The same approach to wagon circling that we saw with Moore’s Partnership PAC except this time the story line is to promote “efficiencies”.

The ends always seem to be justifying the means.

Have you ever read the Partnership decision handed down by the MS Supremes?  It does not support Bryant’s unsupported claims that the attorneys fees are public funds subject to appropriation.

Google kicks butt.

<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5257/is_199208/ai_n20321292"?>Here is an article about Patterson squawking</a> at Mike Moore retaining outside counsel under identical circumstances in 1992.

Alan,

Please explain your position fully.

By the way, wasn’t Patterson the guy that resigned because he lied about his car tag?

1. HOOD AND STEVE ARE SECOND COUSINS. 

2. STEVE WAS SPEAKING OF CONTINGENCY FEES.  THE MCI SETTLEMENT DID NOT TAKE MONEY FROM THE STATE TO PAY THE LAWYERS.  THE 1988 ARTICLE PATTERSON WAS TALKING ABOUT DID TAKE MONEY FROM THE STATE.

3. HOOD AND STEVE ARE SECOND COUSINS.

4. HOOD AND STEVE ARE SECOND COUSINS.

Oh, and by the way, Steve Patterson apparently practices law with Tim Balducci, who is Joey Langston’s partner on the MCI windfall.  Langston is, of course, Hood’s biggest campaign contributor and financial/legal beneficiary.

I’d say Patterson has just a slight conflict of issue shilling for Hood with his Former (Disgraced and Resigned) Auditor’s hat on.

Too bad Hampton, et. al., didn’t catch that before publishing.

With regard to the 1992 issue, Patterson says in his report that “[t]he mission of the State Auditor is to enforce the law of this state as it exists, not to enact law or to adjudicate what the law is or should be.” He did not report that the State lacked authority to hire outside counsel on a contingency fee basis.  It is a good thing too - in 2002, the MS Supreme Court addressed the issue and expressly confirmed that the AG may utilize contingency fee arrangements.

Of course, all of this contingency fee talk is academic with regard to the MCI settlement.  As G. Otti notes, the lawyers were not paid a contingency fee but instead were paid an amount which was in addition to the money owed the State.  Moreover, the Bankruptcy Court approved the payment in a fully noticed hearing in open court.  Neither Bryant nor Barbour nor anyone else objected to the settlement in open court when fully noticed about the hearing.

What is the difference between a contingency fee and an amount “over the settlement”?  At the end of the day, was it a $100M settlement with a $14M contingency fee, or was it a $114M settlement with a 12.2% contingency fee.  The defendant (MCI) settled the case for $114M out of their pocket.  The assignment of how the fees are calculated is just lawyer-jockeying.

Trust me - I know lawyer-jockeying.

Neither Bryant nor Barbour nor anyone else objected to the settlement in open court when fully noticed about the hearing.

Gee Wally, nobody objected to the blind trust 3+ years ago either.

The difference is proven by the debt owed the State.  MCI owed $95 M in income tax.  It paid $100 M, plus real estate worth about $7-8 M depending upon appraisal, to the State to cover this debt and interest.  The lawyers were entitled $17 M in fees and expenses from that $107; yet, they agreed to take $14 million directly from MCI and to donate they remaining $3 M to the Justice Center. 

The difference is that the State was not owed the $14 M.  The cruel irony of Bryant’s misguided effort is that, should Langston et al. choose to return the money and enforce their contingency fee contract with the Legislature, they are entitled to $3 M more.

By the way, read the letter from Langston to Bryant on this point - it is an exhibit to Langston’s suit against Bryant:  He offered to return the money in exchange for an appropriation.  Bryant refused.

- Gee Wally, nobody objected to the blind trust 3+ years ago either.

The blind trust was not ordered by a court in an open proceeding with full notice to all state officials to be heard.  The MCI fee payment was and no state official, including Bryant and Barbour, objected.

T. Frank, you’re wrong.  The state was owed a billion dollars.  They settled.  You’re just exercising semantics to say that the fee was somehow magic money that just came from nowhere.  According to the legal argument, the state was owed a billion, but MCI was in bankruptcy.  They settled for $100 million or so, but in truth, the state settled for much less than it was owed.

It is the taxpayers money that Hood funnelled, through a cushy no-bid legal contract, to his largest campaign contributor.  You can color the balance any other way you’d like.

