<blockquote>Judge Bramlette: I think he just wants you to answer yes or no.

Judge Bramlette: I know you know your left hand from your right one.<blockquote>

Judge Bramlette: I think he just wants you to answer yes or no.

HOOD: Yes, sir.

Judge Bramlette:: I think that’s what he wants.

HOOD: I’m afraid since I’ve got that state court litigation going on I have to—I’m trying to be careful. You know, I—this is the first time—you saw me raise my left hand. I’ve never been a witness. I’ve tried 100 jury trials, but I’ve never been a witness and it’s --

Judge Bramlette: I know you know your left hand from your right one.

Who says transcripts can’t be fun?

Hood:

“And your Honor… I think it’s important for the Court to understand why this suit was filed.  It was filed two weeks after (Katrina).  It was strictly filed to get a quick answer so there wouldn’t be a lot of litigation...”

And, how’s that working out for ya there, Jimmy?

Hood’s buffoonery is shocking.

"The idea came from the sheriff in Jackson County.”

Could we get some sort of ticker running here for each person Hood throws under the bus?

OR… how about a ticker running for each idea Hood says was actually “his.” That’ll take a lot less time.

Page 158, the implication is made that Balducci/Patterson approached Hood and threatened to run a candidate against him if he didn’t participate/assist in settling a 20m dollar mass tort case. Scruggs would have funded it and Moore is implicated in being in on it.  It is only a question but....

Hood denies it.

Wonder what Patterson and Balducci have told the Feds?  Could Hood have perjured himself? Oh, the speculation.

I’ve been reading the transcripts — I believe from page 166 on 43 to the end might shed some light (along with what’s been reported) onto what the settlement agreement is. There’s the time in there, after Mr. Hood was attempting to answer a question Robie said (I thought he was being a real jerk and it will to you to as you read it):

25 Now, do you want to talk about (c) or just –

Q. Mr. Hood, would you like to ask your own questions?
2 THE COURT: Go ahead, counsel. Ask the questions.
3 What’s the next question?

I can’t follow any of his answers....he is either ignorant or brilliant.....

This is the testimony of Mississippi’s AG whose performance on the stand folo’s Natchez “correspondent” characterized as ‘sharp as a tack’.

If only his testimony could have been video recorded.  It could have run during one of MPB’s pledge breaks weeks, ‘Jim Hood, Unplugged, Unmasked and Unable’.

So let me see if I have this timeline right based on Hood’s Natchez testimony.

Only a few days after Katrina, but no more than 9 days after—while 99% of the state is still reeling and doing everything within our collective power to get relief supplies and help to the coast—Hood gets a tip from the sheriff in Jackson County that insurers are going to/plan on/already have denied wind/water claims.

Then sometime around day 10 or 11 after the storm Hood meets, in his office, with Scruggs and other attorneys about this problem.  Over the next 3-4 days Hood does research on Camille, draws up a lawsuit, pre-reviews it with Scruggs and others, takes their feedback, makes any adjustments and files the suit in Hinds County 14 days after the storm hit.

Sorry Hood, I don’t believe that bullshit for a minute.  I think you’re lying through your teeth.

jacktown, where do you get 9 days?  Here in the testimony, the suit was filed two weeks after Katrina.  Hood testified, two weeks after the hurricane, he learned on Saturday, that would be the 9th of September—12 days after the hurricane hit he went in and talked to the sheriff of Jackson County.  Two weeks after the storm would be the Monday, the 15th.

MR. ROBIE: It is, your Honor. It’s been premarked
11 for identification as Exhibit 27. If we have a copy, we could
12 submit it. Maybe it’s a good time to go right through it.
13 THE COURT: I’m just unfamiliar with it. I’ve heard
14 you refer to it, but I don’t think I’ve seen it.
15 MR. ROBIE: Your Honor, may I hand one to the witness?
16 THE COURT: You may, sir. And if you would, counsel,
17 in your questioning of the witness or you may state it to the
18 court if counsel opposite would approve of it, what the court
19 is interested in knowing is the genesis of this settlement
20 agreement. What brought it about? What does it say? What’s
21 the meaning of it insofar as this case is concerned? That’s
22 what I want to know.
23 MR. ROBIE: I will go directly there, your Honor.
24 BY MR. ROBIE:
25 Q. General Hood, this is the settlement agreement that you’ve
Page 79
1 been testifying about for the last ten minutes, isn’t it?
2 A. That’s correct. It’s been marked Exhibit 27. That’s the
3 Chancery Court, Hinds County, settlement agreement.
4 Q. Right. This resolved the case that you filed two weeks
5 after Hurricane Katrina hit on August 29th, 2005?
6 A. Yes. Your Honor, two weeks after the hurricane I learned
7 on Saturday when I went in and talked to the sheriff of Jackson
8 County about the problems that they were having with this
9 exclusionary clause and the anti-concurrent cause.
10 I filed an action in chancery court asking the court to do
11 two things. And there never would have ever been a lawyer
12 hired in either of these cases if they had not blocked us from
13 doing that—or delayed it, rather.
14 And we asked just have the court to say the exclusionary
15 clause is valid or invalid and the anti-concurrent cause is
16 valid or invalid. So we filed that state court action. We
17 have yet to have a decision. But that’s the case that we
18 settled in. We sued several insurance companies. And so this
19 state court order was entered in the state court case that we
20 initially sued on.
21 Now, the federal court case, they wanted me to sign off on
22 that settlement agreement that they—or that proposed class
23 action, and I wouldn’t do it because I didn’t agree with it.
24 THE COURT: I understand.
25 A. Yes, sir.

But JTown---you forget---he was doing this for the people on the Coast (p 83) and “so there wouldn’t be a lot of litigation.”

Does he even HEAR the irony of having a meeting of the Attorney General of Mississippi---in his office---to draw up LITIGATION for something that hasn’t even happened yet?  And all in the name to AVOID litigation??

It’s almost too much to believe that he said that.

By the by JT, the Natchez self-appointed correspondent and author of the line, “Hood was great all afternoon. He said he’d never been on the stand before and raised his left hand for the oath. He was red - faced, flushed, but right on — sharp as a tack. Now, I have to try to tell you what went on but, personally speaking, I don’t think SF got anywhere, but the Judge was giving them all the leeway they wanted. ZZZzzzz. “
is two posts above yours there.

Whewww, just read 186 pages of testimony.  I challenge all readers here to do the same if you strong enough and your eyes don’t cross.  I have a higher opinion of MS general now after hearing him respond to a very persistent questioning.  Granted he couldn’t answer for all the employees of the office, but who could?  If anyone is convinced that state farm is the good guy in this one, read this testimony, which we know is one side’s witness, BUT the document trail is part of the court record.  I hope all who would deny valid claims to disaster victims get their due.

I have been practicing law for almost 13 years, and I have NEVER read anything like this.  Jim Hood is a dissembling lier who threw one of his subordinates under the bus OVER AND OVER AND OVER and then settled the case so she wouldn’t testify and demonstrate what a serial lier he really is.  He constantly contradicts himself, then gets caught and says, I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Courtney.  If I were her, I’d dust my resume off and start circulating it.  She can make a mint just on selling the rights to her story.  Hood needs to go.  What an embarrassment.

And as for Hood not “knowing what his subordinates do,” I can tell you as an attorney who supervises lots of attorneys in a lot of cases, my signature doesn’t go on squat unless I know precisely what they are doing.

The more one looks into these insurance blogs and others like it, the uglier this thing becomes . They all seem to work toward the interests of insurance companies and not for the honest concerns of policy holders. These are people that have not suffered so much as a paper-cut from Katrina, did not gut their personal home, was not denied a Katrina claim, doesn’t pay three premiums’ (for wind, fire and water), and have never been dropped by an insurance company for living in the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words, they are like the majority of fans and readers, unaffected and not empathetic to the dire circumstances that many have endured since August 29th. The greater fraud of Katrina is not Dickie Scruggs or Jim Hood but the very corrupt manner in which policyholders were denied claims en masse. This ethic is as dishonest as the insurance policy language that is written to deny protection from actual catastrophe. If readers feel like they have been ‘over-lawyered’ then they need to look squarely at the fact that insurance attorneys write more language to deny claims than to take care of their own customers. Insurance policies that looked toward the National Flood Insurance Program to off load billions in losses. Deceptive polices that have wrought so much pain for thousands of policy holders who lost everything. This is what Jim Hood is investigating and probably for very good reasons. Until these bloggers and readers have been denied claim from a catastrophic event and circumstance, I would suggest that they be more suspect of those who support the slam dunk of attorney generals and trial attorneys. Ultimately they are hurting the families who had to sue their own insurance company for payment. It has everything to do with money and insurance companies are far more powerful than a handful of very wealthy trial attorneys. Just ask yourself, “How is it that insurance companies walked away from Katrina nearly unscathed from this nations worst natural tragedy?” Many readers and bloggers are very uncomfortable with this fact and choose to ignore it entirely.

