I really have no desire whatsoever to continue to thump Jim Hood, for a whole lot of reasons. I’ll give one: It’s just not that much fun. But I’m having trouble letting pass his editorial in today’s Clarion Ledger.
Perhaps it will be encouraging to his background chorus of fellow whistlers, but, beyond that, just who does he think he’s persuading here? (I just can’t help it here: He’s whistling to the choir!). As I read the article, he faults State Farm for failing to follow through in the federal court class action settlement that collapsed, not through anything State Farm did as near as I can tell, but because Judge Senter thought it didn’t protect policyholders adequately and then further negotiations collapsed, and not from the State Farm side. He also announces victory in the State Farm suit against him but never mentions whether that means he’s resumed his grand jury investigation. I would think not, although this really makes me even more want to see that settlement agreement.
Read it and weep! Or whistle, whichever is your wont!
h/t tiredlwyr
Wow, in one op ed piece, Hood plays the victim of partisan politics, and the champion of the little guy, painting all who disagree with him or question his methods, tactics, and choice of friends/allies, as those who want to protect big business and corporations (as if those are necessarily evil).
My response? No Jim, I don’t like what you are up to because I don’t like public official corruption, regardless of the tag in front of the name — an R or a D. I also don’t appreciate fellow members of the Bar ignoring our ethical rules and state laws, and in the process destroying public confidence in our judicial system and state government. Why? Because that is how I make my living. It is very important to me for my chosen profession to be viewed as an honorable one.
You won’t get a pass from me playing this victim game, and hiding behind the fascade of being a champion of the little guy against Big Corporations ( including those same companies who employ and put food on the table for many Mississipians — much more than you can do no matter how many state backed lawsuits and litigation you can stir up to raise money for yourself and your buddies).
If you don’t pursue state prosecutions in these matters coming to public light, then you are part of the problem —part of the corruption. And there is no way to spin your way out of that assessment.
In his testimony in Natchez, Hood said his deal was not based on the Scruggs mass settlement that Senter rejected. He is pointing to the settlement of his civil action in Hinds County where State Farm agreed to pay claims according to standards established by the federal court. He also said that he has written letters and drafted standards based on Judge Senter’s rulings (i.e. that the insurer has the burden of proof) but that State Farm has not responded. State Farm’s lawyer tried to say that State Farm’s cooperation with George Dale met the terms of the deal, but Hood insisted that the Hinds County settlement requires State Farm to have its protocol approved by the federal court. He even offered to have Judge Bramlette approve the process.
Am I the only one who can’s see comments from those who read the article on my screen with these comments?
Say over, nowdy?
I see all of the comments too
There are 6 additional comments that don’t show up here. They only show if you click on the article.
AFOTL, I get tired of hearing the same ole whine about Jim Hood. Until, I hear something specific as to his corruption other than someone’s opinion, I will presume he is not guilty.
nowdy, I see 7 comments here on this thread (through belle’s, as I type) and 6 at the C-L. Which can’t you see?
Slap My Jaws, Don’t debate we are in Mississippi you know, If there is no indictment it just AN’T so , mere speculation, and as Mr Langston stated when you are very successful one has to deal with unpleasant things.
Belle, Jim is the one whining right now.
IF he refuses to investigate and prosecute ANY of these matters coming to light, including ones in which there is no known federal prosecution underway, then he is essentially condoning the corruption. His asserted conflict of interest excuse for inaction does not even make sense. If he feels conflicted, then hire outside counsel as a special prosecutor —he has not had a problem before with retaining such outside counsel.
And if he wants to clean up campaign financing, then he can take the lead by returning the $400,000 (+) in campaign contributions that came from admitted felons and those currently under indictment.
And with regard to our legal ethical rules, there is a prohibition against using prosecution or the threat of prosecution as leverage in a civil suit. And from most accounts, there appears to be some evidence that such is exactly what Jim did. The SF v Hood suit, if carried to its conclusion, could have likely nailed this down beyond dispute. And, just like that, it was settled and the case sealed. Would not look good for the state AG to be disbarred.
IF Jim has not committed any crimes, and was not involved at all in any of the shenanigans coming to light by his close friends, allies, and campaign donors, then the ball is in his court. He truly controls his own destiny. He can start distancing himself from these folks. Return the campaign contributions. And start doing his job to prosecute public corruption in our state, regardless of whose political ox is being gored.
And if he hard-headedly refuses to do these reasonable things, then there is not much more I or anyone can say about it. It is what it is. He will sink or swim with those he protects.
Researcher, I have a serious question that I’m asking without regard to Jim Hood and his partisans:
I’ve never had access to pleadings in Hood’s Chancery Court suit against State Farm, and so have only a vague idea what’s in it. But my understanding is that in late Fall 2006/early 2007, there were several components that seemed moving toward a comprehensive settlement- and it was a package deal:
Hood’s chancery suit was going to be resolved by State Farm agreeing to a federal court class action proceeding that would give a streamlined relook at the claims and would guarantee a set payout.
Scruggs was going to resolve his cases (and everyone else’s) against State Farm by having a class action resolution before Judge Senter; this was to be the the federal court proceeding contemplated by Hood’s settlement.