Spin it however you like but if you look at who has been winning and who has been losing these skirmishes then the odds are against Hood regarding how this specific MCI deal went down.

The play is not about who is bringing home the largest (net) amount of dinero nor about the law though how the Supreme’s rule on the law will be the deciding factor.  Nope, the game is put Hood on the defensive and to restrict the MulletMan’s future freedom of movement should he prevail next month.

So argue law till you are blue in the face but from the looks of the worried fuss that Hood and his pals are putting up on this one—which so far is right out of Moore’s Partnership whinebook—a whole lotta folks ain’t gonna rollover until the yea-or-nay decision eventually comes down the pie.

In order:

Alan,

I’m glad you mention “legal argument”.  Here is the actual legal argument: WCOM subsidiaries paid $20 B to the WCOM parent company for the intangible of “management foresight” between 1998 and 2002 in exchange for dividend payments.  The AG initially filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding for $1 B because that is 5% of $20 B, knowing that the actual debt would have to be determined later after some discovery.  He discovered that WCOM was in fact performing no services and providing no foresight to the subsidiaries, which made the payments dividends. 

In 1998, WCOM successfully lobbied the MS Legislature to exempt from gross income dividend payments from subsidiaries to parent companies.  This made only the $1.9 B in 1998 taxable.  That rendered $95 M in tax owed.  This, Alan, was the legal argument.

I challenge you to cite a single reputable source to refute this fact. Or, better yet, since you are so familar with the “legal argument” - please explain it for us all. 

With regard to the attorneys fees, they were not “magic”.  MCI paid these fees for a litany of reasons, not the least of which included Verizon’s desire to resolve MCI’s legacy liabilities with regard to WCOM.  This payment was, as much as you refuse to admit it, a product of excellent lawyering.

This brings me to you, jacktown601.

It is particularly telling that you use “spin” and “play” with regard to this matter.  You are exactly right.  Anyone in the Bryant camp who knows anything at all about this settlement and the attorneys fees, knows Bryant is substantively wrong.  Bryant’s “play” is political in nature.  The problem he will find is that “political” plays are not adequate grounds for legal threats. 

With regard to the Partnership comparison, the crux of that matter was that the tobacco settlement did not allow continued payments to the Partnership, outside the “pilot program” stage.  The Partnership kept the payments which were authorized by the settlement within the pilot program stage.  The attorneys here received fees which were 1) above the debt owed the State, 2) expressly authorized in the settlement papers and 3) approved by a United States Bankruptcy Court without any objection from any party.  The Partnership case supports the legality of the attorneys fees in the MCI matter; it does not hurt it.

Bryant’s “play” is political in nature.  The problem he will find is that “political” plays are not adequate grounds for legal threats.

That may be the case but during this interim period before the court tells Bryant to go away the FUD hurts Jimmy the Hair more than anyone else.

You’re also missing my Partnership point.  I’m only comparing the way Moore and crew spun and whined about his PAC versus how MulletMan and his crowd are now doing the same regarding the MCI deal.  Moore lost big time.  Jimmy may not but he and his pals are sure acting scared.

You go ahead and stay gaga in love with Hood.  I’ll wait to see if Bryant gets turned back.

T. Frank,
Save your breath.  Allan and Jacktown601 are following neocon 101.  Have a short list of talking points and just repeat.  The Miss. Code allows Hood to hire outside counsel.  The Miss. Supreme Court has upheld it.  Hell I have two contingency fee contracts and freaking Clark Reed is my parents next door neighbor.  You dont see that talked about by the republicans and i am pretty sure my name was on that press release.  The simple fact of the matter is that contingency fee contracts are legal.  If they are, then any entity can use them.  Charlie Ross couldnt even get this issue passed the Senate.  The Republicans senators like the tobacco money and MCI money as much as anyone else. Hell, the Republicans had to get a guy that was head of Mass tort litigation in five states to run against Hood.  Some tort reform.  Let see....If HOod is so vulnerable why did Mike Randolph, Bubba Pierce, Andy taggart, and Rusty Fortenberry turn the GOP down to run?  Last time poll i saw was 80/20 Hood.