The Scruggs debacle has become a sideshow to a far more serious criminal investigation of State Farm, All State and a host of others. Many here would rather witness the public hanging of a trial attorney than dig deeper. Because what is truly being forgotten in this lop-sided debate are the thousands upon thousands who have been denied claims from an industry that has itself been ‘over-lawyered’. People that Dickie Scruggs and Jim Hood were out to protect. The Rigsby sisters must be a genuine threat to insurance ‘business as usual’ because billions are at stake and it seems that insurance companies are going after Katrina defense attorneys with a peculiar vengeance.To somehow win back every nickel from asbestos, tobacco and Katrina settlements. To settle the score.The end game seems to be to take Scruggs and Hood down at all possible costs. But who does this help except for the insurance companies? It certainly does not help the little guy with a gutted his house and was denied a claim . If you want to get a grip of what is going on, pick up a hammer and go down to New Orleans or the Gulf Coast and help someone. Help someone that has had to hire a lawyer on contingency to collect a claim. Listen to them first and foremost because these people are the ones that so many have forgotten entirely.

Here’s the one that gets me . . . Hood admits that there’s really no such thing as a “confidential informant” . . .

Q. He wasn’t a confidential informant when he reviewed the
8 draft of your proposed complaint against five insurance
9 companies that you filed two weeks after Katrina. Do I have
10 that right?
11 A. (HOOD)Yes. He—he provided information to us that was—led
12 us to witnesses that we went out and interviewed.
13 Q. But he wasn’t a confidential informant at that point.
14 A. Well, you know, confidential informant is not a term of
15 art. It’s—a lot of those lawyers—there were people who
16 were providing information, a lot of the policyholders. A lot
17 of people were providing us information. I mean, you could
18 call them confidential informants or call them people gathering
19 information. Now, I don’t know at that point when we called --
20 began to call Mr. Scruggs a confidential informant.

It sounds like the time when you started calling him confidential informant is when he went up against Judge Acker.

This “confidential informant” b.s. is about the same thing is this “resolution counsel” animal that Hood, Moore and Scruggs have created.  It’s a figment of legal imagination.  It doesn’t really exist.  But Hood wrote Alice Martin as if that were some constitutionally protected class of citizens that were afforded special privileges . . . like the right to defy a court order.

“How is it that insurance companies walked away from Katrina nearly unscathed from this nations worst natural tragedy?”

Because the person who was hired for the job of keeping them accountable, MS Attorney General Jim Hood, failed them miserably.  This lies at his feet.

I hope that his statement there will be used in the AL case

RebelY, your comments paint with much too broad a brush.  I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not involved with the insurance industry at all, and frankly, if State Farm did wrong, they should pay.  The problem is we have a corrupt Attorney General who, under the guise of helping these people, did everything he could to enrich his cronies and appears to care less or have no knowledge as to what was even going on.  He couldn’t even answer basic questions as to how the flood policies work in conjuction with private policies, who was doing what.  Hell, he didn’t even know what was in the documents State Farm sent him.  I don’t think most folks who are critical of Hood & Co. are doing the bidding of the insurance companies.  It’s Hood who is screwing the people on the coast as much as anyone else.

MTC, this is what I was referring to as zzzz.  Robie said this as slow as he could.  It was 4:30 after 3hours of testimony, everyone was tired.  And Robie says a b c d e and f.  And then again!  a b c d e and f.  I sure am glad I we are all entitled to our opinions, aren’t you?

Q. Section 3. I know all about the lead-in paragraph that
4 talks about Judge Senter. I don’t want to know any more about
5 that, Mr. Hood. I’ve heard it. I want to talk about
6 paragraphs (a) through (f), not the lead-in paragraph, not
7 about Judge Senter’s guidelines, supervision, lunch breaks,
8 willingness to do anything. I just want to talk about the
9 specific paragraphs that are headed (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and
10 (f). Can you do that for me?
11 A. So you don’t want to talk about the first paragraph that
12 doesn’t have a letter on it?
13 Q. I don’t want to talk about the one with the Roman numeral
14 3. I want to talk about (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). Can
15 we do that?
16 A. If you’d ask me a question, I believe we could get right to
17 it.

EC he did know what was in the documents they sent him.  He didn’t know what was in the documents that came from Scruggs.  Get it right, if you going to be so critical.  He didn’t open the Scruggs box.  Of course they looked at the documents that were sent to him.

How is Hood screwing the people on the Coast.  By making SF re-evaluate all of the claims they dismissed?  That sounds pretty good to me.

I’ve been reading all of the posts about how dirty and unethical the insurance industry is. 

Rebel you state"These are people that have not suffered so much as a paper-cut from Katrina, did not gut their personal home, was not denied a Katrina claim, doesn’t pay three premiums’ (for wind, fire and water), and have never been dropped by an insurance company for living in the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words, they are like the majority of fans and readers, unaffected and not empathetic to the dire circumstances that many have endured since August 29th. The greater fraud of Katrina is not Dickie Scruggs or Jim Hood but the very corrupt manner in which policyholders were denied claims en masse. This ethic is as dishonest as the insurance policy language that is written to deny protection from actual catastrophe.”

I have not heard any instances in which these people were forced to purchase a beachfront home, vacation home, condo or anything against their will.  It would appear to me that if I purchased a house on the coast I would be aware that the cost of insurance is probably higher there due to the potential of a catastrophic loss as opposed to purchasing a house in Jackson or North Mississippi.

I find it ironic that the AG immediately following the loss began researching the possibility of having the concurrent causation clauses removed from the policies in order to cover the flood losses. 

If flood was deemed to be covered by the homeowner policy(which it has never been), would the premiums have been refunded to the individuals that actually purchased flood insurance through the NFIP???? I think not..............

If a claim is covered by the language of the contrac it should be paid as promptly as possible.  If it is not covered by the language in the contract explain to me why it should be paid.

The “Zzzzz” was the least of my problems with your statements, BS

MTC, ‘BS’ is an appropriate acronym.  Don’t you think?

(But I was trying to be good)

Y’all can’t argue the facts of the case can you?  So you resort to name calling.  Your mothers probably taught you better than that.

bellesouth, Hood explicitly stated that he did not review the State Farm documents:

A. I’m sure that the—that the—that the first information
we got when we received it from—the day that Dunn Lampton,
Page 116
1 the U.S. Attorney, and all of us received those documents, I’m
2 sure we went into those documents. I didn’t --

He also makes clear countless times throughout that he doesn’t really know anything, ask Courtney.

He also said that his testimony before Congress was based on what he read in the newspaper, not the documents.

The bigger point, however, is that Hood is like a dumb Bill Clinton.  It would take someone a month to parse out his incoherent, evasive and inconsistent answers.  As for how he’s hurting the coast, he pounced on State Farm within less than two weeks of the storm and is the cause of tens of millions in attorneys fees, needless litigation, and the poisoning of the insurance market in Mississippi.  For every instance there’s someone saying they got screwed by SF there’s another--see, e.g., Rigsby--who got paid from the get go with no hassle at all.  The fact is, no one expected a storm the magnitude of Katrina, and yes, I’m sure there was some confusion, and even some dishonesty on the part of some.  Who do you think is going to pay for all of this?  Us.

Hood later talked about the millions of documents they received and clearly stated that he had no idea what State Farm had done.  Oftentimes it’s confusing as to what documents he’s talking about.  “I’m sure we looked at them.” “We never opened them.” “I don’t know what they said.” For this guy to be leading the charge and have NO CLUE about anything--or to be lying--is beyond absurd.  Anyway, I’m not wasting any more time trying to make sense of his jaberwocky.

I won’t call anybody names (especially since it’s my first comment), but here’s another first-hand account of the hearing. I didn’t see it mentioned.

http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/02/08/state-farm-v-ag-jim-hood-wild-suit-wild-questions-wild-ending/

is alan keeping up with this thread?  in all candor, i’m becoming concerned for the mental well-being of a commentator.