I think there is evidence in the public record that Hood and Scruggs were not as much at this point on the same page as the anti-Hood/anti-Scruggs people suggest, btw, and would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.
But anyhow, at this point they went to federal court and Judge Senter said a tentative “no” and the whole thing fell apart. I have some questions about the falling apart from that point on, but right now want to know your thoughts on my understanding of what happened up to that point, and to hear whether I’ve got parts of this wrong.
I’m neither weeping or whistling. I’m just thinking – trying to understand why there is not an update to the commentary if Hood’s comments were not related to Judge Senter’s case.
As to his claims to victory in Natchez, I don’t find them “ridiculous”. I read the ruling to indicate that. I later found this report on WLBT and since the subject has come back up, I’ll post the link. http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?s=7839972
What puzzles me is why people want Hood to break the law to respond to their speculation that he is not.
Nowdoucit: I take it that you believe Jim Hood has started up the grand jury investigation again? If not, what did he win in Natchez, exactly?
As far as political statements go, and that is what this guest column is, Hood is playing defense … badly.
First, he acknowledges that he reads the blogs — surprising considering how hard he worked down in Natchez to emphasize how much he doesn’t read.
Second, though he demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the minuscule reach of bloggers I’d venture he’s worried that:
1] blog readership within Mississippi’s legal and politico communities appears to be quite high and growing,
2] Lange’s (a blogger) past couple months of regular updates on Gallo’s statewide radio program during morning drive time has hurt by expanding considerably the audience of average Jacks and Jills who are hearing the “bad news”, and
3] the detailed analytical work product being posted here, @ Rossmiller’s, @ Y’all and elsewhere (state, regional and national) has demonstrated that the brain power following these matters in the blogosphere is substantial and, furthermore, that an abundant supply of salt stands poised for deployment 24/7/365 to de-ice the road in the wake of any snow jobs.
Third, by acknowledging the bloggers — much like other Mississippi politicos are increasingly taking direct aim at the SupertalkMS network — Hood actually strengthens their collective position to influence and shape public discourse as it has become obvious from their follow-the-blogs reporting that many of the traditional print and TV outlets throughout Mississippi are actively scouring the blogs for reportable material. (And when you think about it, those outlets would be stupid not to do so because the research is free.)
Rebuking bloggers reveals a weak hand. Hood proves that he does not yet know how to deal with the realities of this new media age.
lotus, I can see them if I click on the link – I’ve just never seen comments post to a link and not the commentary. Never seen a link with comment option that I recall.
Lawyers, correct me if I’m wrong, but in reading Hood’s statement, “In fact, allegations lodged against me by this insurer (State Farm) were shown to be false when a federal judge recently threw out a lawsuit it had filed against my office”… it strikes me that if a judge “throws out a lawsuit,” is that usually preceded by hours, into the night and beginning again the next morning, of negotiations between the lawyers of both sides? Or is that usually a decision that the judge makes to “throw out” a suit and makes that declaration in court?
My thoughts, ” if a judge "throws out a lawsuit, " is that usually preceded by hours, into the night and beginning again the next morning, of negotiations between the lawyers of both sides? ”
That is exactly what happened. Those lawyers, all of them met for 5 hours with the judge after the hearing until 10pm and they met the next morning until 11am.
BS—-that is my point. The judge didn’t “throw out the lawsuit”… the parties reached a settlement agreement following much negotiation.
This Hood’s explanation of the civil case from the Natchez transcript:
Q. And when is it that you contend State Farm breached the settlement agreement?
A. Well, what the agreement was — in the state court settlement agreement filed in chancery court, there’s a section 3(b), your Honor, Roman numeral 3(b), in which it says in that agreement that State Farm had to make new offers based upon criteria and guidelines approved by the federal court.
They have never done that. And when they rejected — Judge Senter, when he initially decided not to accept their state court — I mean their settlement agreement that they proposed to him — now, that wasn’t anything I had to do with as far as signing off on or anything. That was the plaintiffs as well as State Farm.
But, see, Judge Senter gave them about 11 conditions that he said he would require and it was in that order. I think it was 11. And those conditions, State Farm never came back and tried to meet them.
And so what we did was we prepared — we took those conditions and we put it in a settlement agreement that we thought that the judge would accept. I had some correspondence with Judge Senter. And so State Farm breached it when they did not make any attempt at all to comply with Judge Senter’s conditions.
Q. Actually, your informant, your confidential informant, Dickie Scruggs, dismissed the Woullard case and deprived Judge Senter of all further jurisdiction on that matter, didn’t he?
A. Well, our state settlement did not address the Woullard case. It simply said that there shall be — that — section 3(a) says they have to go submit it to a federal court and establish administrative procedure. We don’t have a class action in state court. So it had to be administered by the federal courts.
Our state court agreement says you go to federal to the court, you submit it to the court. 3(a) says you submit it to the court. But 3(b) says then you have to make offers based on criteria and guidelines approved by the state court. And that State Farm has never done.
Which ones are not under federal jurisdiction?
Oh so, NOW you want him to hire outside counsel — the guy can’t win for losing.
This money was given to DAGA and then to him. So should DAGA give it back?
But the evidence must not have been there. State Farm tried this. Case dismissed.
Assuming again.