Sonuff, as usual, you missed the point entirely.  The point isn’t whether Hood can hire outside counsel.  Of course he can.  What is in question is the process he uses to select and the VERY REAL appearance of impropriety that Hopkins has legitimately raised.  The odds of his largest campaign contributor legitimately getting a $14m contingency deal by accident are a 1,000,000:1.

Hood, seemingly on the spot at the Stennis Press Luncheon, cooked up this “first come first serve” contingency fee allocation process which is candidly one of the dumbest things I have ever heard someone in government say.

AND ALLAN YOU MISS THE POINT,
I got my contracts in 04.  That was the policy then.  So you are reporting on “seemingly” Allan.  I went through freaking 4 month interview and i am working with David Boies.  Look him up.  You are too good of a reporter for that.  Here is what i would like to see Allan.  The biggest case the State of Miss. has went to DANIEL COKER.  Called the “water case”.  They got the case by defending Desoto County and then bringing it to the AG. The second biggest case went to Copeland Coke.  The wholesale Average Price Case.  they brought it to hood.  Allan, please research and tell me how many cases Butler Snow, Baker Donelson or whatever defense firm tried to get from Hood.  They know how to get work from the Governor.  I can’t get that.  Yes, trial lawyers give money to Democratic AG’s so they could get hired from them.  These trial lawyers that give big money happen to be very good thus the ability to give large sums.  Just like the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies give to the GOP.  Nothing wrong with that.  You guys are doing the same thing that Eaves is doing with Haley’s blind trust.  The law is the law.  Haley’s friends and family benefited from the Katrina funds.  Nothing wrong with that.  That is politics.  If you are sooo incensed that Hood is giving his friends contracts, then you MUST oppose haley for his nephews getting their lobbying firms’ clients contracts for the same reason or you are a hypocrite.

let’s settle this once and for all.  Allan, you and jacktown get an attorney or any attorney reading this post, please sue me for “stealing state funds” because i have these two contracts.  Do a dec action against me in Hinds County and prove to me that what i am doing is illegal.  Get the freaking republican party to do it.  If Haley knows about these contracts, why hasn’t he sued them ....like he did the partnership?  Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
why hasnt the governor sued Joey Langston? freaking been beating this dead horse for a year.  Either be a man of convictions and stop this illegality or drop it.

Neocon 101?  Is that the best you can do?

You need to back away from that keyboard Snuffy.  You obviously can’t handle the online world.  Do it for your sanity.

I’m kinda hurt----he called me Neocon 101 about a week ago.  I thought I was special

Responsive to Alan’s last post:

1) While you may not agree with a first come approach to outside litigation, it is the best way of handling matters.  Cases such as the MCI matter are not formed from theories developed within the AGs office.  This case, as well as the DeSoto County water case and others, are generated by outside counsel and presented to the AG as being in the best interest of the state.  The AG then assesses the ability of the presenter to handle the litigation, and either proceeds forward with the presenter alone, or teams him up with another firm which may add financial means, manpower or other assets to the endeavor.

If this process was supplanted by some bid process as proposed in the Charlie Ross bill, outside litigation would cease to exist precisely because no attorney would expend his or her efforts so that his or her work product could be shopped around to the lowest bidder.

Shutting down civil litigation spearheaded by the AG is the goal of the bid process and “sunshine” legislation. 

2) With regard to the appearance of impropriety, this sort of argument is a tort reformer favorite.  When you cannot illustrate any harm, complain about the appearance of harm.
This is type of innuendo is fodder for political campaigns, not good legislation.  Hopkins entire campaign is built on this one issue, and you know the polls indicate he will lose badly.

1.  Everybody repeats themselves when they’re not making progress.  Ain’t limited to neocons.

2.  The “no-bid contracts” issue is not going to win the election for Hopkins.  He needs a platform.

I agree with Tom on this one, while Hood’s practice of awarding contracts gives off the appearence of impropriety (and I am not say that he is giving favoritism to his buddies, though it appears that way) it still will not be enough for Hopkins to pull this one off.

The basic point is that the general public DOES NOT CARE which lawyers are getting state contracts.

Hopkins needs to find a real issue to use against Hood, I mean has anyone heard Hopkins attack Hood on his prosecutions (other than the Beef Plant thing, another issue that no one cares about).