This is making me dizzy. However, a non-lawyer question: Had this thing not been settled, dismissed or whatever took place, what were the possible outcomes for either SF, had they gotten a favorable ruling or the State of Ms., being that our AG was the defendant?

From the article that Jack Burden linked:

Nevertheless, my very subjective reading of the spectacle (I’d gone down to the Natchez, Mississippi, federal court to watch the hearing) was that it had ended rather like that infamous Roberto Duran-Sugar Ray Leonard bout in which Duran failed to answer the eighth-round bell, mumbling, “No más, no más.”

If you haven’t read the article yet, let me share with you that Jim Hood ain’t Sugar Ray in the analogy.

Belle: Do you feel it more necessary to attempt to defend the truth or just Hood in general?

Just a cursory reading of the transcripts and hearing all of Hood’s lame excuses, weak legal motions, inappropriate if not outright unethical contract agreements and his less than desirable choice of close friends and associates, is making it extremely difficult for even most uninformed persons to draw any other conclusion other than that at a minimum he is inept if not outright incompetent.

And for those that are informed: all of the above and including the additional perspective of he’s making a complete fool of himself and the AG’s office.

Do us all a favor and stop being Jim Hood’s apologist, it’s not working.

<blockquote>This is making me dizzy. However, a non-lawyer question: Had this thing not been settled, dismissed or whatever took place, what were the possible outcomes for either SF, had they gotten a favorable ruling or the State of Ms., being that our AG was the defendant?<blockquote>

In their amended complaint, SF was seeking (1) a declaratory judgment confirming that SF’s interpretation of the 1-23-07 agreement is correct and ruling that Jim Hood had breached that agreement, (2) an injunction directing the AG to comply with the agreement and stop the criminal investigation/proceedings, and (3) an award of attorney’s fees.

Jackburden, Thank you for the link.  The guy has a lot of insight into the case.  What strike me is the observation he made concerning the questions asked Hood about Crechele’s in Jackson.  Assume that the investigation of Balducci is sealed as it is supposed to be, what connection would the prosecutors in the Federal case, who have Balducci and Patterson against the ropes, have with the State Farm Attorneys???  There is a smell in this that should not go unnoticed by you bloodhounds there.  If supposedly Balducci and Patterson were the only ones there with Hood, then State Farm has to have access to the testimony or depositions of the two who have pled but not been sentenced.  Logic would tell us that the two would not be knocking on the door of State Farm with this information so can we not draw from it that the insurance co. is getting help from the Northern District US attorney’s office or someone in their employ?  In this tangled web of alliances and conspiracies why do some of you insist that the only collusion going on is connected to Hood?  Gives us a lot to ding into, huh?

BS, are you the same bs that’s replies to sid salter’s blog accusing him of being a republican stooge.  Salter is at best a moderate. ...You really are full of BS

Salter is a BlueDog Donkeycrat.

Whooops, should have read “dig” instead of ding

More Jack Burden link:

Schloemer had been subpoenaed to testify at this week’s hearing, so had the proceeding not been settled, she presumably would have done so. It would have been a ticklish task. She either would have had to accept sole responsibility for aiding conduct that Judge Acker has said he considers contemptuous, or she would have had to testify that her boss played a more active role than he now recalls.

JackBurden, thank you very much for linking that very interesting article.  I’m beginning to think that the settlement may have been reached, and sealed, to keep us from learning the basis for Robie’s question about whether Scruggs pressured Hood to settle by threatening to fund another candidate to run against him.

Early Culver:
I have been practicing law for almost 13 years, and I have NEVER read anything like this.  Jim Hood is a dissembling lier who threw one of his subordinates under the bus OVER AND OVER AND OVER and then settled the case so she wouldn’t testify and demonstrate what a serial lier he really is.

Methinks that was part of the reason for the settlement…

Courtney would have had to testify to either, a) her boss was lying and knew from the getgo what was going on, b) possibly perjure herself and state he didn’t know, or c) she jumped under the bus instead of getting thrown under the bus. Since she isn’t stupid she was not going to do option A, since she’d lose her job. She isnt’ going for option B because she don’t who knows what and who has told whom what? And finally, option C had already been taken care by Jim Hood’s “I dont know what they do since I dont’ micromanage them” thus, throwing her under the bus repeatedly.

Shaves and everyone here who makes personal attack against others who don’t agree with you, you all have your opinions.  I have mine.  But it is like mob - rule over here.  It seems that if all of the people here who hate Hood, got together with Hood, they would hang him right then and there without a fair trial.  Hell, most of these posters would hang me too for just trying to look at the facts I haven’t seen the side of Hood that you all have.  But, I tell you this mentality here makes Mississippi look bad and stupid.

But what you do know is whatever it was, whatever documents
3 that the Rigsby sisters downloaded from State Farm’s computers,
4 your office never opened even though they went out and picked
5 them up. Isn’t that right?
6 A. No. I’m sure—I mean --
7 MR. HESTER: Object to the characterization of his
8 prior testimony.
9 THE COURT: Restate that question and let me just hear
10 it again.
11 BY MR. ROBIE:
12 Q. Did I hear you correctly, General Hood, when you said that
13 the boxes which your investigator had picked up that were
14 filled with documents that the Rigsby sisters downloaded from
15 State Farm computers were never opened by your staff?
16 A. Okay. Let me try to be clear so that you understand this.
17 I don’t know that our investigators picked them up. I know we
18 got some documents—I was told that we got some documents
19 same date that the documents were turned over to the United
20 States Attorney. I am confident that our people went through
21 those documents.
22 There was another group of documents that was sent to us
23 pursuant to our request by Mr. Scruggs. That was not opened.
24 Maybe where you’re getting confused is is I didn’t know what --
25 the ones that were never opened, I didn’t know if that was
Page 121
1 Mr. Scruggs’ copy and he sent the originals or sent some --
2 another copy to the court. I didn’t know the answer. I don’t
3 know the answers to that question. So does that clear it up
4 for you?

"But, I tell you this mentality here makes Mississippi look bad and stupid.”

If you mean the contents of Hood’s testimony, then I would have to finally agree with you, BS

yes, Belle, it is much like the old westerns where everybody “knew” who the horse thief was and it took the cool head sheriff to settle them down, stop the hanging and then look for the real truth.  Where is Randolph Scott when we need him?  Oops, I realize that this scenario predates most on this board.

I believe ya’ll are missing the forest for the trees here folks.... these hearings, these charges, these transcriptions, these depositions… this IS looking for the truth.

Bellesouth, Don’t get distressed, they say similar things about me, too. We might not even say a word to refute what is said here except for knowing that some important judges also read this blog, and don’t need to be exposed to only one side of coin.  Balance is a wonderful thing.

MSlawyer,

Way too much sealing going on here. They are sealing things that directly involve the taxpayers of MS--who in the hell do they think they are??

MTC When I go into the forest, I see trees, you see evergreen and non evergreen, and others see elm, pin oak, sassafras and loblolly pine.
I think Judge Bramlette’s ruling will eventually be unsealed and perhaps we will find that hopefully his eyes will see better than our eyes, who see only written words on a computer screen.  Thats one reason courts require people to be in court in person and not send an affidavit or equivalent so that the trier of fact and observe, listen and the rule.  A transcript is good but is not the same as a live witness.

Belle: I have at no time made a personal attack on you and will not. I don’t even know you and I apologize if you think I have.

I do however, take issue with what appears to be an attempt on some people’s part, your’s included, to optimize “Mr. Hood” and his positions, statements, and actions at every opportunity...to wit, be his apologist. As you stated, you are entitled to your opinion and I’m not discounting it. In fact, I welcome it. I just inquiried as to whether you think we can’t ALL draw our own conclusions of the “facts” you keep presenting or does the truth bear any part of the calculus in determining your opinion and thinking we’re all “bad and stupid” in having one with a differing perspective. We too can read the transcripts and commentary and form our own opinions.

It does not appear to unreasonable to inquire as to one’s perspective if they present a public opinion: Which is what I did in my earlier post addressing you directly.

We can all just agree to disagree, in an agreeable manner.