No, that is not how our legal justice system works. As I said in the comments over at CL:
In the American legal system, criminal conduct must be proven and the intent/scienter requirements of the law cannot be disposed of with the two-step 1) "presumed guilty " and 2) guilt by association.
Well, considering I’m not sitting on a jury I, as well as any other person, do not have to presume Jim is innocent of some wrongdoing. Despite the quixotic defense bellsouth has promulgated I’m a strong believe in if it smells like sh-t it is sh-t.
Wow, BS, I hope you are a non-lawyer b/c I continue to be impressed by your apparent total lack of understanding about how lawsuits work. If you are or did attend law school, you must have no experience in litigation. “Case dismissed” due to an extensive settlement agreement under seal is not a win for the defendant.
All you have is speculation, mere speculation, nothing more that speculation. Do you actually think the judge would dismiss this case if he didn’t think that State Farm had proven their case? On the other hand, it looks as though Hood did prove to the court that State Farm has not lived up to their legal obligations.
Denial is a terrible thing.
He dismissed because the two parties reached a settlement agreement—haven’t you read the agreement enough to know that?
“The Court further finds that, based on a confidential settlement agreement between the parties, which shall remain under seal, this case shall be dismissed with prejudice” and that the Letter Agreement which was being fought over between the two, was ordered “unambiguous and enforceable” (against Jim Hood).
Tell me how that can ever been seen as a judge throwing out a lawsuit.
I’m about to have a Ya’ll Politics moment and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
I think there is a “lack of connection”… sort of like “all circuits are down.”
Good. I am not the only one who thinks Courtney is stalking the blogs….In my prior litigation experience, I have had cases dismissed that were settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars….I am pretty sure those defendants did not feel like the judge “threw the case out.”
He settled the case by dropping his criminal investigation. It was clear that Bramlette was going to rule that his letter agreeing to drop the investigation in January 2007 was still valid and unconditional.
State Farm won in Natchez, period. However, I am not convinced that Hood’s civil case argument is doomed and I still hold out a sliver of hope that the US Attorney will give State Farm what they deserve. If the Katrina Fraud Task Force, led by the DOJ, but including the state AGs and Auditors, investigate State Farm, I assume that the MS AG’s office could contribute to the federal action, despite the letter agreement and Bramlette settlement.
The only reason I have a bias towards Jim Hood is because I haven’t seen the grounds for all of these allegations. All I have seen is a mob of people snipping at him for over a year and he still won relection. (crucify him, crucify him!) If there is a legal basis for these allegations then by all means find a lawyer and have him prosecuted. Otherwise, let the guy do his job.
“All you have is speculation, mere speculation, nothing more that speculation.”
And how does what you have, belle, differ from speculation?
My Thoughts, I asked a related question at the time. In his comments, NMC pointed out that it was unusual for the Judge to make a ruling in a case that had been settled.
Since I’m not a lawyer, I searched the web for information on ruling for dismissal – chiefly because Judge Bramlett said he would read the Letter and make a ruling but allow the hearing to continue.
Consequently, IMHO, Judge Bramlett never intended to let the parties “negotiate” the meaning of the Letter of Settlement itself – so whatever the parties settled under seal would obviously apply to what Hood described as a “different case”.
If you review the transcript in that light, you find neither State Farm’s “fishing” or Hood’s “weak” response anything other than what it was – State Farm using the court in an attempt to gain advantage in criminal case and the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi protecting the interest of the people of this State.
Admittedly, that’s hard to do when you believe “unambiguous” means State Farm, not Hood, was right – and further believe nothing Hood does is “right” or for the “right” reasons.
The fact that I share neither opinion simply means I read the Letter trying to understand its meaning – not with my mind made up – and believe “innocent until proven guilty” and proof of guilt must be “beyond a reasonable doubt” applies as much to Jim Hood as it does to the rest of us.
who had sued whom for what reason..Who had to prove what…To Whom does it benifit to settle in darkness underseal…Now not knowing whats underseal..One would have to surmise SF lawyers WOULD HAVE STILL BE APPEALING and screaming.
“And how does what you have, belle, differ from speculation?”
I don’t see any legal action against him at the moment. Am I missing something?
You’re missing my question, belle.
Nowdy, just to clarify, but not attempt to rattle the seemingly self-appointed halo in your statement…. my reasonable doubt about Jim Hood was taken care of by one Jim Hood many years ago… way before Katrina. I won’t suggest how you view the “motives” of anyone else, but I will let you know that questioning mine is off-base.
Belle, there may be no legal action against him at the moment, but there was. After sounding both ignorant and irresponsible for hours on the stand in Natchez, he directed his attorneys to settle with State Farm ultimately giving STate Farm what they filed the suit to get.
The case was dismissed because all cases are dismissed when a settlement is reached. It does not indicate in one way or the other what the value of the case was. ……
Now, please either (1) reserve your one-sided and biased comments for areas you understand; (2) enroll in a decent law school; or (3) admit to yourself that you do not understand the complex nature of what is taking place in our legal profession in MS.
I am not accusing him of anything other than what has transpired in the public record. he was sued, made an ass of himself in testimony, and then settled the case giving in on the chief issue State Farm wanted.