The public perception is that Hood defended the state against the insurance companies in the aftermath of Katrina and put Edgar Ray Killen in prison. I guarantee you those are the only two issues that the average Mississippian knows about Hood’s legacy.

Yeah, FTR, I was Neocon on another thread for a while. It apparently doesn’t take much disagreeing with the lefties to earn that sobriquet.

However, I know a little bit about the origin of the MCI litigation, and my understanding of how it went down pretty much agrees with T. Frank’s description of the process. Even Neocons don’t have to disagree with everything the other side says.

You too, Sanders?!  I’m feeling cheaper by the minute. 

But would be interested in what you’re referring to as “a little bit about the origin...”

The “neocon” insult cracks me up because in a very real sense, we’re all neocons.  Even Bill Clinton was a neocon.  The 1996 welfare reform bill was classic Moynihan, and the 1999 Clinton Doctrine speech was classic Kristol.  Every viable major-party presidential nominee is some flavor of neocon; the only Republicans who aren’t are Paul and Tancredo, and the only Democrat who isn’t is Kucinich.

Simply that neither Hood nor anyone else in the AG’s office thought up the theory of the case, just as Moore did not think up the theory of liability that prevailed in the tobacco litigation. Private lawyers brought it to them in both instances, just as T. Frank described. So, it was “first come, first served” only if the lawyers who came first also brought a viable theory of the case along with them. Beyond that, I simply kinow people who know people, as the saying goes.

So, you would agree then, that Hood’s brand new ad claiming that JIM HOOD “won the state $100 million dollars by taking on MCI” and “HOOD won 30 times more than the state asked for” is bunk.... if Jim Hood won it as the attorney for the state, then why oh why do we have any legal fees (ie $14 million dollars) at all?  Per his ad, “Jim Hood forced MCI to pay the legal fees.” If Master Attorney Jim Hood pulled all of this out of his hat… and I’m assuming he still draws a salary.... $14 million in legal fees was for.....

You see my problem---which is it, Hood?  Did you do it all by your fabulous self?  And if so, why did $14 million go to your buddies?

Why would Steve “Cartag” Patterson write a letter to anyone supporting Hood? He resigned from office in disgrace. He is a typical Jim Hood backer.

TOM, Let me clarify me use of the word “neocon.” According to Irving Kristol, the founder and “god-father” of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism: a low tax, pro-growth and less risk-averse approach to economics; a less libertarian approach to domestic affairs than some other conservatives; and an idealist, expansive foreign policy.  I have used the term here for the last two elements of the definition.  First, the anti-Hood group wants a committee from the Legislature to approve who gets this contracts.  Great, Charlie Ross can sit on the committee and steer everything to Wise Carter and violate more rules of ethics.  I want less government not more.  (Why are the same guys screaming for Jim’s Head wanting to Charlie investigated?)

Second, It seems that while the neocons want an active foreign policy they do not want to get their hands dirty, i.e., Dick Cheney, President Bush wanting the Iraq war but no national draft.  The analogy, because i just lost some members of this site is this: DO NO SCREAM FOR TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT AND FOR GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT WHEN HALEY BARBOUR HAS MADE A CAREER AT SIDE DEALS.  Either want oversight for all parts of government or none at all.  (By the way, I am a Haley supporter and would not vote for Eaves if you paid me, but GHB’s nephews have the biggest lobbying firm in the State. WTF. Also, any citizen can do a public information request to get these contracts from Hood.  that is how my name got on the press release.  What mechanism do i have to get information on the company handling the STATE’S FEMA MONEY IN MARYLAND.  )

Also, no one realizes that if you want oversight on the lawyer fees, why not ask that all attorney fees in these cases have approval by the trial court.  THIS IS WHAT THEY DO IN 49 STATES in class actions.  They dont want this because his mechanism does not stop these lawsuits and that is the end game here. 

Finally, i understand most people here are not lawyers and think we act like we are in a John Grisham novel, but it is not so.  The Tobacco lawyers ran out of money and had to go to David Nutt for backing.  Every defense firm turned them down.  that was for expenses only.  If the State had paid them $200 an hour to butler snow to handle that case, one it would have crippled the budget and two, they would still be milking the file.  AND HERE IS THE KICKER, I DONT THINK MCI OR TOBACCO WOULD HAVE WON AT TRIAL, because of proving damages.  What does the State do if they spend $8 million on fees and $5 million
on expenses and then lose??? AND YOU CAN BET WHO EVER HAS THE CASE IF THE STATE IS FOOTING THE BILL, THEY ARENT GOING TO STAY AT THE MOTEL SIX.

