Home|Login|Register  |    
H-O-O-D A-W-O-L
Where is Attorney General Jim Hood in the Dickie Scruggs Matter?
by Alan Lange
Probably one of the most interesting aspects of the fallout of the Scruggs/Balducci bribery case in Oxford Mississippi has been the absolute absense of the State's top law enforcement officer in the potential for the biggest public corruption case since "Operation Pretense" in the 1980's.

The office of the Mississippi Attorney General has a Public Integrity Division (PID), which is charged with "the prosecution of several types of criminal cases in the State Courts in Mississippi. As its primary mission, PID is charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting public corruption and white collar crime."

So the question remains . . . Where is Jim Hood?

As we know, Tim Balducci was a Special Assistant Attorney General appointed by Jim Hood in the MCI case, a case in which Hood's largest political contributors were given a case that netted them $14,000,000 in attorneys fees. And though Balducci was a Special Assistant Attorney General in the case, he joined Joey Langston in filing an action protecting the attorneys fees against State Auditor Phil Bryant. Jim Hood's predecessor and political mentor, Former Attorney General Mike Moore, represented MCI in the case.

This investigation has been going on for about seven months by the FBI and the US Attorney's Office. There are only one of two scenarios. First, Hood knew about the investigation of his large campaign contributors, and has remained silent just to help the Feds. That seems highly implausible. With the recent political cycle in which Scruggs and many of the lawyers in SKG donated tens of thousands of dollars to Hood, it just isn't plausible that Hood knew of the investigation and would have kept the campaign money. The more likely scenario is that Hood's office knew nothing about the investigation and were as shocked as the rest of the world was when the indictments came down.

Although former Special Assistant Attorney General has now pleaded guilty to federal charges for bribing a state judge, that does not absolve him from state criminal liability. Nor would the federal charges pending against the other accused (several of which were Hood's political donors) preclude the PID from bringing state charges.

Normally, you would fear for the life of anyone standing between Jim Hood and a news camera for a public corruption investigation of this type. However, not one word has been uttered in the press and seemingly no investigation is pending by Jim Hood's office. As for Dickie Scruggs, who Hood named a "confidential informant" in the Rigsby matter while providing safe harbor for one of his largest campaign donors to defy a direct court order to return documents, it is a test of "public integrity" indeed to see if Hood will join the investigation and bring charges on behalf of the people of Mississippi.

There is the potential that Hood may get caught in the net of this investigation. IF it comes out that Scruggs and Hood coordinated criminal charges against State Farm to exact leverage in Scruggs' civil litigation and subsequent settlement, this could get sticky indeed. Obviously, the Feds will depose Scruggs in their case prep and may well depose Hood as well.

Folks, I am afraid we're just getting started in this case.

As "Deep Throat" said in the Watergate scandal . . . follow the money.

Posted December 5, 2007 - 5:15 pm
11 Comments:

Yes.  Follow the money and see that Mr. Scruggs has given as much, if not more, in campaign contributions to GOP candidates and causes over the years.  You really ought to think about going into writing keen political who-done-its, Alan. You’ve started a good story line here.

Posted by one true thing on 12-05-2007 at 10:02 PM [link]

RUMOR ALERT!  There is a rumor of a sealed indictment in this case.  That’s usually only reserved for public officials.

Hood’s been awful quiet.  Could that be on the advice of counsel?

Posted by HeardOnTheStreet on 12-05-2007 at 10:45 PM [link]

I’m not buying that Hood is involved in the issues that the individuals are currently indicted for.  So if there is a sealed indictment, I doubt it would be meant for him.  If there is one and it involves him, I’d be surprised.

That’s not to say that Hood is in the clear altogether.  I think the points that Alan raises regarding the orchestrated use of the threat of criminal investigation as a means of extorting a settlement, and the issue of intentionally colluding with Scruggs to violate a court order, should be of concern to the feds. 

We’ll just have to see.

Posted by Reagan Dem on 12-05-2007 at 10:54 PM [link]

(high-fives Alan and ReadyForAChange, runs away before y’all find out a dang liberal’s been in here, heh)

Posted by lotus on 12-06-2007 at 05:10 PM [link]

And yet another day has passed . . . Where is Jim Hood?

Posted by Alan on 12-07-2007 at 08:17 AM [link]

Y’allpolitics cited on the issue of Hood’s “disapperance” here:

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/204955-hood-tells-lnl-little-in-wake-of-scruggs-indictment

Posted by Jane on 12-07-2007 at 09:46 AM [link]

Question.
If Scruggs is found guilty in the court, can the tobacco companies make motions to reopen their cases to determine if any inappropriate actions occured between the judges involved and Scruggs?

What about Diaz, Teel, and the others?  They took money from Scruggs.  Do we need to revisit the cases that came before them that involved Scruggs to look for inproprieties?

Am I off base here or are these legitimate concerns?

F

Posted by Fyodor1 on 12-07-2007 at 04:05 PM [link]

Another two days have passed.  WHERE IS JIM HOOD?

Posted by Alan on 12-09-2007 at 09:28 AM [link]

Interesting where the money went this summer with $250,000 going to from Scruggs to a PAC to run smear ads against George Dale.  Given the circumstances that have come to light this makes George Dale look extremely well.

I still have to think that with all of the recordings that have been made, perhaps Trent Lott heard more than a Baptist preacher speak to help him make his decision to step down two days before his brother in law took the big hit.

Posted by Mr. Webb on 12-09-2007 at 11:45 PM [link]

All of this is a good example of why Mississippians are not well served by our system of electing everybody in the executive branch and judicial branch rather than having the Governor appoint some of them.

When who the Insurance Commissioner is, and what he does, is just the result of a contest between tort lawyers and insurance companies, as to who can get their man elected, there is one group that is left out.  The poor saps trying to get their homes and property reliably and reasonably insured.

When we force judges,or insurance commissioners, or attorneys general to raise money for regular elections, where do we expect them to get it from?  It’s a built in flaw when we expect these officials who have to take huge sums of money from people trying to influence them, to shut the door in their faces when they do show up trying to influence them.  When it comes to raising money, there is only one group that doesn’t contribute in large amounts, and therefore doesn’t have access or influence in Mississippi, the average citizen.

All of these indictments involving our judiciary, all of these lawsuits involving insurance, tobacco, fee splittling, and everything else are symptoms of the problem rather than being the problem themselves.

With more positions being appointed by the Governor, you still have the problem of wealthy individuals and groups trying to buy their own set of rules.  But, at least, it is concentrated in one place where, one, their money is somewhat negated by the fact that there are many different interests competing against each other, and two, you have one place and individual to watch and regulate, rather than hundreds of places and individuals.

But, if we ever do try and change to a system of executive and judicial appointments, wait and watch all of the people who are benefiting the most from this present system of built in corruptive influences to come mightily to the defense of our right to vote for every position in government.

Posted by lawdoctor1960 on 12-10-2007 at 06:32 AM [link]

Where is that public integrity division from Hood’s office?

Posted by Alan on 12-10-2007 at 03:28 PM [link]
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. And yes, you can still keep your identity anonymous. See the instructions on the registration page.



recent comments

©2005-2010 Jackson New Media, Inc. All rights reserved.