I never even speculated about him until I read all these speculations. LOL! Down here in Natchez we had circuit clerk who was indicted on felony charges of embezzlement. The guy pleaded guilty. The judge took the guilty plea and would not rule, let the guy walk, run for relection again. He was supposed to pay back some money and keep his books together and give them to the auditors as required by law. Well, a year later he still hadn’t done those things, so Hood took him back to court. The judge sentenced him to 2 years and then suspended the 2 years. And then everyone blamed Hood. He just seems to be a good whipping boy for some people.
*Sigh*
belle, good thing this is a blog instead of a trial, ’cause your 39 would sure get dinged “Nonresponsive!” mighty fast.
coldwell, “was” is the operative word.
Coldwell2972, you must remember that when you argue that “After sounding both ignorant and irresponsible for hours on the stand in Natchez…” you’re addressing someone who referred to that same action by Hood (and was there in person, no less), as “Hood was great all afternoon… right-on… sharp as a tack.”
Yes, belle, WAS. Then he gave in in a super secret settlement agreement to cover his a$$.
That is the key I think you either do not understand or refuse to acknowledge.
Excellent point, My Thoughts. I am giving up with this debate (since a debate requires two sides with VALID points.)
Researcher…”If the Katrina Fraud Task Force, led by the DOJ, but including the state AGs and Auditors, investigate State Farm.”
The DOJ clearly has no confidence in our AG office and has not included them thus-far on, well… much of anything… I’m doubting that changes in the future and honestly, will be happy to let anyone but the AG office seek justice for any Coast victims.
My Thoughts @37 If I appear to be claiming a “halo” then I’m just having a “bad hair day” as it was certainly not my intent.
You asked “how that can ever been seen as a judge throwing out a lawsuit” @25 and my comment at @33 was a response.
I regret my attempt to avoid the “dart board” fate of Belle looked like a “halo” instead of the “shield” I intended.
I respect the right of all to offer their opinion, including Belle – and if there were not differing opinions there would be nothing to discuss and no folo with the reputation as a blog that offers balanced discussion.
belle has a right to her opinion. I think most of us are wondering why the indefatigable defense of Hood in light of circumstances that indicate he doesn’t have what it takes to be an effective AG. I think she’s biased for a reason she won’t reveal. I’m apparently not the only one.
Which Mississippi Legislator has a saying ” I’m not gonna chase those rabbits I can’t catch” Who’s chasing those uncatchable rabbits here?
I recind halo comment, N
You need to take off the right-wing blinders. Courtney Schloemer has the goods on State Farm and they know it. That is why they have spent the past two years trying to kill the case, first by using Judge Acker, then holding Scruggs settlement hostage, and now using Judge Bramlette to give them immunity. Hate Hood if you must, but the AG’s office is much more responsive that the US Attorney. Lampton’s people have had all the documents, read the damning reports, depositions, and testimony, seen GAO and DHS IG report that FEMA allowed insurers to hand out billions of flood checks with no oversight or accountability, and thus far the US Attorney has done nothing about it. Meanwhile, if some guy used his FEMA assistance to get a tattoo, the feds were on his ass in no time.
If Hood has the goods on State Farm, as it stands now, it appears he’s blown his opportunity to do anything with it.
And if he has blown any opportunity to go after State Farm, was it just to assist his buddy and donor Dickie Scruggs?
R—I would ask that you remove whatever is hindering your vision as well… if the AG’s office “has the goods”… what the hell is going on? If you’ve got the evidence it takes to make right by Coast victims—do the job. Clearly, if what you say is correct, the goods are in the wrong hands. If not for mishandling this case, what other defense can be made for the man charged with representing them having bungled this from the get-go?
And I would add, because it impresses me greatly, that our own host has no “right-wing blinders,” yet seems to have a similar view… at some point, the partisan argument just has to be thrown out.
I had another thought. If Dunn Lampton could not touch Jim Hood in the last 5 years, he must not be doing anything wrong. Jane, have you looked at the press releases at http://www.ago.state.ms.us lately: Oh wait, here’s one for the 15th. $600,000 for the State of Mississippi.
Disclosure: All I knew about Jim Hood since I have moved back to MS about 4 years ago, was that he was the Attorney General. In fact, I was not even sure what the Attorney General did before he filed a suit against Baley Harbour [sic]. I began looking into him and his office then. (Except for all vitriol I heard about his letting our clerk go and thought well, that is just weird, he can’t tell the judge what to do.)
Kingfish has a great article up concerning Adam Kilgore’s recent interview with the CL.
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2008/02/adam-kilgore-wimpicus-maximus.html
State Farm offered Scruggs a big, big, underserved payday in the Woullard settlement if he could get Hood to drop the criminal case. Hood should not have caved to the pressure. You have to remember that thousands of people living in FEMA trailers had gone a year and a half with no payment from State Farm, so there was potentially a big backlash if Hood blocked the settlement. This is how State Farm works every disaster. They know that disaster victims cannot wait for justice.
The fact that Hood caved does not mean that he did not have the case against State Farm.
Look at all the Alabama action. That was not about getting Scruggs. That was to undermine the Rigsby documents and the criminal case.
So Hood caved to help out Dickie Scruggs? If this is true, the Katrina victims have a right to be mad as hell at Hood.