Shaves, I can agree to that.  Originally my post was going to be to you alone and about agreeing to disagree, but then you got lumped in with some in this crowd who have leveled attacks on my person which I don’t appreciate and I don’t think Alan appreciates either.  And then there’s a whole lot of innuendo going on as well.  Then there are some who just misrepresent the facts like Early Culver saying Hood never opened the boxes. It was clear to me what he was saying but Robie was trying to trip him up.  So you sent someone over to pick up the boxes.  Hood could not testify to that as being factually correct.  He stated another point that they never opened the boxes from Scruggs, but they had looked at the boxes that were delivered to the USAttorney as well.  He could not state as fact or not whether they were the same because they had not opened the boxes from Scruggs.  Then Robie asked him again about boxes that had been picked up.  Well, there was not factual basis for that question because it had already been established that he didn’t know about picking up any boxes.  Robie never introduced any evidence as to it being factual.

Or Jacktown saying 9 days after Katrina hit.  Nine days was never mentioned on Wednesday.  So, I looked at the transcript where he said and Robie said when he asked him, So you filed suit 2 weeks after Katrina.  Yes, he did, 2 weeks after Katrina on a Saturday he learned from the Sheriff of Jackson County....But Jacktown has his own version of events.  They just aren’t based on any evidence.

You catch my drift?

Uhhhh sorta kinda. I’m going to agree in principle that some minor details are in dispute...but I’m going to condition that with this question....do the minute details really change the overarching and valid concerns of most of the posters on this site that Jim Hood has not quite lived up to what is expected of the chief elected legal person in the state? At a minimum he has allowed his judgement on all matters mundane, trivial and serious to be called into question by his own inability to do what what a reasonable and prudent layperson would expect? I’m going to offer that he hasn’t: as evidenced by his actions and inactions, mistruths and misrepresentations, allegiances and alliances with people of questionable character, motive and veracity and for what purpose is any of this to the good of the people of Mississippi?

An elected official shouldn’t have the kinds of issues he keeps surrounding himself with...and all of them from either his inability to recognize potential conflicts...or his complete incompetence in applying basic principles of common sense and decorum.

Read HOOD’s testimony CAREFULLY sweatheart.  If I have the lay the timeline out to you it will be excruciating as I will not mince words.

BS you might want to consider posting your BS at this place.  They always welcome other posters in complete denial and considering that your fave is one of their posterboys I’m sure you could post gibberish there ad infinitum and no one would even notice.

Shaves, those are allegations, and are not backed up by any facts that I know of.  Otherwise, he wouldn’t still be the AG.  I was also thinking that if he lied, perjured himself, and they went into that back room and said “He lied, here’s proof, we have proof.” Do you think that Judge Bramlette wouldn’t have filed contempt charges?  Do you think State Farm would have allowed Hood to perjure himself if they knew it?  I don’t.

Jacktown, I have read the testimony and I was there the whole time.  So bring it on!

I would caution everyone that I haven’t seen anything “over the line”, but a few things are getting close.  Please no personal attacks.  There’s some good stuff in here.

Am I the only one who started reading the testimony and immediately thought of Bill Clinton?

Whoops--just saw Early Culver’s post above.  Evidently I’m not!

Belle: it’s not an allegation, it’s a fact that Hood accepted contributions from attorneys with whom the State does business with: the timing of those contributions are very closely timed with contracts being provided. Nor is it an allegation, it’s a fact that Hood is very chummy with people who have already pleaded guilty to felony charges, also major contributors. It’s not allegation, it’s fact that Hood agreed to drop criminal charges and an investigation against SF for whatever reason(s). It’s not allegation that Hood told the judge in Alabama that Dickie was a “confidential informant, but wasn’t quite so comfortable in repeating that to the judge in Natchez. Another non-allegation but fact, read the transcript where he stated he was very meticulous to details related to keeping the two issues, criminal and civil separate...but shortly thereafter wasn’t displaying that same meticulous nature he earlier professed when stating he wasn’t a micormanger and didn’t really know what was going on with his assistants....kinda disingenuous appearing to me.

And one more thing...it hasn’t been determined what was actually sealed has it? That may prove more damning than all the aforementioned.

I could go on with other examples of allegation vs fact, but time, space and Alan’s tolerance for not advancing the thread won’t allow it.

Does anyone on this blog not even have the slightest curiosity about how Robie got the info that either Scruggs or Patterson spilled to the Feds about the meal at Crechele’s with Hood?  That has never been part of any public record as far as I’ve seen.

"Does anyone on this blog not even have the slightest curiosity about how Robie got the info that either Scruggs or Patterson spilled to the Feds about the meal at Crechele’s with Hood?  That has never been part of any public record as far as I’ve seen. “

...................I’m there. Wondered the same thing myself. Seems like there is only one way to have that information; the US attorneys in charge of the the Scruggs’ criminal case and the pleas by Langston, Balducci and Patterson (not so much Langston, I guess).

TooTired: As out of money as they were and having been cut out of some very lucrative deals...they (Patterson and Balducci) might have tried to cut a deal with SF. Something along the lines of “for a few dollars we might could help you in your case with Jim Hood and Dickie Scruggs.”

Prostitutes , some lawyers and many politicians will oftentimes sell their services to the highest bidder… my humble apologies to the prostitutes for lumping into this analogy with the others.

TTTF

Your post has just a few things that I have a problem with.  The first is that you make a rather large assumption that “either Scruggs or Patterson spilled to the Feds” info about a meal at Crechele’s.  Unless you have some particular knowledge, I do not see how you could say that was only spilled to the Feds.  Perhaps, the lawyers for SF did what any reasonable lawyer would do and talked to potential witnesses.  And besides that, Hood said that he hadn’t so much been at Crechele’s as I recall his testimony.  I do suspect that there are all kinds of factual matters in the lawyer’s files that haven’t been made a part of the “public record”.  Just a thought. 

And I really don’t think it would have come from Scruggs in any event since he is not at this point cooperating with the Feds.

The SF attorneys gave specifics of when, where and the topic of conversation and even more, that Scruggs sent them to talk to Hood.  Who are the possible witnesses?  Hood, no… Scruggs, no.  Only two of them are left and that type of information has a very high value in a future federal prosecution of, say.. Scruggs, and Hood, maybe?  Either way there would be no other witnesses to tell SF about those kind of details.  Even someone who saw them eating out would not be able to provide that type of detail.  It would be improper for and attorney to ask this specific question with these details unless he has pretty good substantiation that those facts have been provided to him, without which, he starts looking like an idiot.

Well perhaps its just me and my silly way of looking at things, but if I were SF and knew of the proceedings in Oxford, and knew that Langston, Balducci, and Patterson had entered pleas of guilty and were cooperating I would think that my lawyers were asleep at the switch if they didn’t talk to them.  But then what do I know?

Is it possible that some attorneys are capable?  And have handled lawsuits without getting info from the Feds?  Or is all the world a conspiracy?

I repeat, Balducci and Patterson told them. Only Hood, Patterson and Balducci were there and we KNOW it wasn’t Hood. So that only leaves them knowing the details...which they told SF.

I’m betting that this is the “surprise” that Keker is going to drop by explaining, “Judge, my client, Mr. Scruggs, was running an undercover operation, him being a confidential informant for Mr. Hoods n all, and they, Mr(s) Scruggs and Hood wanted to flush these two boys outta the system. Which we did, because they tried to implicate my esteemed client, Mr. Scruggs by dragging him into a judge bribery scheme. Thank gawd for my client and the AG running this deep undercover operation. Would you drop the charges against him yo honor and let him get back to suing State Farm and me back to California before it starts getting all humid and stuff here in Mississipppi” Maybe not quite like that...but I’m keeping that in the book until proven otherwise.

Fellow Tired one, it is not a silly way of looking at it, but what are the practicalities? Have you talked to anyone who has sat down with these two since the pleas, or even know exactly where they have been or are?  I suspect many a reporter has tried to get an interview.  Do you think they will automatically appear, ready to talk when a state farm lawyer shows up wherever they are?  You mentioned the payment of money for information.  Really now, you know what happened the last time they did the exchange of money for help thing.  Do you think they are likely to do that? I personally think there is a greater chance of hood turning Republican than the feds allowing these two (P & B)to talk to lawyers who could jeopardize their the future prosecutions which they have in mind and are working on.  Which leads back to the original question.

Shaves

I have had the same thought, but then I came to my senses.  Surely Hood is not going to jump off into that gator pit.  But then again...........

