Hood doesn’t want to lose his power for cronyism – Part 3

“If this bill passes, then agency heads with agendas and interests of their own will be allowed to pursue those interests on the taxpayers’ dime over the states interest as a whole with no oversight.” – Attorney General Jim Hood on Sunshine legislation

Imgaine someone giving million dollar no-bid contracts, without oversight, to campaign contributors. Imagine those campaign contributors working for their own interests rather than the interest of the state.  Will Sunshine legislation cause this? No, it is there to prevent it.

From the Wall Street Journal: Pay to Play Torts

However, attorneys suing on the government’s behalf are supposed to be neutral actors whose goal is justice, not lining their own pockets. When for-profit lawyers are involved with a contingency fee at the end of the lawsuit rainbow, the incentives shift toward settling to get a big payday.
In Mississippi, the state attorney general determines when the public employees retirement fund should bring a securities class action and which outside firms will represent the fund. Would you be shocked to learn that AG Jim Hood has frequently chosen law firms that have donated to his campaigns?

Mr. Hood is also partial to Bernstein Litowitz. On February 21, 2006, he chose the firm to represent the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement Fund in a securities class action against Delphi Corporation—just days after receiving $25,000 in donations from Bernstein Litowitz attorneys. The suit was eventually settled, and the lawyers on the case received $40.5 million in fees. Mr. Hood’s campaign would appear to deserve a raise.

You can see a picture of Attorney General Jim Hood shaking hands with Bernstein Litowitz Senior Founding Partner Max Berger, who in addition to other members of the firm, contributed $5000 to Hood’s campaign here.

Bernstein Litowitz partner Sean Coffey also contributed $5000 to Hood’s campaign and interviewed Hood at the a pension and investing summit conference in Dublin, Ireland.

Hood also spoke to the Bernstein Litowitz “Instiutional Investor Forum” at the “New York Yacht Club, in the heart of Midtown Manhattan.”

Is this the kind of cronyism Jim Hood is talking about?

Hood doesn’t want to lose his power for cronyism – Part 2

“The Attorney General is put in place to defend the state’s interests and to provide a unified voice to the state on all legal matters.” – Attorney General Jim Hood on new Sunshine legislation

Except when it comes to cronyism, when Attorney General Jim Hood decides to defend a huge campaign contributor instead of the interests of the state. Here is a flashback to 2009 from Respond Mississippi.

Mississippi is/was suing former special assistant attorney general Joey Langston for $14 million in attorney fees he unconstitutionally received from a no-bid contract with his boss/friend Attorney General Jim Hood. Yesterday morning, Jim Hood won his motion to move the State of Mississippi from being a plaintiff to being a defendant.

Kidd ruled in favor of Hood’s motion to remove the state of Mississippi as a plaintiff in the case and place it as a defendant.In other words, Jim Hood picked a side. He chose to argue that Joey Cash Langston should get the $14 million instead of Mississippi taxpayers. That’s right, he is now arguing AGAINST the people of Mississippi and for Joey Langston, who just happens to be his largest campaign contributor ($100,000+). Sure, Joey Langston needs the money to pay his lawyers in the ongoing Scruggs related scandals. But that $14 million would also get us about half way towards plugging the car tag fee fund without raising taxes.

When it came down to make a choice between the taxpayers of Mississippi, or his largest campaign contributor, Jim Hood chose Cash (Joey Cash Langston, that is).

Remember that Langston is one of the guys who went to jail in the Scruggs scandals that Hood said he could not prosecute because they were like family. Hood could not prosecute Langston, but he could defend his $14 million no-bid fee.

Hood doesn’t want to lose his power for cronyism – Part 1

“What you have here is nothing more than an attempt to weaken the power of the Attorney General and to create a ‘good ole boy’ system of doing legal business in this state…This bill creates a system ripe for cronyism….” – Attorney General Jim Hood on new Sunshine legislation

Funny that Jim Hood thinks his system of hiring campaign contributors as special attorneys general is not a ‘good ole boy’ system and not cronyism.

From the report: Beyond Reproach? Fostering Integrity and Public Trust in the Offices of State Attorneys General

Mississippi has a long and troubling history of unseemly relationships between the office of the attorney general and plaintiffs’ attorneys. Attorney General Jim Hood was elected in 2003 and has funneled substantial work to his plaintiff lawyer campaign contributors ever since. His tenure as attorney general represents one of the most egregious examples of the impropriety that can be found in the process of states hiring private attorneys.

