Recall that in mid-2007, State Farm sued Jim Hood, asserting that he’d promised to cease a grand jury investigation relating to Katrina claims, and that he was re-starting the investigation. After a stop-start hearing on a preliminary injunction ended up in early 2008 with Jim Hood on the witness stand, the parties settled the case. The settlement was placed under seal. Recently, Alan Lange and Jackson New Media moved to intervene in State Farm v. Hood, asking to see the settlement agreement.
In a response filed today, Jim Hood says he really doesn’t care if the court unseals the order settling the case where State Farm sued him over the grand jury investigation. Doesn’t matter to him a bit. But he really wants the court to know there are such good reasons to keep those documents under seal. And what reasons are those? Well, it seems as if there are two: One is that the wait has been too long, and that there isn’t a case any more to intervene in to ask for the documents. Oh, and then there are all those reasons that the court sealed the settlement in the first place, reasons that are still just as good when the sealing was done! Of course, we won’t tell Jackson New Media or anyone else what those reasons were, because they’re all under seal!
Ha, ha! Answer that, Jackson New Media.
Seriously, that’s the response. It begins by stating that the motion is “unitimely and seeks relief that … [is] beyond the authority of the district court to grant. Although the Attorney has no other opposition to the Motion to Intervene, as an officer of this Court, the Attorney General is required by those duties and ethical considerations to apprize the Court of controlling authority.”
See? Hood is saying “We don’t really have a dog in this fight, your honor. Honestly. We just want to tell you what the law is.”
The response then cites four Fifth Circuit cases that, it says, hold that there has to be a pending case for there to be an intervention. I’ll give those a look later and update the post. It then concludes: “[I]t is evidence that the same bases on which the in camera testimony and settlement agreement were sealed are equally applicable now.” Whatever those bases might be.
I’ll update here later what I see in the cases.
Here’s Hood’s Response. Thanks to Alan Lange for the heads up.
Update: Fixed the link by going to Alan’s site.
I’m glad Hood cleared that up.
Reminds me of some law school tests I’ve graded … students who have no idea what the proper answers are just jump right in and start stringing words together hoping to get something down that might … just might … have a legal sound to them.
Alas … This is what passes for government in our state.
Is the file corrupted? Something about “File doesn’t open with #$^%#^%pdf”
But then does it really matter since I know it was some kind of male bovine excrement response? All this “for the public good” and “transparency in government” coming out of first one, then another of the State agencies is killing me.
P.S. Ben, I think the term of that exercise is best summed of as, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brillance, at least baffle them with your bullshirt.”
Isn’t it the job of the Attorney General of Mississippi to interpret the laws of Mississippi that apply? He doesn’t have a dog in the fight. The law is the law here it is agree with it or not. Go ahead on and agree with Alan Lange et al., who have been trying “get Hood” for countless decades. Go on with yo’ bad selves.
The question of whether a federal judgment remains under seal has exactly nothing to do with the “laws of Mississippi.” Thanks to the Supremacy Clause and the Civil War, the Federal Courts get to decide those questions with no consideration to the laws of the great state of Mississippi.
State Farm just filed their response.
http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/16092/
They took no position for or against the request unsealing of the settlement agreement saying that they only will abide by the Court’s directives.
Well, what did you want him to say? Is he or is he not applying the facts of the case to the law?
She’s baaaaack ….
So, neither side objects, let’s see it.
This will be interesting. On multiple levels. Let the games begin.
In these uncertain times with all the economic and political upheaval, it is good to know that there is some firmament on which we all can rely. And if you have any doubts, just see bellesouth @8:32.
Point of order. Does one apply the facts of the case to the law or the law to the facts of the case?
“…applying the facts of the case to the law” may be the reason I never understand wtf Hood is ever up too.
Isn’t the former a fancy way of saying “manipulate the legal citations to provide the most cover for my dumbass?”
OK, NMC your link to Hood’s response is corrupted somehow (I get ‘File does not begin with “%PDF-”.’). But, reading Hood’s response I see that he does disagree, and says that the motion should be dismissed due to timeliness (60 days?).
This is an important issue. The AG publicly accused SF of many crimes. The citizens of Mississippi deserve to see how these accusations were resolved, as do the current shareholders of SF, and any future potential shareholders of SF, and all current customers of SF, and any future posssible customers of SF. I am a current customer of SF and I want to know.
Chickens and 2 sides of chicken*(%$. Sounds like a day for Justice of the Peace Andy Taylor.
WTBAL..State Farm is a mutual company. So if you are a policy holder, you are a shareholder. Policy holders are the only shareholders. So your interest in the case is doubled.