Can we expect to see all of this included in that play you’ve been penning for oh so long?  Are you still working on that one?  Still running with the working title, “What the F***?” Or have you had more rejection letters?

And your personal experience with lawsuits.... weren’t you sued for malpractice?  Don’t have to be a lawyer to figure out that’s not a good thing, huh?

Brent… WTF?

Responsive to From the Right’s last comment of yesterday:

Your understanding is overly simplistic.  Of course Hood forced MCI to pay.  He was deeply involved in the MCI case and did in fact force MCI to pay the MCI settlement.  Outside counsel was also involved; outside counsel formulated the theory of liability, prosecuted the case, handled the vast majority of communications with MCI, recommended courses of action to the AG, etc.

Think of it in terms of a football analogy:  Hood is the head coach.  Outside counsel are the coordinators.  Both are essential; however, the head coach is always in control.

I’m afraid that you over-complicate this issue… probably more from a refusal to admit that the $14 million would/should/could be state money, rather than Langston money.  Since I see that you’ve deduced that somehow 1 billion dollars owed can be now calculated into 95 million, I’m pretty sure that you can’t see that issue clearly---nice math by the way.  And if Hood were Mississippi’s head football coach right now, he’d be fired.

I present the same challenge to you that I did Allen.  Lay out a cogent legal argument to support your claim that the state was owed $1 B and/or the fees are public money. You have not done so; neither has Hopkins; neither has Bryant; neither has any other critic of the settlement.  The reason for this is simple: You can’t.

Think about how silly you sound:  You have offered no support for any of your conclusory assertions.  I have.  Your republican-led Tax Commission sought $3 M.  Hood recovered $110 M.  If the $1 B was so clearly owed, why did the Tax Comm’n not seek it?  If the $1 B was clearly owed, why did the 18 other states and Multi-State Tax Comm’n oppose the State’s claim?  If the $14 M in fees are public money, why did Bryant not object to the settlement in open court when presented with full opportunity to do so?  Why did Bryant wait until his Lt. Gov. campaign to take any action, however misguided?

Anyone with any experience with the law, any knowlege of the settlement and any knowledge of Bryant’s “investigation” and report, can see this entire effort is nothing more than a calculated attempt to rally the I-hate-all-lawyers troops into turning out in droves to support Bryant and Hopkins.  This effort is purely political - and, if you have seen the polling, it ain’t working.

With regard to Hood being fired, we will all have a fine opportunity to see whether that is true in a few weeks.

Your summary of Kristol’s three pillars of neoconservatism is decent enough, sonuff, though point (2) is really “less small-government” than “less libertarian.” Ron Paul, for example, is not a neoconservative because he’s a radical federalist and an isolationist.  It’s important to remember that until the 1970s, Paul’s ideas on state vs. federal authority were considered more or less mainstream in the Republican Party.

I’m less interested in the Jim Hood business, to be honest, I don’t think voters will be interested either.  If there were any ethical improprieties that weren’t sorted out in the 47 months before now, they’re not going to be sorted out over the next four weeks either.  And I feel exactly the same way about the blind trust issue, I should add.  Both of those issues are being raised as a desperate last-minute effort to beat incumbents who have prohibitive leads, and neither effort is likely to be successful.

Tom,

While I agree with you re. the motives of each respective political party in dredging up the MCI and blind trust issues, these are two fundamentally different issues.

With regard to MCI, everything is public. The case theories, the manner in which theories were presented to the AG, the AGs prosecution of the case over Tax Comm’n objection, the opposition faced by the AG and his assistants during the case, the results of the case, the expenses incurred by outside counsel, the fees paid outside counsel, the contributions of outside counsel to Hood’s political campaigns, etc.

Heck, Hopkins’ entire campaign is based on information he learned precisely because of the public nature of these things.  Thus, the Hopkins campaign boils down to a simple question: Do you believe the “pay for play” argument?  If so, does that make you want to vote against Hood.