• Over a five year period following his election in 2003, Attorney General Hood retained at least 27 outside law firms to file at least 20 lawsuits on behalf of the State of Mississippi. These law firms and their attorneys contributed $543,000 to Hood’s campaigns.

• Since 2005 Attorney General Hood has received $149,056 in campaign contributions from Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, and the State of Mississippi has contracted with this firm on five lawsuits. Between February 14 – 17 of 2006, Bernstein Litowitz attorneys contributed $25,000 to Hood’s campaign, and on February 21, 2006, Hood selected the firm to represent the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement Fund in a securities class action claim against Delphi Corp. The lawsuit settled for $333.4 million, paying $40.5 million in legal fees.

• The firm Wolf Popper contributed $15,000 to Hood’s campaign on February 22, 2006, and the state of Mississippi contracted with this firm on a lawsuit against Sonus on March 23, 2006. Sonus settled for $9.5 million, including legal fees estimated at $1.5 million.

Complaint against Jim Hood filed with Mississippi Bar Association

Here is an update on Jim Hood jeopardizing the prosecution of a case with reckless political campaigning.

A lawyer for a man charged with killing a Catholic priest has filed a complaint that says his client can’t get a fair trial because of a television ad aired by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s successful re-election campaign.

The complaint, filed with the Mississippi Bar and obtained by The Associated Press, said the commercial tainted the prospective jury pool by referring to Jeremy Wayne Manieri as someone who “murdered a 70-year-old priest in cold blood.”

Manieri has been charged by police, but not indicted by a grand jury.

The complaint, dated Nov. 22 and signed by Manieri’s attorney, Brian Alexander of Bay St. Louis, says all people accused of crimes have the right to the presumption of innocence.

“This complaint is far larger than Jeremy Manieri or Jim Hood. With the long view in mind, this is about the countless people in Mr. Manieri’s position who are clinging to the notion that our system still adheres to vestiges of fairness and due process,” the complaint says. “That Mr. Hood did, in knowing and willful dereliction of his duties and ethical constraints prescribed by the Bar, the constitution and basic morality, harm my client’s cause for personal gain is irrefutable.”

Did Hood destroy the Presumption of Innocence?

“It’s a clear violation of his oath as attorney general, as an elected public official and as a member of the Mississippi Bar.  He has all but ensured that my client cannot receive a fair trial in the state of Mississippi. He has not only eroded the presumption of innocence — attendant to all those who stand accused — he destroyed it.”

Those words are about Attorney General Jim Hood, spoken by someone who according to press reports supported Hood’s reelection and even contributed to his campaign.

It seems Jim Hood’s campaign commercial said a defendant murdered someone, a defendant who has yet to go to trial.

The defendant’s lawyer is understandably upset.

“I supported Jim Hood’s candidacy,” Alexander said, “but Jim Hood has run roughshod over my client and has trampled his rights, to include the right to a presumption of innocence.”

“This is really way bigger than Mr. Manieri and way bigger than Attorney General Jim Hood. It is about all people who stand accused, and the most fundamental element of the presumption of innocence.

“For the top law enforcement officer, the top prosecutor, the top attorney in the state to have such callous disregard is absolutely unethical, outrageous and unconstitutional.”

Alexander said his options include filing a complaint against Hood with the Mississippi Bar Association or the Mississippi Ethics Commission, or asking the state Legislature to impeach Hood.

“When you take an oath to uphold the Constitution, it really means something,” Alexander said.

“Jim Hood distorted the truth for his own political gain and used non-facts and untruth to trample on the rights of my client. As an elected official, he is obligated to act with fairness, integrity and trustworthiness. It is imperative that this not go unstated.”

That’s right, he mentioned an option of asking Hood to be impeached.

As Majority in Mississippi reported last month, this is not Hood’s first guilty unless proven innocent campaign moment. He also named Entergy as a corporate wrong doer in a statewide campaign commercial. Hood has gone after Entergy but has yet to prove wrong doing in court.

Either Jim Hood thinks it is OK to pronounce guilt with himself as a judge without regard to the court, or he has demonstrated reckless behavior by the state’s top prosecutor.