Shaves, hmmm, that sound pretty good.  You might have just changed Keker’s theory here if he is reading his.  Your theory just leaves out two details:  When did Balducci and Patterson tell them this?  They haven’t been seen much since their plea.  And secondly, Why? Due to their plea, the details of which are still sealed, their only hope is to please the US attorney’s office in every way possible to get a favorable nod when sentencing time comes.  He proved this when he started talking of dead bodies.  Do you really think either would do ANYTHING that might make the USAttorney the least bit concerned that their information was being scattered?  You make your own answer but at least think of when and why.

tttf-

You are somewhat mistaken.  The payment of money was not mentioned in my post.  I do not think that an “automatic appearance” is guaranteed; however, I suspect that if the SF lawyers contacted the lawyers for P & B and asked to speak with them that the criminal defense attorney might, and I said might, think that this cooperation might help their clients at sentencing.  And if they did think so then I suspect that the attorneys would encourage their clients to talk to the SF attorneys.

Okay, bellesouth, I’ll be your huckleberry.  Please cite me page and line number in which Hood testified that he “opened the boxes” and reviewed the State Farim documents, a fact I denied and you claim I “misrepresented.” I’ll start holding my breath . . . NOW.

Also, bellesouth, you claim that, were Hood in fact lying, “he wouldn’t still be the Attorney General.” You do realize, don’t you, that the hearing just occurred on WEDNESDAY, and the transcript was just made available TODAY.  Do you really think an AG can be removed from office in just a few hours?  I’m trying to take you seriously, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult.

Tired, it was Shaves’s post, not yours, I was referring to as talking about receiving money and such.  You may recall, that he felt compelled to apologize to the prostitutes for lumping them in with the lawyers.
But in reference to your post, you assume that it is consistent with the Federal Prosecutors to help SF.  Consider this tidbit: It has already been established that the Federal indictment does not bar state prosecution of these defendants for state crimes. Add to that knowledge, the man they would be testifying or at least giving information against is the Attorney General of Mississippi.  Said AG is also the one who can initiate criminal proceeding in Circuit Court at any time.  If your client is in these shoes would you allow him, unless forced to do so, to invite the ire of the head prosecutor of the state?  That would have to be malpractice if you did. It certainly would be a statement that is against their interest, unless they are sure they have enough goods to deliver the AG, too.  Thoughts?

Both of the Tired Souls..they (Patterson and Balducci) had several months BEFORE they were caught by the FBI. In fact, it might have even been SF that tipped the FBI off...It helps SF if they can get the Feds to do some of their dirty work (see Dickie’s use of Hood’s office). SF ain’t stupid, they know the Feds have to followup on these kinds of things and Dickie and Company make nice headlines, especially when the case is almost hand-delivered by someone else (SF). I refer you to the case of Pepsi notifying the Feds that someone tried to sell them (Pepsi) their rival’s (Coke’s) secret recipes.

None of these guys implicated in ANYTHING have invented somethineg they’re going to get a patent or a Nobel Prize for Physics or Philosophy: Rocket Scientist R Us Ain’t Them.  I’m thinking of a Dumb Crook Award in the future here.

Truth is stranger than fiction, right?

Perhaps I need to reread my prior posts, but I really don’t think that I said that the Fed Prosecutors would help SF.  But you are correct that the prosecution by the Feds does not in any way bar state prosecution.  As a practical matter, do you really think that Hood would open this can of worms?  I think not.  As another practical matter what do they have to lose?  All of the information that is already known is sufficient to prosecute them in state court.  It really isn’t like they could be proven “more” guilty than they have already confessed to.  But I have to say that the mental picture of Hood slapping this tar baby is somewhat amusing.  If he did so he would be in grave danger of having to be a witness rather than a prosecutor; and from his performance in Natchez this week I really don’t think that he would care for that.

Is there any indication that there was federal involvement prior to Judge Lackey’s bringing in the FBI on the Balducci Case? You say that SF might have tipped the feds off.  Interesting theory but it doesn’t hold water.  I don’t recall ever hearing anything about any bribery allegations prior to Balducci’s bringing the envelope to Judge Lackey.  Balducci was arrested leaving the Judge’s office and immediately interrogated. It was then that the beans or whatever were spilled.  Time wise, there was no time prior to his arrest would he have considered working for SF or providing them information against Scruggs.  Further there was no time after his arrest and statement that he would have been allowed to give statements to the insurance lawyers without having an effect on his prosecution.  If he has been smart enough to have predicted how aligning with state farm would help him get a lighter sentence, he would be much smarter than anyone here has been willing to give him credit for.  UNLESS>..... you have got me to thinking, shaves, that if, as you claim, he was in cahoots with SF before he was arrested, then how long will it be before we hear that it was state farm , through Balducci, which set up the whole bribery case to discredit the leading trial lawyers in the state.  hmmmmm.  Ok, it might sound far fetched, but so is thinking that Paterson and Balducci gave self incriminating statements to State Farm attorneys.
Sounds like the making of a novel.

tiredlwyr,
You are right in that they would not be more guilty except that this meeting might be construed as a separate count of illegally trying to influence a state official, which would add another count.  Also, too, prosecutors receive more satisfaction is pursuing defendants who tried to take them down.  Seems to give them extra energy.  And.. since this thing may be far more reaching than just to Scruggs and possibly Hood, who can make a bet on this horse race without knowing who is even in the running?

You didn’t say that in your posts that I recall. However, the Feds intent woudn’t be to “help” anyone. It would just be a natural progression of the “look over there and not at me” game. I don’t think Hood would ever “help” knowingly...but Dickie...looking out for his son...he’d sell Hood out in a second if he thought he could have his cake and eat it too, especially in matters of family.

Balducci and Patterson are NOT major players...they are pawns used by the Grand Master . A fact they grew to resent quickly..even more so when the “players” wouldn’t include them in the spoils of victory. And people needing money and an invitation to the dance, well, they will do whatever needs to be done....after all, isn’t that what all their “friends” were doing?

Hood was just flat out overmatched in the end game by Scruggs (with Moore’s assistance.)

TooTired...I reiterate. They ain’t the smartest pumpkins in the patch.

In my newest novel I’m writing the good guys win after taking down all the bad guys, the guys that knew the bad guys, heard a rumor about a bad guy, the guy that parked the bad guy’s car.....and one old disbarred lawyer that double parked to hear the judge sentence them all to jail.

Ok, I can understand that point.  But Dickie doesn’t seem to be in much bargaining position now.  If he is the grand master, who could he give up that was bigger then himself.  I personally don’t feel the feds are as much after Hood as they are Scruggs, but I guess time will tell. As far as needing money, who would they be able to get anything out of now?  Feds don’t have to pay for they have them where they want them.

tttf-

“Influence a state official”?  Surely you jest.  Influence him (Hood) how?  to do what?  and for who? 

And yes, I do think that ultimately “this thing” will reach farther than Scruggs and Hood, can you say Peters and Delaughter?  What of it?  Your theory assumes that P & B would be on the losing side at any state court proceedings.  Somehow I think that is a bit of a stretch.  If the Feds go after Hood, which is not a given, and others (Peters and Delaughter) how in God’s name could P & B worsen their situation?  Don’t you think that if the Feds make a decision to not go after Hood that he would be more than happy to let sleeping dogs lie?  As I said earlier, he does not want to slap this tar baby.

Early, did I say he opened boxes?  Did I say he had read them?
No, I said:  EC he did know what was in the documents they sent him.  He didn’t know what was in the documents that came from Scruggs.  Get it right, if you going to be so critical.  He didn’t open the Scruggs box.  Of course they looked at the documents that were sent to him.

Now I realize you can’t understand his not micromanaging his whole office, since you have been an attorney for 13 years and all, but, I believe him when he gave this part and parcel to Courtney.  You don’t have to. 

The point was that he testified that THEY didn’t look at the Scruggs boxes.  They did look at the documents that were sent to them.  It was clear to me and you seemed very confused about it, so I thought I’d chime in.

tired, You are right, even more than that, I think that there are a lot of folks who would love see this whole thing just slip silently into the night.