Contrast that with the blind trust:  The argument with regard to the blind trust turns on what we don’t know, not what we do.  We do not know the extent to which Barbour may financially profit from his policies (tobacco tax) or actions (no-bid Katrina contracts), whether the manner of profit is gauged by his payments from his lobbying firm or direct holdings in companies. 

JAE has rooted a significant portion of his campaign, not on an argument rooted in publicly available information, but in the questions raised by Barbour’s refusal to present substantive proof that he is not abusing his office.  It is a burden shifting mechanism which has in some degree placed Barbour on the political defensive.  I emphasize “some degree” because I suspect Barbour believes he does not have to provide such prove to win re-election.

Hey for the right?  I was never sued for malpractice.  Please let me know what you are talking about.  And by the way, sense you are defaming me.....why dont you be man enough to give me your name....cause i know who this is, and you talking about my legal background is a joke when you are chasing car wrecks.

Maybe they should be two fundamentally issues, TF, but I don’t think they’re playing that way.  I think the dynamic is roughly identical in both cases: The people who would have voted against Haley Barbour anyway see value in the blind trust argument, and the people who would have voted against Jim Hood anyway see value in the no-bid contracts argument.  I don’t think either will impact the outcome of the race. 

But should they?  That’s an interesting question.  I lean towards a no, in both cases.  I don’t care “who Haley Barbour serves”; I care about his policies.  Unless he’s willfully accepting the bulk of his money from organized criminal, hate-based, or terrorist groups, it’s a non-issue for me. 

Likewise, I was not terribly impressed with the no-bid contract issue when it was brought up re: Halliburton, and I’m not when it’s brought up re: Hood.  Yes, it would be nice if we had policies prohibiting that sort of thing, but that’s more a matter for the legislature than the voting booth, from where I sit.  I don’t see how replacing one under-regulated attorney general with another is going to fix things.  The issue is the policy, not the politician.

Hey TOM dont hate me cause i can summarize Kristol.  Others read here.  lol.

Alan, is there any way you could verify on this thread that “From the Right” is not me.  I think there may be some confusion on someone’s part.

Yeah Allan, please email me the identity of “For the Right” or post it.  I am very interested where he is getting his information.

nice try Curt. I love reading your blog every day.

Kingfish,
Please tell me what you are talking about.  If you dont mind?

Don’t most lawyers chase car wrecks or something of that sort.

I assume some get sued for malpractice also though I would not want to hire a lawyer that did get sued for that no matter what their excuse is.

Tom Head wrote:  “The 1996 welfare reform bill was classic Moynihan… ”

Say what?  Sen. Pat Moynihan (NY) was a New Deal/Great Society Democrat who vehemently opposed the Welfare Reform Bill.  He was horrified by its passage and made all kinds of dire predictions about the consequences.

Slick Willie (the only elected president ever to be impeached) vetoed the first two Welfare Reform Bills passed by the Republican Congress.  Since 1996 was an election year, His Slickness signed the third bill.

I am not Curt Crowley.... does that help, Curt?

That was an interesting—and somewhat heated—exchange you deleted, Alan.

David Sanders wrote:  “That was an interesting—and somewhat heated—exchange you deleted, Alan.”

Did the rest of us miss some excitement?

Uh, yeah, it was snarls and invective at thirty paces. Some of it may have even been actionable. Alan’s no dope.

I miss all the good stuff

And then there’s this:

MCI was represented in the final settlement negotiations by former attorney general Mike Moore. The state was represented by Langston and his current legal associate Billy Quin, who at the time the case was settled was associated with the Louisiana law firm. . . .The Langston and Lundy & Davis law firms were hired as outside counsel to represent the state by current Attorney General Hood. Langston has been identified as one of Hood’s largest campaign contributors, a reality that Langston doesn’t deny.

Langston was also one of Mike Moore’s largest campaign contributors.  So why isn’t this the story? Langston owned the lawyers on both sides of the table—but in some weird cosmic way so did Moore.  This was the coziest little negotiation in history.

Having said that, it looks like MCI is the one who got fleeced.  One wonders how much they paid Moore.

Everyone should remember that yet another person in the Jim Hood orbit has gone down.  Steve Patterson sent this letter to the editor supporting Hood during the last campaign.  That would make two former Special Assistant Attorneys General (Balducci and Langston) that have pleaded guilty and one former State Auditor (Patterson) who pleaded guilty.

That doesn’t look too good.