You’re saying that victims aren’t waiting for justice NOW?
I’m with Jane..Need a BIO on COURTNEY…All I know she is a state employee in the AG’S office running things. Thats what Jim says.
Researcher, I agree – and wish I could remember more – but wasn’t it George Dale that applied the pressure on Hood? I have vague memories of Dale suggesting that Hood’s “legal games” were blocking rebuilding.
From that perspective Hood did not “cave” he yielded to provide immediate relief to the people on the coast.
I still have reservations about Natchez – but after your comment at 30 and the gracious removal of my “halo” at 48, I’ll set those aside for now.
No, he didn’t cave to help out Scruggs. That is not at all what I said. State Farm used Scruggs and Scruggs’ many clients to lean on Hood.
State Farm held this and other settlements hostage until the AG stopped the grand jury investigation. After Hood caved, Katrina victims got settlement offers and most agreed to them. They all would like State Farm to be prosecuted also, but they finally got some money and could start to get on with their lives.
If you do not understand the dilemma about whether to compromise to get a settlement, you were not on the Mississippi Coast spending your second winter in a FEMA trailer.
Magnolia, all I remember from some of the earlier mentions is that she was very young – maybe in her 20’s.
So young , so in over her head , and didn’t have a BLUE CLUE as to what was swirling around her.
I’m sorry, you don’t have BLUE CLUE about this gal and you’re bashing her?
I spent the first in a trailer on the Coast, researcher, no need to spend more to understand – other than “caved” seems to be a strange word. Are you saying George Dale was a neutral party?
“Caved” may be strong, but it was a big decision to drop the criminal case and State Farm did not live up to the terms of the settlement.
I think Dale was irrelevant by that point. No one on the Coast would have cared what he said.
…
You get “blue clues” in a fema trailer in the winter – that’s how I learned putting gas in a generator doesn’t help if it’s your propane tank is empty.
Now, about the people on the coast. Anyone have an idea how many are still waiting on a settlement?
At one point I understood that anything not settled by August was no longer subject to settlement – is that the case.
If Courtney Schloemer is over her head, why is State Farm so afraid of defending against her case? She did not tip off her case, forcing State Farm to compromise the Alabama Federal Court to try to figure out what she has. She told SKG to back off and not taint Brian Ford’s testimony by hiring him as a consultant. I have never met her, but from what I know, she performed more admirably than anyone else involved in these cases.
Good points. It’s been a long time since I’ve read a comment about SF compromising the Court in Alabama – you really have to count their agents among the victims of Katrina. I know so many fine ones that have been with the company a long time – hell of a retirement party.
State farm has a history of criminal conduct during disasters. For instance when a massive disaster hit California in the 90’s, state farm alter insurance applications to indicate that the policyholders declined earthquake coverage (yeah right as if mortgage companies would lend to californians without earthquake coverage).
I’ve no doubt that SF’s conduct included criminal acts in the katrina aftermath. The problem is that dickie thought he could beat SF by being a bigger crook than SF was (it worked for him in tobacco didn’t it–just ask Blake).
Hood’s problem is that he is a law enforcement guy backed by criminals. That reeks. Hood needs to denounce scruggs and langston. He doesn’t need to give back 400k he got from an organization to which scruggs and langston donated 200k. That’s ridiculous, marsha Thompson.
Hood won’t gain credibility talking about at being a crook until he admits S and L are. Here’s a hint Jimmy–Joey entered a guilty plea!! Get it?
Now until you admit that these guys are crooks and give us your side of the story; we can’t hear a word you are saying. Its time you had a heart to heart with Mississippi about scruggs, langston and all the rest or just resign.
Hood reminds me a little John Gotti, and how whenever a reporter asked him about the mafia, and whether he was the head of the Gambino Family or not, when he would say things like, “What mafia? I don’t even know what you are talking about. I don’t think it even exists. Prove to me it exists.”
The big lie works more often, and takes in more people, than we like to admit.
Jane-
Good ole Sebass. Many a story there. Maybe we can swap a few sometime. Have heard more than a few on Sebass, Weaver Gore, Ross, Sr. etc etc. Seems that practicing law used to be more fun………
That’s what this thread needs — some good ol’ stories. Hit it, you two!
(For starters, whozzis you’re talking about?)
This one time at band camp…… oh, never mind.
ROFLMAO observer
Somehow I believe that observer has a story or two in his memory banks as well.
I know, tired, but he’s just a big ol’ tease.
I don’t know how to link, but you’ve GOT to go read the Sid Salter blog at the Clarion Ledger.
Another story has it that Sebastian was representing some guy who was charged with having had unnatural sex with all sorts of animals. The charges were being read, the various animal victims being named: “goat, horse, mule, chicken.” At this point, the defendant jumps up and says “Chicken! I ain’t never had sex with a chicken.”
