Hat-tips to tiredlawyer and My Thoughts for alerting us to the latest mishap in the State Farm v. Hood saga, involving that boon/bane of contemporary life and litigation, email:
NEW ORLEANS (AP) – With the press of a button, a lawyer for the nation’s largest insurance company may have ended a brief truce in its bitter dispute with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.
In an e-mail State Farm Insurance Cos. says was mistakenly sent to reporters Tuesday, a lawyer for insurer questioned whether Hood could be held in contempt of court for misrepresenting the terms of his office’s recent, confidential settlement with the company. …
U.S. District Judge David Bramlette ruled that Hood’s January 2007 agreement to end his criminal investigation of State Farm was “unambiguous and enforceable.” And yet Hood declared a victory of sorts in an article he wrote for The Clarion-Ledger newspaper of Jackson, Miss.
In Monday’s piece, Hood wrote that State Farm’s allegations “were shown to be false” when Bramlette agreed to dismiss its lawsuit. His spokeswoman, Jan Schaefer, echoed that claim in a press release Tuesday in which she denied Hood reached a “settlement” with State Farm.
“The only reason it is referred to as such is because the details of the attorney general’s criminal investigation needed to be protected,” Schaefer wrote. “The case was dismissed because the allegations were false.”
In response to Schaefer’s e-mail, Sheila L. Birnbaum wrote, “This is so over the top. Can we ask that he be held in contempt of court for misrepresenting a settlement agreement and order of the court.”
“No you can’t,” Hood’s spokeswoman fired back.
More than a dozen reporters, including several from The Associated Press, were listed as recipients to all three e-mails.
David Rossmiller reprinted the full text of the AG’s office announcement to the troops. And Birnbaum told the AP she thought that, while responding to Hood’s spin, she too was on internal email; who knew that Schaefer and the reporters were on the 21st-century’s answer to the party-line with her?
“I’m embarrassed that I pressed the wrong button,” she said. “That e-mail shouldn’t have gone out” since her question was merely “a thought I suggested to be considered.”
“She obviously thought she was sharing those thoughts with her legal colleagues,” said State Farm spokesman Phil Supple. “But, nonetheless, those are her thoughts. We were happy with the outcome of the proceedings in Natchez.”
Judge Bramlette also mummed-up, “I shouldn’t. I really shouldn’t,” when asked to comment on Hood’s characterization of his ruling in Natchez.
But doesn’t that sound like he’s just bustin’ to? Woo, better stay away from the computer the rest of the day, Judge!
Note to Sheila: Hold him in contempt!? Most people already do…
Oh my my – what a hilarious blunder and I’m not talking about the nifty reply-to-all email the SF lawyer crafted. What I see as hilarious is Hood’s denial of well known facts to events that happen just a couple of weeks ago. In Little Jimmy’s head he can ponder up just about whatever concussion he’s able to create with no consideration to the true. Wow, its like all of this has freaked him out to the point of no return. Each time he opens his mouth, its – Zero steps forward / ten steps back.
You want to see a clown turn into a damn fool? Stick around and watch what Little Jimmy Hood does next. If you can’t wait just read what Backstrom thinks of him in today’s transcript-of-a-consensual-conversation. Wow – bet Little Jimmy hopes Dickie doesn’t claim any victims on the way down.
Hey my people, I’ve been busy and it looks like I’m sooooo far behind that it will take me forever to get caught up. Is it true that Hood has said that he will leave prosecution uo to the local D.A’s? If so that is a big time joke, in the first judical district on of Joeys former employes- lawyers is now an A.D.A., is he that big of a weinner or what?!!
The most telling thing about Jim Hood was his answer in OPEN COURT to this question by State Farm lawyers in The State Farm Vs. Hood matter. Mr. Hood have you been served a target letter by the grand jury in oxford ms? The Hoods answer….. I do not know what I have been served with, you would need to ask my assistant. Thats a very LOUD YES I HAVE!!
Jim Hood had a golden ticket if he had not been served a target letter. He could have publicly bashed the thought of his involvement in any wrong doing. This would have been on the record.
There are lots of lawyers in here and I bet they will all admit they follow a basic rule in trial and court hearings. Never ask a question of a witness that you do not know the answer to. State farm asked that question because they already knew the answer. Thats the logic I see. It all adds up to the fact that we have a very slick snake oil salesman for an AG. If I were a betting man I bet the Gov is heading towards High Street in Jackson MS.
Hatfield, the full rule is “never ask the quetion unless you know the answer or know it can’t hurt you.” If Hood had said “yes” or “no” in wouldn’t have hurt SF, so the question would still stand BUT (this is a MAJOR BUT and WHERE I AGREE with your big point) if Hood had not been served with a target letter, the easy, smart answer to the question is:
“No, I have not been served with a target letter.”
If the answer is instead a cloud of squid ink, you’d ordinarily think “ooh– he got a target letter.”
In Hood’s case, I think– “ooh, either he got a target letter or once again, Jim Hood has messed up an answered in a way suggesting the worst possible implication because he screwed up.”
i always hear of these “target letters” and i have talked to many people who know what they think they are but don’t really know what they are. what exactly is a target letter? or perhaps better, what is the point of a target letter? and also, how and why would state farm know who received them? also, how did state farm know about the meal between hood and patterson/balducci? do they have well-placed sources? aren’t these grand jury proceedings secret by law?
Hatfield and/or NMC,
I have read the Natchez transcript and I do not recall that question or response. I would think that there would have been more comment about that if that were in there. Can one of you point out the passage about a target letter to Hood? I don’t see it.
I have also read the transcript and didn’t see any question to Hood about a target letter. I do remember a joke about it, with Hood’s response being that he’d have to ask Courtney whether he got anything from Target, all he remembered was seeing a WalMart circular.
Gearhart 6, you’ve come to the right place — at least as to parts of your question. The other day, our pal “watching closely” very kindly gave us a target letter show-and-tell, complete with the gummint’s own sample of one.
u da man lotus. thanks. i wonder if anyone knows the other answers.
Where can one find the AG contracts to private attorneys on behalf of The State. Those that have been let since election 07..
There was nothing about Hood receiving a target letter in the hearing. The Target-WalMart joke was not in the transcript. It was a satirical post by iratetoday in the long, long thread the day after the hearing.
See Comment #118
Whoops, Researcher, if irate doesn’t watch his step, he too could end up a footnote in somebody’s pleading one day.
Footnote? Is that what I’m regulated to? A footnote? Surely a pagragraph will be a greater honor! Ha!
Wull, keep working on your jokes, irate, and who knows . . .