If you look at your bill, you will normally see it is reduced by “dividends” (in good, non-hurricane years anyway). These the same dividends that would be paid out to regular shareholders. Mutual companies are required to pay a percentage of premiums collected (it has been a while since I was in insurance, but I think it is 90%) to settle claims, with the ramianing 10% used to cover admin cost. Anything they collect beyond that must be returned to policy holders.
My PACER account is “disabled” because I owe them a few coin (which I will pay in full eventually), so I have a question which I can’t get from PACER: How did the AG of the State of Mississippi, sued in an “official” capacity wind up in a lawsuit in Federal Court? Was this by agreement, waiver or what. Hasn’t AG Hood heard of the 11th Amendment? Thanks.
The eleventh amendment does not prevent injunctive relief to enforce the laws of the United States against a state official. The Eleventh Amendment prevents a suit directly against the state (e.g. State Farm v. Mississippi…) and prohibits a suit for damages directly against the state. It also does not prevent certain kinds of remedial programs that the state will be directly answerable for– for instance, in Milliken v. Bradley, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an injunction requiring a remedial program as a part of a desegregation order even though the program would cost the state money.
An example closer to hand is Papasan v. Allain, an equal protection case involving education funding in Mississippi. The state raised 11th amendment issues all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and they didn’t work.
State Farm sued Jim Hood saying “we have here a contract saying you won’t investigate any farther.” They sought an injunction enforcing their agreement.
To NMC: Got it! Thanks.
Hey O’Dwyer, how were you going to make good your so-called “bet” when you can’t even pay your PACER bill? When I won the bet were you going to “pay in full eventually!”
It wasn’t lack of gonads that kept me from dignifying your bigotry it was spotting a deadbeat a mile away!
To Crispin Garcia: There you go again, “namecalling”. It seems that there is some sort of “double-standard” within this Web-Site. P.S. People with names like “Garcia” shouldn’t be casting dispersions at other people. Kinda like: “People who live in glass houses…”. Astala bananna, Garcia!
AROD,you have reading comprehension problems about what I’ve said to you in warnings and what is found in the commenting guidelines.
You also seem to have an extraordinarily bad problem with leaping to bizarre and even delusional conclusions about how someone’s racial or ethnic background has something to do with their behavior– e.g. your completely imagined speculations about the racial background of the soldier who killed five people in Iraq yesterday and now your suggestion that there is something wrong with people with Hispanic names. Huh? (btw, it’s a posting pseudonym, to boot).
Should I ask whether the fact that you’re ignoring payment of Cripin Garcia’s wager means that your people are from Wales?
Oh, really goood, NMC!
To NMC: Gee. Here we go, “namecalling” again, and a clear “double standard”. I don’t owe “Crispin Garcia” anything. He was too “chicken$@&# to bet me. P.S. Things are “grand” here in The Duchy of Kilnamanaugh. AROD.
First, I don’t know how to post a hyperlink so I’m sorry. But reading the comments today on this and the Irby thread some people should check out the blog of unnecessary quotation marks.
http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com
“Random, I think you have a point there.”
Why the quotation marks? Because I said that aloud to the empty room in which I am seated before I typed it.
You should get some furniture for that room, NMC.
Well, empty of people other than me, NZS.
O’Dwyer @ 09:32 am:
LOL! You’re absolutely right! I apologize for calling you a bigot and for saying that your remarks are bigoted and for refusing to take your bet and for not pocketing your money when you were completely off-base about the racial/ethnic identity of the soldier accused of shooting and killing his comrades.
I like you! You’re like this blog’s Archie Bunker! With your malapropisms (“People with names like ‘Garcia’ shouldn’t be casting dispersions at other people.”), and your misspellings (“Astala bananna, Garcia!”), I’m beginning to think you’re taking the piss . . . and the joke is on us.
By all means proceed!
To Crispin Garcia: O.K. Truce. Yes the “dispersions” should have been “aspersions”. I confused physics with a plain English word. “Hasta la…” is sometimes spelled “astel la”, which is what I did, spelling “phonetically”. I am not a bigot, although people are free to disagree with me. I represent @ 2,000 “Victims of KATRINA”, most of them black and very poor, who didn’t have much to begin with, but who lost all they had in KATRINA. I haven’t earned a penny since 8/29/05, and NONE of my clients has obtained any “justice” as a result of my representation, but I have tried very, very hard. It took me a long time to fully understand what has been “going on” in the “Victims of KATRINA” litiogation pending in Federal Court in New Orleans, and when I realized what was happening, I took decisive action. As a result, I have now been disbarred, disgraced, embarrassed and humiliated, and I can no longer “fight the fight” for my clients, except through posts like this which, hopefully, smart people may read and comprehend. NMC knows (and Lotus knew) that I have some terrific stories to tell. Thanks for listening.