’s implied rather than stated – but it’s still there in comments such as those complaining the AG needs to stop digging up old cases to…[whatever].
Some of us were brought up to have contempt for those of another color. I’m fortunate in that regard as I was taught it is ignorance that divides us not color – and there is an ample abundance of evidence of just that. Noting, of course, that an education does not preclude ignorant thinking.
Well My Thoughts you are confusing me. First, ask what do racist hating Hood have do do with all of this and this site Then you state the opposite, saying it’s not appropriate to ask.
Sorry, I always think it’s appropriate to expose racism. I’m not a big fan of racism nor apathy!
If you’ll read my comment again, you’ll see that I said it’s not at all INappropriate for me to ask…
My Thoughts…Okay thanks for clearing that up.
Nowdoucit….thanks for being able to see it. I also wondered if these people ever thought that if someone killed one of their loved ones they wouldn’t be complaining at all if someone was indicted 30 or 40 years later.
For Goodness sakes lets be civil with one another…Former Gov. William Winter
Again—what does that have to do with this case or comments on this site?
Welcome to the Board Governer!!!!!!!
Okay My Thoughts, I went back and read your comment. My eyes confused me. Dang it.
I hope it has nothing at all to do with the comments on this site, but knowing several of the posters over at another site, I would say racism plays a big part part of their posts and why they hate Hood. They hated Hood a long time before he ever got wrapped up in Scruggsology. As far as racism playing a part in the criminal investigation and State Farm and son on I would say it plays no part.
Hope this satisifes you as I now have a head ache all because I misread your comment!!!!!!
Good suggestion, I’ve been waiting for someone to respond to my comment on “mental maps” – which seems an appropriate way to start going in a new direction.
William Winter?
Oh, yes, my good Presbyterian friend (don’t believe me if you must) whose solution to almost (six sigma) every problem in Mississippi is endless talk and the snake charmer coaxing of every greenback resident in one’s wallet.
I love William. Really do. But he’s our two-hit wonder Guvner on par with the band a-ha.
Okay moving on. Let’s see a show of hands on who thinks Conway got a target letter.
Two hits are better than one-hit Mabus!
but knowing several of the posters over at another site, I would say racism plays a big part part of their posts and why they hate Hood.
You’re amongst friends. What site would that be?
John Arthur Eaves would have probably left a legacy better than Mabus.
I can say Mabus did a hell of a job during “Operation Pretense.” Certainly unlike Conway.
Iratetoday…If he got one, do you think he read it. I vote no..His will be a big big suprise..
Q: Mr. Hood, what where your thoughts when you received your target letter?
A. …Target letter? I don’t recall getting a letter from Target. Now I do get Wal-Mart circulars but Courtney Schloemer reviews those for me.
Regarding Bud’s comment higher up about Hood not knowing, or pretending not to know, how the flood program works:
Actually, what Robie says is blatantly false.
He states that every insurance company that does business in Mississippi is required to underwrite flood insurance. Actually, most homeowners insurance companies do not participate in NFIP.
Robie also claims that NFIP requires companies to use the same adjuster for the flood and wind claims. NFIP allows companies to use a single adjuster, but definitely does not require it. Allstate, for example, did not use single adjusters. All the people in the wind pool have three different adjusters for homeowners, wind, and flood.
I know quite a bit about life insurance but not much at all about homeowners other than my own policy. I thought only the government writes flood policies. Am I wrong?
See my explanation of NFIP in this thread:
http://folo.us/2008/02/01/yo-state-farm-and-fema-gao-aint-amused/
Being precise is muy importante in the making of mincemeat:
When you read the transcript on one hand Hood feigns ignorance about the delivery mechanisms [ed. note: plural] for NFIP coverage.
We really shouldn’t expect our AG to know … well … anything about much. In fact, we’ve got the perfect candidate actually serving in that capacity … today.
iratetoday can you share which other web site is frequented by posters whose racism plays a big part part of their posts and why they hate Hood?
I think we all need to stay away from a place like that. If I missed your response please accept my apologies in advance.
Researcher – anyone, why would Robie enter false information into the record?
Robie wanted it to appear that everything State Farm did with the flood program was required by the federal government.
Hood did not know enough to correct him.
Hey, who expects the lawyer for State Farm to know nothing about how insurance works?
So, was Robie fishing? Seems to me that he was using it to test Hood’s knowledge and confirm the “new case” was about Flood Insurance.
At any rate, why are folks “carrying on” about that?
Any idea how many attorneys there are that have or are currently working on the insurance side of the law?
Researcher, to be honest, if ANYONE was involved in insurance litigation for over 2 years like our venerable AG, I would expect them to know A HELLUVA LOT about how insurance works in the state.
one here
We’re still 41 comments short here, btw.
Are we going to get back all the comments from Sunday?
I hope so, Researcher. I’ve raised the issue.
I saved as word.doc but I think they’re working on getting them back up.
Ready to go whenever. Thought the conversation was interesting.
btw, saw some related info over at the Insurance Forum blog.