Well, it’s now clear to me that bellesouth, Jim Hood, and Bill Clinton play by the same playbook.  Bellesouth said I misrepresented that Hood did not “open the boxes,” now he/she says THEY (whoever that is) didn’t KNOW what was in the boxes that came from SCRUGGS, not from STATE FARM.  Bellesouth ignores my challenge to back up his/her argument with pages/line cites that Hood testified he opened or even knew what was in the State Farm documents.  Whether “They” (again, whoever “they” is) looked in the boxes or knew what was going on merely proves the point that Hood has/had no idea what was going on.  Either he was just signing letters and pleadings that others brought to him--with no knowledge as to whether they were consistent with the facts--or else he lied under oath.  Either way, Hood needs to either resign or be impeached.  If it takes eighty seven bishops to figure out what the hell Hood was talking about, my money is on this:  he was lying.

Finally, bellesouth says, “Did I say he opened the boxes?” Well, yes.  Here’s exactly what you said:

“Then there are some who just misrepresent the facts like Early Culver saying Hood never opened the boxes.”

What else could that mean but that he opened the boxes?  Bellesouth, you’re kicking against the goads, as St. Peter would have said.  You need to find someone else to defend, because you’re making an ass of yourself.

Suggestion:  Clear up confusion by diagramming sentence(s) in the transcript and/or other comments and confirm antecedents before commenting.

TTTF, I can think of several ways SF might have heard about the dinner at which Hood allegedly was told to settle or Dickie and Mikey would find some opposition to run against him.  P & B are obviously not real bright.  They could’ve talked and bragged about their power to some friends, who told others, ec.  Don’t forget that Mississippi is a small state.  Most of the lawyers either went to MC or Ole Miss, and they all know each other and gossip incessantly.  In any event, Mr. Hood certainly doesn’t seem to want us to know how Robie got that information.  In fact, his answers to the questions about it are downright contradictory.  First he said “I don’t know”.  Then he said he hadn’t been to Crechele’s “in a while”.  Then he said he’d never been there.  Sure makes me wonder what the heck happened.

Early Culver said:  “What else could that mean but that he opened the boxes?  Bellesouth, you’re kicking against the goads, as St. Peter would have said.”

EC, not intending to get into the fracus between you and bellesouth, but everybody might realize that this quote might help explain you two banter this evening.  You see, it was actually St. Paul who said that and not St. Peter.
Can we use this to just take judicial notice of the fact that we don’t always remember stuff correctly or read stuff the same way?  Or, that we can take one quote and attribute it to someone else.  thank you providing a better example that I could have.

ShavesWithAOccamsRazor said:  “Balducci and Patterson are NOT major players...they are pawns used by the Grand Master.”

Believe it or not, actually that is what I’ve been saying over these weeks and have gotten heat for.  I would extend that to Langston as well.  In fact I really do not think that any of those who have entered pleas thus far are major players in the big scheme of things.  It will be interesting to see if the prosecution ship can hold together when it gets to going at warp speed.

Look.  Okay, can we say there are two sets of documents—ones that were delivered to Hood as well as to the US Attorney.  Then there was a set of documents that Hood requested of Scruggs, possibly and probably the Rigsby sisters download from State Farm.

You said:  Hell, he didn’t even know what was in the documents State Farm sent him.

But that is not true—if you conclude that the documents he received from State Farm are the documents that were also delivered to the US Atttorney.  State Farm did not send him the copies or the originals of what was in Scruggs’s possession.  He did look at the documents sent to him from State Farm!

So I said:

EC he did know what was in the documents they sent him.  He didn’t know what was in the documents that came from Scruggs.  Get it right, if you going to be so critical.  He didn’t open the Scruggs box.  Of course they looked at the documents that were sent to him.

Then EC said: 

bellesouth, Hood explicitly stated that he did not review the State Farm documents:

A. I’m sure that the—that the—that the first information
we got when we received it from—the day that Dunn Lampton,
Page 116
1 the U.S. Attorney, and all of us received those documents, I’m sure we went into those documents.

EC’s portion of the transcript says “I’m sure we went into those documents.”

Hood (through Courtney) requested from Scruggs documents that were in his possession via the Rigsby sisters.  He clarified later that Scruggs should not do it if he felt it was against the Judges’ order.  But in any case, since he was working on getting the Rigsby sisters testimony before the Grand Jury and he was working with Scruggs as their attorney he felt he should protect these documents from never being seen again.  So he was working with Scruggs as a confidential informant who had information that he wanted to use from the Rigsbys.  But he didn’t look at those.  Yet.  He was keeping them.  He did look at the documents that were sent to him as well as the US Attorney.

So, I posted an exchange from the testimony:

A. Okay. Let me try to be clear so that you understand this.
17 I don’t know that our investigators picked them up. I know we
18 got some documents—I was told that we got some documents
19 same date that the documents were turned over to the United
20 States Attorney. I am confident that our people went through
21 those documents.
22 There was another group of documents that was sent to us
23 pursuant to our request by Mr. Scruggs. That was not opened.
24 Maybe where you’re getting confused is is I didn’t know what—
25 the ones that were never opened, I didn’t know if that was
Page 121
1 Mr. Scruggs’ copy and he sent the originals or sent some—
2 another copy to the court. I didn’t know the answer. I don’t
3 know the answers to that question. So does that clear it up
4 for you?

Does it really matter? It’s over....Hood’s career at the state level is toast and “lame duck” doesn’t come close to desribing his ability to continue as the AG. He just needs to find himself another job and allow someone else to start cleaning this whole mess up....people are not going to take him serious since everything he touches will be suspect as to motive and intent, no matter how noble and honorable his best intentions may be. Pass that idea along to him since he so favors people presenting him with ideas that benefit the state.

Just to throw out a scenario because I’m wondering what would happen in this case… hypothetically, of course.  IF Hood (or if you prefer not so speifically, a sitting MS AG) were indicted (AL or MS), what would happen?  Any thoughts?

Q. Mr. Hood, before Scruggs settled with State Farm—and by
12 “Scruggs” I mean Dickie Scruggs and the SKG, Scruggs Katrina
13 Group. Before they settled the case with 640 plaintiffs, which
14 generated a fee in excess of $20 million for Mr. Scruggs and
15 his partners, did they dispatch Mr. Balducci and Mr. Patterson
16 to have dinner with you in a restaurant in Jackson to talk
17 about that?
18 A. I don’t know.
19 MR. HESTER: Lack of relevance at all, your Honor.
20 That’s just totally inflammatory, incendiary and --
21 THE COURT: Well, it is inflammatory, and I agree with
22 that, counsel. But, here again, if you talk about harassment,
23 then that’s what you’re talking about. I mean, that’s the very
24 nature of the harassment exception to the Younger abstention
25 rule. And notwithstanding the nature of it, I feel that it has
State Farm v. Hood
2-6-08/2-7-08
41 (Pages 158 to 161)
Page 158
1 some relevance or it may have some relevance. I overrule the
2 objection. Go ahead.
3 A. I answered your question, I thought. I didn’t know that.
4 Q. I’m asking you whether or not Mr. Scruggs sent Mr. Balducci
5 and Mr. Patterson to have dinner with you here at a restaurant
6 in Jackson to talk about settlement of that case.
7 A. I don’t know what Mr. Scruggs did with Balducci and
8 Patterson.
9 Q. Did you have dinner with Mr. Balducci or Mr. Patterson at
10 Crechale’s restaurant where they discussed Scruggs’ desire to
11 settle that case?
12 A. No, sir. I haven’t been to Crechale’s in a long time.
13 Q. You did not have dinner with them where they discussed --
14 A. When are you talking about? And you said “Crechale’s.” I
15 haven’t been to Crechale’s so I know I didn’t have dinner with
16 anybody at Crechale’s.
17 Q. My real question is: Did Mr. Patterson or Mr. Balducci
18 have dinner with you and tell you that if you did not
19 participate or assist Mr. Scruggs in settling that mass tort
20 action which was going to generate a 20-million-dollar-plus
21 fee, that he would fund an alternative candidate to run against
22 you for attorney general?
23 A. If you’re asking me did somebody come to me and threaten
24 me, the answer is no. Now, out of all candor in this, I don’t
25 want to mislead you. I remember having dinner on one occasion
Page 159
1 with Mr. Balducci and Mr. Patterson, but that conversation was
2 about they were leaving the firm that they were presently --
3 that Mr. Balducci was presently with. They didn’t convey any
4 threats to me about settling the case or anything like that.
5 Q. They never suggested that if you didn’t participate in
6 dropping your criminal investigation that Dickie Scruggs would
7 fund an alternate candidate and Mike Moore would support that?
8 A. No, sir. Absolutely not.