It seems to me that:
1. Hood has a very close relationship with Scruggs and his cabal due to their cooperation with the Rigsby sisters documents (for lack of a better description);
2. Hood’s failure to indict those accused of judicial tampering is strange (absent point #1), given his position as AG, especially since it would give him a great opportunity to grandstand (he is a politician remember);
3. State Farm is most likely guilty of malfeasance in connection with Katrina claims;
4. Hood’s testimony in Natchez, and his professed ignorance of recent facts, was astonishing;
5. Hood’s agreement to seal his settlement with State Farm invites the sort of speculation contained here and elsewhere, said sealing probably being in contravention of the open records law which he is sworn to defend;
6. Finally, the op-ed piece was a sophmoric attempt to defend himself (I’m not sure whether it was worse or better than his Natchez testimony); if that’s all he can muster, he really must not be worthy of his post.
If General Hood wants to silence his critics, he can quickly do so by making public his recent settlement agreement. He has tried State Farm in the public arena until now, but at a crucial moment in the Coast’s history, he chose to settle a heretofore high profile case against the poster child for poor corporate citizenship in secret. If he doesn’t understand why that would invite criticism, then God help us all.
ADDENDUM: If what Sid Salter reports in his Blog about today’s meeting with Hood is true (thx My Thoughts), then any criticism of Hood connections to the Scruggs cabal is fair and my comments were too restrained.
Very well said, DN
MT-
Just did a quick reading of the CL blog..
I can only shake my head in wonderment. Especially at this snippet:
“it would create the “appearance of impropriety” for him to prosecute state judicial bribery charges against Joey Langston, Steve Patterson and Tim Balducci after they entered plea bargains in the federal judicial bribery case in Oxford.
“It would be like prosecuting a relative,” said Hood, who said that he believed that those who were guilty of judicial bribery charges “should go to jail.” But Hood said that he was “too close” to those defendants and to Oxford lawyer Dickie Scruggs and his “family” to prosecute the case. “
sorry for the double, don’t know what gremlin attacked me. Oh never mind. Damned gremlins……..
Um belle, you were saying something about speculation……………..
General Hood went over to the Clarion Ledger and had-a-come-apart. Hope Marshall Ramsey was sitting in on all this. All his problems are caused by Republicans and Bloggers.
Oh my word, alla sudden we ‘ve got more’n we can say grace over here.
MT, just
1. click on what’s in the address field at the top of your screen to highlight it,
2. click on the copy icon on your toolbar, then
3. put your cursor where you want the link to show and
4. click on the paste icon.
Jane, have you read Reading Lolita in Tehran? Some of those imams have very strict rules about who can and cannot consume a chicken that’s been raped by a human: The rapist can’t, but his neighbors can. (I am NOT making this up.)
DeltaNative, Jane 83 speaks for me.
Well, lotus if you don’t accomplish anything else I will look a bit funny at any of my neighbors trying to give me chickens from now on………
I hope the CL will see its way clear to post a verbatim transcript of Hood’s interview with the CL Editorial Board for all to see. I suspect the thing will speak for itself, as they say.
Speaking of bloggers, mag, I thought Bud really nailed his comment about that this morning (meant to say so hours ago, so thanks for reminding me).
Ah hev not lived in vain, tired — woohoo, at least stirred up something in your neighborhood!
I agree hood cannot prosecute his own special assistants. If he has to recuse from prosecuting them, he must recuse from appointing a special prosecutor as well. Who has authority in the absence of the A.G? The D.A.s, but wait scruggs was big backer of current hinds count d.a. So who prosecuted when d.a. Has conlict? The A.G. So the dog chases his tail.
Its as if Trent and Moore were still in office. Moore was in it with dickie. Lampton wouldn’t prosecute because it would offend Trent.
RE: Sebass
We need a separate thread for these.
Remember 20/20 and the traveling (Sullivans?)
Welcome to folo, JFP. If I put up a separate thread, will y’all tell me who this is it’s about (I mean, more than “Sebass”)?
Well, Jane, that’s what asterisks are for.
Been away for a while. I come back and y’all are telling Seabass stories. How’d that get started? I wonder if Seabass blogs. Pretty sure Weaver doesn’t.
OMG, the thought. Weaver in a blog. That is just way toooooooooooooo hard to get my mind around.
The CL has a teaser article online now about Hood.
Edited for my very first attempt at a html link thingy (technical term). Wish me luck.
CL on Hood
Well, even if some of us don’t know who “Sebass” (get-well-soon!) and “Weaver” and “The Travellers” an’ them are, at least GARDENIA’s back, so we got that goin’ for us!
lawN 102, that’s definitely a fine start — now all you need is the less-than/greater-than symbols where your brackets are, and wah-lah, you’ll have your first hyperlink!
lotus: “sebass” = sebastian moore a criminal defense lawyer with an office in jackson. one of the good ole boys from way back. a hard working, slightly raunchy, often riotous guy — but it was okay because he wasn’t a dang hypocrite about it.
“weaver” = weaver gore, same as above.
both of these guys are up there in years and still around.
Conflicts, prior relationships, etc. are not uncommon and are routinely handled by appointing an unconflicted D.A. or an unconflicted judge to handle the case.
Not sure why Hood would not say that instead of implying that he could do nothing.
As the feds seem to have everything under control, the appropriate response, right now, is for the state to offer whatever assistance, investigative or otherwise, is requested by the federal investigators. Whatever state charges there might be should wait until the feds finish.
Thank you, confounded 105 — I was getting sooo tired of tapping my foot here.