Steve Simpson Story

Jim Hood – “Protecting Ronnie Musgrove”

Another lawsuit, another opportunity to protect Mississippi families, another episode of Jim Hood protecting his friends instead.

Governor Haley Barbour’s press release from yesterday:

Gov. Haley Barbour today warned the Joint Legislative Budget Committee against relying on a recent legal settlement with pharmaceutical companies as a windfall for the state budget next year.

In a letter to committee members, Gov. Barbour said the state will only receive a fraction of the settlement funds.

“I am writing to make sure you and others are not misled by this entry to think the State has $20.041 million in additional funds that will be available for appropriation or expenditure either now or in the next fiscal year,” Gov. Barbour wrote. “We do not.”

In fact, Gov. Barbour points out that the State of Mississippi may receive less than $1 million of the settlement proceeds, while Gov. Ronnie Musgrove’s law firm, which represented the state in the lawsuit, has been awarded more than $5 million in fees by Attorney General Jim Hood.

The letter is here and a letter from Division of Medicaid.

We’re sure Ronnie Musgrove has a swell family. But hopefully when Jim Hood says he is protecting Mississippi families, he doesn’t mean only the ones who are campaign contributors.

Hood – “Protecting Mike Moore”

When more than 750,000 Mississippians were on Medicaid (many of the obviously “Mississippi Families”), Attorney General Jim Hood chose sides against the legislature, the governor, the Mississippi Health Care Trust Fund, and the Mississippi Division of Medicaid. But he did pick a side: Mike Moore.

Attorney General Jim Hood sought to continue to divert $20 million a year away from the needs of Mississippi’s health care and to a private nonprofit organization which his buddy Mike Moore was/is chairman. That money was part of the tobacco settlement designed to reimburse Mississippi’s Medicaid program and health care costs.

When it came time to line up to “protect Mississippi families” Hood chose Mike Moore instead.

Mike Moore and Jim Hood

The Supreme Court of Mississippi puts it all out there in this decision: No. 2006-SA-01088-SCT

In case you don’t recall the outcome, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed with Governor Haley Barbour, the Mississippi Division of Medicaid, and the Mississippi Health Care Trust Fund and ruled against Attorney General Jim Hood and The Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi.  That ruling allows for $20 million more dollars a year to go toward “protecting Mississippi families” rather than to Mike Moore’s private nonprofit organization…and Jim Hood opposed that ruling.

Jim Hood is running for reelection on the platform of “Protecting Mississippi Families” but who does he really represent? Maybe it should be “Protecting Mississippi Lawyers (Who Are Hood’s Friends).”

Hood’s Campaign: “Protecting Mississippi Families”

No, this is not a joke.  Jim Hood is running for reelection with the tagline “Protecting Mississippi Families.”

The obvious question is “Whose family is he protecting?”

Dickie Scruggs, Steve Patterson, and former Special Assistant Attorneys General Joey Langston and Tim Balducci

Remember what he told the Clarion Ledger?

State Attorney General Jim Hood said today it would be a conflict of interest for his office to file charges against several attorneys involved in a high-profile judicial bribery scandal.

Filing a state case now could interfere with a federal case that is already in the courts, Hood told The Clarion-Ledger at an editorial board meeting.

“I’m too close to them,” he said. “It would be like prosecuting my relatives.”

Jim Hood…protecting Mississippi families.

Fortunately, the feds were protecting laws.

Leniency was key to 24-month prison sentences Friday for judicial bribery co-defendants Timothy Balducci and Steven Patterson.

It was Senior U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers Jr.’s first “slack” shown in the federal case, which has scandalized the legal profession and public, and brought down one of America’s best-known attorneys, Richard “Dickie” Scruggs of Oxford.

The two men, who lived and worked together in New Albany when they were indicted Nov. 28, 2007, were the last co-defendants of the conspiracy known as Scruggs I. They, Scruggs, his lawyer son Zach and a law partner pleaded guilty to varying levels of crime associated with the attempted bribery of Circuit Judge Henry Lackey of Calhoun City in the spring of 2007.

Thoughts on the Runoff’s?

Who will win Lynn or Lee?  Watching, waiting, listening so far before we get involved.

-ROM