It seems pretty obvious to me that he didn’t have dinner with Balducci and Patterson at Chrechales.  First he said he hasn’t been there in a while and then later said he has been there (leaving out the “in a while").  I thought that he had already established that he hadn’t been there in a while. 

What I find interesting is that Robie acts as if he has this information on good source, trying to pin Hood down as to the exact restaurant.  But Hood impeached that testimony from the lawyer by saying no, “so I know I didn’t have dinner with
anybody at Crechale’s.” It sounds like what MSLawyer was saying about gossipy lawyers or like the gossip game, by the time it has gone from one mouth to the other, it comes out totally different than the original gossip.  In any case, Hood, “in all candor” said that he did have dinner with Patterson and Balducci and they discussed Balducci leaving the firm where he was at the time.  And “no, they certainly did not” threaten him with supporting another candidate.  That is a pretty strong denial if it can be refuted and lead to charges of perjury isn’t it? 

Then there’s another “gotcha” moment about a meeting with Scruggs in Oxford before going on a duck hunt.  Again very specific.  But again, it wasn’t accurate.

Q. Did you go to Oxford on December 9th, 2005, prior to
1 heading off to a duck-hunting trip in the Delta to meet with
2 Mr. Scruggs to talk about the Rigsby whistleblowers?
3 A. No, sir. I think December 9th, 2005, I was here in Natchez
4 with my wife. That would have been my anniversary. I know two
5 of my last four have been spent here in Natchez. And so I
6 think I was probably here.

Oops, “probably”.  I guess he could squirm out of that one but again—duck hunt, Oxford, his anniversary?  Pretty specific.

There’s another one, I’ll put up next.  I hope no one attacks me for this, I am just surmising here.

Errata:  then later said he has NOT been there

Belle, You are doing a lot of work with no possible hope of changing SWAR. 
I just read the CL about the shooting in Kirkwood Mo. by someoen who was mad at the political system.  It seems that the gunman had raged at council meetings for years.  Several times in his zeal he was arrested at the meetings.  He was mad at the way they had let some contract next to his property for work.  The dead:  two aldermen, two policemen, one director of public works, The injured: the mayor and one reporter were also shot.  The reason I post this?  Because sometimes we can get so worked up over politics and the leaders we have that in the emotion of the moment dumb things happen.  Not that anyone here is in that frame of mind, but I think of those who watch and read and feel that they are saving the world to do some violence.  Perhaps that is why we need to remember that comments are not supposed to be make you madder and madder that you threaten anyone on here or outside the blogsphere.  Maybe that is why Alan tries to keep such to a minimum if at all. Good luck Alan.  And, Shaves, these types of things as we see in Jackson have gone on for more years than you and I have been alive.  It is just that now with this medium the world can r ead and comment.  It didn’t get broke overnight and it won’t be fixed overnight.

http://www.ago.state.ms.us/index.php/press/releases/suspect_arrested_in_1992_murder_of_three_year_old/

Oops I hit submit by mistake, but nevertheless....

Belle, I think you are getting caught in the trap.  On each and every instance you seem to take Hood’s defense for the plausible way out, but if you string together all of these things, the number of improbables you have to bet on is staggering.

Eventually, after some tapdancing, Hood did admit to having dinner with Balducci and Patterson.  He didn’t say he didn’t meet with Scruggs.  He just thought that there was a 50% chance he might have been in Natchez.

This is the same thing with Scruggs.  You can explain individual incidents away, maybe.  But when you string them all together, it only leads to one conclusion in my book.

Belle, one more thing re: the documents.  As Rossmiller has pointed out a thousand times, Hood already had the docs that Scruggs sent to him defying the order.  So why would he do it?

Look at the tobacco case.  Their stated MO was to leak the stolen docs in the public domain to make them admissable in court.  Scruggs’ document dump on the AG would help to that end.

This is all about context and history.  Like I said, individual incidents can be explained away by the apologists, but looking at all these actions in a historical context is what is the most enlightening.

Some people think there exists different levels of guilty...they drive “reasonable doubt” into the most mundane debates and attempt to paint shades of gray into even the most simple truths...Most people that use this tactic are usually guilty to some degree, they just do it to satisfy their own need for validation of their actions and belief systems.(See Ego, Narcissim, Erickson, Freud)

Alan, doing what has worked legally before is expected from someone wanting to represent their client with “Zeal” as the attorney is under a directive to do.  The operable word, of course, is legally.  Was it legal to get the document in the public domain in the tobacco case?  Here SF calls it illegal because that insurance execs have learned from tobacco defendants to try to prevent it being in the public domain, bury the smoking gun and make their problem go away.  This whole scenario of the contempt and lawsuits we have seen lately in three Federal courts appear to be the best effort of the SF attorneys to not have the tobacco history repeat against them.

Legally, TTTF?  Is that your argument, really?  Legally?  Stolen documents.  Defying a judge’s order.  Paying material witnesses as consultants (who stole the documents).  Shorting your law partners for fees when everyone’s ship comes in.  Shall I go on?  Do we see a pattern here?

A look at the Attorney General’s Office Press releases for 2007 is pretty impressive.  It looks as though they are fairly busy over there as they are concerned with a lot of different matters of the state and not just this one.

A look at the Louisiana Attorney General’s Press Releases is not nearly as impressive.

A look at the Alabama Attorney General’s Press Releases is pretty impressive, too.

Wanna bet which one of the “matters of the state” Hood was most interested in? I’m guessing the one where he’s got his fingerprints all over it...the one that could set him up for his new title, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL.

If there is a document that told exactly who planned 9-11 tragedy and contained who planned, carried out and paid for it being carried out, don’t you think the public would have a right to get that document as a matter of public need.  The need greatly outweighs the right for a person to hold such a document against seizure to retain it.  How is this different in theory?  If this document explains how a great crime has been committed against the folks on the coast, many of whom are still living in poison emitting trailer houses, or still homeless, how can you and those who support SF against the policyholders say give the documents and all copies of them back to the company and pretend that they don’t exist?
That would be like Balducci saying, “the judge illegally got my envelope with cash in it, give it back.”
If these documents, which must be pretty important for the players to be fighting over then as they have, incriminate SF, it would be a moral and legal wrong to turn them over if in doing so it would stab in the back the SF policyholders on the coast.  Law Partner fee shorting has nothing to do with this document and what it contains.  Judge lackey has nothing to do with it.  Who on this blog is going to stand up for the folks I have seen and talked to trying to get some justice here, who don’t care about the players involved but just want to get back into a house?
Some folks here say, well it is a contract.  But doesn’t the policyholder get a chance to say if it was a legal contract or one of the “damed if you do and damned if you don’t” type of contract if this report shows and explains how the company did it and hid it?

Hood was running for re-election in 2007 and LA and AL were not.  He had a press release coming out of his office very other day for pete’s sake (if you count pamphlets as press release worthy, and they put a HIGH premium on pamphlets in the AG office)

"Who on this blog is going to stand up for the folks I have seen and talked to trying to get some justice here, who don’t care about the players involved but just want to get back into a house?”

TTTF---why do you refuse to see that THIS was Hood’s job?  Bloggers???  What in the hell can we do for Coast victim justice?  Hood asked for that job.  Hood got it.  Hood screwed it up for them.

MTC In like manner, why can’t you see that he was doing just that to the point of a crime himself as per the testimony herein. The whole argument of SF in this transcript is that he was trying too hard for their comfort to get some settlement money for them.  They claim he was trying too hard illegally and he says legally.  If he wasn’t trying to get the settlement, much of which didn’t result in attorney’s fees for friends, he would not be finding himself in this predicament.  All of this “who is who’s friend and such” as is argued in Alabama just further delays settlement.  Our difference is that you say Hood is not doing his Job and the transcript says he might being pressuring SF too hard as an AG than they consider legal.

Now I’ve heard it all.... Hood was doing TOO good a job.

Alan:

Belle, I think you are getting caught in the trap.  On each and every instance you seem to take Hood’s defense for the plausible way out

Belle:

Oops, “probably”.  I guess he could squirm out of that one but again—duck hunt, Oxford, his anniversary?  Pretty specific.
I hope no one attacks me for this, I am just surmising here.

Alan, I just said I guess he could squirm out of that one.  And I did say I was just surmising and hoped I wouldn’t get attacked!

Alan:

Hood did admit to having dinner with Balducci and Patterson.