Ya did it, lawN — W00T! (Don’t forget the ones around the /a, though.)
Researcher, I thought that waiting until the feds are done was a good idea, too. Why duplicate efforts? If Hood had decided to go after these guys, these Hood-haters would have screamed bloody murder for wasting their money.
Researcher, where did the “do nothing” come from? This is quote from CL story.
Hood said instead of his office getting involved, he would hope any concurrent state case would be filed by a local district attorney.
“If the DA can’t do it, then we’ll step in,” he said.
Hood, when pressed, said he believed any of the guilty attorneys should go to jail.
Yep, with that statement this is all I need to know that Hood himself is about to be indicted by the Feds. It’s not what Hood is saying but what he isn’t saying.
I’ve already said that Hinds County is about to get an ass whuppin from the Feds and I imagine Hood knows that as well.
DeltaNative 82, I fully agree with everything you said. Just joining in with others …
I am not a “Hood hater.” But I am very angry with him for screwing up his investigation so badly by getting involved with Scruggs and the rest of the SKG/KLG. I’m angry about it because I think he hurt those who were depending on him to help them — the Katrina victims. By bungling this so badly, he has added to their misery, and for that he should be ashamed. No, dammit, he should resign.
MSLawyer, what about State Farm? They do this shit in every state. Where’s the outrage at State Farm? Why eat our own?
iratetoday..you have this pegged about right. General Hood is on a full court press.
belle, why on earth this is an either/or in your view, I cannot fathom. Hood, Scruggs-et-al., and State Farm are equally turkeys who need to be run out, as far as I can tell (and I’ve been paying the best attention I can).
I’m not an “insurance hater” MSlawyer but I’m really angry with State Farm – that’s who hurt the people on the Coast. No one should have needed to depend on anyone but their insurance company for help.
In failing their customers, they failed us all.
And who did the Coast folks need on their behalf? Of course, as I’ve said again and again—the man who was hired for that job has failed them.
lotus, you know if you get a bunch of people to tell a perfectly healthy individual that he/she looks sick, “are you ok, you don’t look so well” “hey man, what’s wrong with you? are you ok” etc., etc. that person will go home believing they are sick. As far as I can tell there are people in this state who have been slinging mud at Hood for at least a year and everything but the kitchen sink before election and he got re-elected which would have only royally pissed off these same people. I swear it is like mob rule. If you got all of these people in one room with Hood, they would lynch him. I have never heard a good excuse from any of them for it. I was reading the Oklahoma 1999 story from over at Columbia Journalism Review. SF used the same firm they got busted with over there for Katrina. Same thing in Texas. It took 7 years to settle in Oklahoma.
I thought it a major mistake for him to pen an editorial because if he just shuts up people will quiet down. They were about to and he woke them all up again.
Lotus, you’ve paid the best attention of anyone I can think of and I’m deeply appreciative. I don’t agree with your opinion in this case – but that does has nothing to do with my appreciation for all you have done and are doing and, I hope, will continue to do.
I’m deeply disappointed that our Attorney General has not been been able to satisfy the needs of the people on the Coast and hold him accountable; but, I’ve finally accepted there is nothing he can do to satisfy his critics – and it would be foolish not to think State Farm plays a role in all.
Well, belle, your perception of all this is a distinctly minority one, not only on folo but more widely, I’m pretty sure — and though it makes little to no sense to me, I do admire your ornery determination. We’d be lost without our ornery ones.
(No matter how dubious I think your efforts are in this case.)
Researcher, I thought that waiting until the feds are done was a good idea, too. Why duplicate efforts?
How about these guys need to go to Parchman farm instead of a federal minimum security in Atlanta. Hood or the local DA could send them to Parchman, the feds cannot.
I thank you, nowdy.
When someone triggers as much suspicion and criticism from the whole political spectrum as Jim Hood has here, isn’t it pretty hard to imagine that he’s been doing anything right?
Except for you and belle, I can’t find any other Hood defenders anywhere I look, left, right, or middle. Zowie.
Belle & nowdoucit, I’m not giving State Farm a pass here. But that doesn’t excuse Hood’s incompetence, either. I don’t condone his behavior any more than I condone the behavior of greedy trial lawyers. Two wrongs don’t make a right, in my view. And I think that Hood has created “an appearance of corruption” in his handling of all of this. He could have prosecuted State Farm had he not been so eager to help his big donors. That’s my opinion, anyway.
Courtney Schloemer…check out the google link…looks like she knows how to get around a lot…
http://www.google.com/search?q=Courtney+Schloemer&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
I found this filed by Mike Moore in the McIntosh case dated 1/22/08. Actually this is the end of a long summary of the SF cv-><-cr v. Hood.
More Courtney…View her old business card here
http://uslawyersdb.com/attorney248419
Now she worked at Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz and Tardy LLC in Jackson
Well belle what can I say? If MM said it in a pleading then it must have come down off the mount engraved on a stone tablet. I’m glad this cleared things up for you. From your posts it was hard for me to tell whether you were a Hood fan or not.