Yes, he did say that.

Alma:

In any case, Hood, “in all candor” said that he did have dinner with Patterson and Balducci and they discussed Balducci leaving the firm where he was at the time.  And “no, they certainly did not” threaten him with supporting another candidate.  That is a pretty strong denial if it can be refuted and lead to charges of perjury isn’t it?

Alan: “He didn’t say he didn’t meet with Scruggs.”

That wasn’t the question.  There are quite a few times where he said he had met with Scruggs.  But maybe you are referring to this:

Q. Well, the record in the Renfroe case has a specific finding
23 in the contempt citation that he talked to you and that the two
24 of you decided he would take the documents—or the documents
25 would be delivered to your office. Do you dispute that?
Page 115
1 A. I haven’t read any of the findings of what Judge Acker has
2 done. There again, I understand Mr. Scruggs testified to that
3 and I don’t—I don’t dispute that, that we asked him to send
4 us the documents.
5 Q. Right.
6 A. That’s correct.
7 Q. And did he do that?
8 A. Not to me. But as far as I know, he did send them to our
9 office. I never saw the documents. I never—there again,
10 they were sealed and never—never touched by our office.

Alan:

Belle, one more thing re: the documents.  As Rossmiller has pointed out a thousand times, Hood already had the docs that Scruggs sent to him defying the order.  So why would he do it?

What do you mean he already had the documents?  He testified that he got those documents from Scruggs the same day as he got the documents that were sent to the US Attorney.  There wasn’t any other testimony as to their having those particular documents before.  He if did have them before as you say, then he was preserving evidence by having Scruggs send him all of the documents, I guess.
Alan: 

Look at the tobacco case.  Their stated MO was to leak the stolen docs in the public domain to make them admissable in court.  Scruggs’ document dump on the AG would help to that end.

Hood testified on February 6th that they have not opened or looked at the documents that they got from Scruggs (the ones that were delivered the same day as the others.  Robie was asking all of the questions, some that seemed to be “gotcha” questions but evidently he didn’t elicit any damaging information.  If Hood was lying and they knew it, why didn’t they nail him with perjury?

And evidently, there doesn’t seem to be a law against his havig the documents before hand, if he did, otherwise where does that come up?

Two cents:

If by LA you mean Louisiana that is not true. Foti ran for relection and didn’t even make it out of the primary.

http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/6531/#28363

Gee SWAOR, I don’t know, why don’t you go see?

http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/6531/#28367

Well, even if he was running for relection he got all of those things done and I think they look pretty good for the State of Mississippi.

For once, I wish that MS had taken it’s cue from LA, KF.

Stand corrected, as I thought MS was the only one in South to be the “off year” statewide election.

that was one bastard I was glad to see go. One of the few politicians whose ass I would actually kick if I saw him.

Hood may have thought he was ‘doing good’ for the Katrina Victims but his main focus was for the $$$$$$$$ to line the pockets of his Doners. The day I heard the name Hood / Scruggs on a mission in Co-op concert for the homeless on the coast, I knew there would be little gain for the victims and valuable time would be lost during legal battles.............and, nothing good would develope from this action beyond millions for the Firm. Scruggs saw an opportunity and secured the AG as he has done before and, the rest is history.

Recalling those races now that you remind me… Jindal, etc.  Didn’t know anything about their AG race though.  Maybe I should go look up some info on Foti to make myself feel better in comparison.

He threw doctors in jail that were working in hell during Katrina.

I cannot help but believe that even Scruggs is not the ultimate target of this whole investigation. We will see how many prior office holders really begin to squirm as Scruggs’ trial begins.

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2006-10-31/cover_story.php

I don’t think he is. I think there are three current and former politicians that are and several judges.

You don’t let Langston and others keep their money if you are just getting Scruggs.

Hmmmm, sound familiar?  Gotta give the LA folks credit for getting rid of him… I’d say MS missed a golden opportunity Nov. 6th. 

“Foti kept the spotlight on himself instead. The orchestration of events gave Foti a bonanza of free publicity leading into a splashy political fundraiser just two days after the arrests.”

NMC has a good new post on the Renfroe/Rigsby docs with some helpful timeline notes…

http://folo.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/jim-hood-on-the-renfroerigsby-document-swap-by-nmc/

Ugh!  Foti!  I’d have to concur with Kingfish on him.  He was an ultimate moron.

Too tired, we were actually both wrong.  It was neither St. Peter nor St. Paul who spoke of kicking against the goads:  it was Jesus speaking to Paul in Acts.  As for me, I’m done kicking against the goads of trying to make sense of anything Jim Hood said.  Life’s too short. Ciao.

Acts 26:14 but I don’t believe you’ll find that in the KJV.  I think the translation in the King James is pricks.

Pricks(?)..........................pssssst, Alan............gotcha one.

culver:  that transcript from wednesday?  unbelievable (in more ways than one).  not dripping with credibility from this reader’s perspective.  i can’t help but wonder if the judge didn’t hint at the end of the afternoon’s testimony that maybe things might not be going so well with some of the “testimony.” aren’t judges often inclined to come back on the record and tell both sides what a fine job everyone did, nevermind what they REALLY think?  oh, and culver, would it be reasonable for me to assume you know perfectly well the time you spend trying to make “sense” of it is time NOT well spent?

I suspect it had more to do with Hood’s legal survival. He would not have survived another day on the witness stand.

Would have enjoyed comparing Hood’s version of the facts to that of Courtney S.  Specially after selling her down the river to save his hide.

Liblen, yes, it’s true that judges usually say how great a job everyone did.  I think it was apparent from this transcript, however, that the judge was not that impressed with Hood’s answers and repeatedly intervened to press Hood to give an appropriate response, which usually sounded like Donn’s classic spoof above.  And yes, trying to make sense of Hood is in fact a complete waste of time.  I think he’s finally shot himself in the proverbial foot on this one.

culver:  somebody described it to rossmiller as a “colossal drubbing.” i call it a “colossal implosion.” “drubbing”—in my opinion—would suggest some of that exceptional lawyering where the lawyer sets up trap after trap after trap and the witness walks into every last one. not taking anything away from the SF lawyer, this one seemed more like one of those times where the witness pretty much took care of all that on his own.  would not have wanted to be in Mr. Hester’s shoes.  uh-uh.  couldn’t you just see the eyes rolling and looks being exchanged on one side of that room, with heads buried deep in legal pads on the other side. wonder if the witness had himself convinced that, being all important, he’d never be made to take that stand?  And, thus, refused to sit for the prepping?  whatever, it was bad, real bad.  do you believe for a NANOSECOND he (a) never read any orders or pleadings (b) had no idea what was going on here,there, and yonder?  stakes like this?

A thought just hit me that what if, as many here have surmised, that Hood came off as nervious, unable to make a complete sentence and not on top of his staff on purpose.  He is quicker on his feet than that in prior years and it makes me wonder how much was a dramatic portrayal of one not smart enough to be a mastermind of complicated legal manuevering.  He may be sitting back laughing at all that has been said here about his testimony as being exactly what he wanted to portray in the testimony.  It might have worked, but who knows until the documents are unsealed.  Yes, it may be far fetched, but it was an interesting possibility.
“ If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B__S___”

reagan, culver:  i must have missed donn’s spoof during my brief opt-out period.  that’d be when the “legal analyst/ace investigator” was setting everyone straight about what really happened at the hearing.  Did any one catch hood’s statement to the press the next day --"now, we can all put to rest the notion that my office is influenced by politics or outside forces”?  after a moment of self-doubt over my reading abilities, the first thing that came to my mind was the startling difference between hood and george dale in how each responded to the strong arm of scruggs. scruggs threatens to unseat dale. dale says “whatever, dickie.” balducci and patt do the same to hood, no doubt at the behest of scruggs.  NO WAY ROBIE MADE THAT UP.  no way. so, assuming the truth of the predicate (Crechale’s, KFC’s, wherever), what’d hood do?  he caved.  does he really NOT see what just got exposed????  as DONN would say:  WOW. just wow.

In reading Defense Motion Exhibit 5 of the Daily Journal article on Balducci, which included Hood’s statement below, it struck me as ironic since Balducci played such a prominent role in the questioning of Hood in Natchez. 

“His only involvement with our office is in whatever tasks he was assigned by his employer,” Hood told the Daily Journal.

And apparently, discussions about his law practice over dinner.