Jesus Christ, are we really so cynical that we can’t believe MM signing his name under oath before the court of law. Are we for Mississippi or are we for hate the lawyers who are trying to do something.
on edit: I have the file downloaded where he explains it all. I am sorry I am not really like Researcher or nowdoucit. I like to post transcripts. I’ll see what I can do.
on edit 2: That was from MM Response to SF Motion to Disqualify KLG in the McIntosh case. Maybe nothing new, but thought was interesting.
It seems to me, that belle is vehemently anti-State Farm in all this….. has been since the day I got here. SF has been her hot button. A lot of folks on here are anti-SF, but to her it seems personal and it doesn’t matter who or what…. as long as SF gets their due. By any means necessary, doesn’t matter how….. whether it’s legal, corrupt, or if anyone gets rich….. as long as SF pays. I think she thought Hood was going to be or still could be the guy to get em. I don’t know that she is such a huge Hood fan…. just a way to get to SF.
And I’m not a SF fan at all.
GENERALLY SPEAKING
State Farm says our policy language excludes it, and we don’t owe $ for damages.
State Farm along with their agents then attempt to manufacture evidence (fraud) for facts/evidence to fall within excluded events.
State Farm is caught, and their defense is to blame DS & JH.
Why engage in fraud if policy language protects State Farm from coverage? DUH!
Does anyone know for certain if SF pressured JH about civil/criminal matter or if JH pressured SF about criminal/civil matter?
Who brought the pressure tactics and the linkage of the two events to the table is an important fact to some of us.
Meanwhile, back at the slab.
I like quotes:
“Specifically, this insurance company failed to establish an administrative procedure to reevaluate claims. It failed to establish an orderly, fair and prompt resolution of those claims. It failed to submit the procedure for approval to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. It failed to make an offer of settlement to the policyholders based upon criteria and guidelines approved by the court.
If this corporation had met its obligations and complied with the orders of the court, Gulf Coast homeowners would have long ago been able to resume their lives and put the devastation and sorrow of August 2005 behind them.”
Neophyte: Duh! They did the exact same thing in Oklahoma as they have done to Katrina victims.
on edit: And they were criminally convicted by clear evidence.
belle-
You didn’t attribute your quote in #133 but if my memory serves me correctly this is from Hood’s Natchez testimony. Is that correct?
Nope!
That was from today’s editorial by Hood.
But back to Neophyte and again quotes from Columbia Journalism Review earlier this month re: Oklahoma 1999 if I may: (hope it turns out ok :~) )
Tired…no, it’s from the CL guest column that Hood wrote today.
I’m not defending SF belle, don’t agree with what they did. At all. Just a thought on why you are so pro Hood. And, that you don’t care what lengths anyone goes to as long as SF suffers. Hood could have gotten SF, if he hadn’t been in bed with Scruggs. Or he wasn’t such a dumbass.
No, I don’t care what lengths Hood goes to so that Mississipians don’t suffer. Everyone else wants Mississippians to lose so Hood can suffer.
Thanks to both shaves and belle. My mistake in recollection. I should know better.
And thanks to Neophyte for helping me to perhaps more fully understand belle.
belle #139
This clears up a bunch for me. But you are quite mistaken in your view if you are attempting to include me in the “everyone else” to which you refer. I am not able to adopt your quite simplistic thinking to life in general. But I must say that you did say a mouthful when you attempt to judge others so harshly with your simple formula. But it only confuses me more when I think of a very rational friend from the coast who lost his family home completely, who did not have flood insurance, had all kinds of problems with insurance coverage, but is one of the most vocal critics of Jim Hood that I know. I guess that even the rule of belle has its exceptions.
You are a wonderfully consistent, I have to admit that.
et tu tiredlwyr, et tu.
Oh, did you hear my story today where everyone was blaming Jim Hood because this judge let our circuit clerk go for felony embezzeling?
I came from NOLA after 10 years. You could have had Foti for AG! Talk about a horrible AG! OMG!
did i read something about a Seabass thread starting up? years ago one of the hottest bidding items every year at the ACLU of MS annual auction was a skinny dipping party in Sebastian’s pool. The auction was THE best party of the year back then – picture sunday in the park with george morphing into any number of works by hieronymus bosch.
And speaking of High Art, I want that damn dog at the bench from the dogstuff ad, but when you click on it, you just go to the front page of dogstuff with no clue how to get the whigged dog. what a tease!
“Everyone else wants Mississippians to lose so Hood can suffer.”
Bullshit, belle. You need a rest.
That was in reference to this: “And, that you don’t care what lengths anyone goes to as long as SF suffers. ” Which is ludicrous on it’s face. Hood didn’t get us into this mess. SF did.
No, belle, that was entirely in reference to your monomania — which, by the way, is all over my last nerve.
This is your final warning. NMC and I been wondering how long before you get yourself banned, and my guess is now “not hardly notime.”
Well there you go. You can’t ban me I quit.
Is she gone now?
Are ya’ll getting any of that info on the Hood PR email that went out earlier today, that was followed by the State farm attorney reply about contempt of court… and now AP article about the whole thing?
I haven’t seen any of that yet, MT. Where do we find ‘em?
Just saw it. Ouch, Hood is digging his own grave before our very eyes. He’s turning into Britney Spears!
here
And Rossmiller has the complete email that went out from the AG office on his blog.
Thanks, TL & MT. Messier and messier.