A new pleading in the State Farm v. Hood battle (by NMC)
Note - This website moved Sunday Feb, 1o to a new address- http://www.folo.us Please go to http://www.folo.us to enter your comment! Thanks.
Barney Robinson is a very busy man. I say this because, this morning, while State Farm was involved in the cage grudge match over Dickie Scruggs’s deposition (in which Robinson was filing pleadings, and apparently, someone on behalf of State Farm was both in court and then wandered over the the Scruggs Law Firm to conduct a deposition), Barney filed a brief on the subject of whether State Farm would in fact get to have a hearing (that is, put on witnesses, ask them questions) on the preliminary injunction in State Farm v. Jim Hood on Wednesday.
In the normal world, this question would not be asked. The analysis would go like this: Judge Bramlette set a hearing for Wednesday on State Farm’s preliminary injunction hearing. And so, on Wednesday, there will be witnesses talking about that. But things the State Farm lawyers hear emanating from the defense side (in the defense of the defense side, I’ll point out that there’s a very important rule that ordinairly would dictate State Farm doesn’t get their injunction) that makes the State Farm side think: It’s not enough for Judge Bramlette to say we get a hearing. We need to brief that! And so they did!
I’m persuaded. You should get a hearing, State Farm.
Meanwhile, facing this multi-ring and multi-district circus, State Farm has decided to lawyer up even more, and four more lawyers from Butler, Snow in Jackson have entered appearances today, making a total of seven. There’s a big crowd on for Natchez on Wednesday!
Surely someone in Natches wants to do a guest post? We’re wanting to hear!
February 5, 2008 at 12:14 am
I didn’t see 7 names - am I looking in the wrong place when I look at the end of the brief?
‘course my eyes are weak from all this fine reading.
February 5, 2008 at 9:21 am
I still am astonished that the proposition that State Farm somehow is immune from state prosecution is getting serious consideration by a federal judge.
February 5, 2008 at 10:03 am
Especially when you realize the judge is enjoining the investigation, not the just prosecution. You can’t ask for much more of a free pass than that.
February 5, 2008 at 10:12 am
Good things happen to bad people(SF) when the people who are supposed to be the good guys prove to the world they are clearly not the good guys and eliminate their credibility! This is a BLOWN OPPORTUNITY of historical proportions!
February 5, 2008 at 10:25 am
With the US Attorney declining to intervene in the False Claims Act case brought by Scruggs and the Rigsby sisters, what is the status of that case? Are Scruggs and his co-counsel allowed to proceed?
Remember that the Rigsby sisters get a bounty if the qui tam case finds that State Farm defrauded the federal government. If Hood goes after State Farm separately for defrauding flood insurance, how does that affect the Rigsby qui tam case?
February 5, 2008 at 10:38 am
I wish I knew. I have been involved in criminal investigations and prosecutions for my whole life But, I don’t know how, or where, anyone would start, in trying to untangle the mess that Hood and Scruggs have made of what should have been a very straightforward, and relatively simple, investigation of the practices of State Farm.
I think in the end, State Farm is going to get a free pass, and a lot of innocent people will be paying for that for a long time
February 5, 2008 at 11:03 am
Didn’t bellesouth sorta salivate the other day about live-blogging the Natchez hearing for us? Think so, and I sure hope she can.
February 5, 2008 at 11:06 am
Yep, she did, Lotus. We’ll see what we can do….
February 5, 2008 at 11:09 am
P.S. I thought I had a pretty good handle on the case, but I am going to have to read up on it all again. Especially with this new motion — I don’t have a grip on that yet at all!
February 5, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hey Jane were ya at? Do you have a bond set yet? Anyone heard from Jane? She hasn’t posted in about 15 hrs.
February 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
It seems that the Attorney General is conceding jurisdiction and then asking the Federal Court to abstain. The Court could not “abstain” if it didn’t have jurisdiction to begin with. The Federal Court is not going to involve itself in a state prosecution. SF is wasting time and money with this when it should be setting up defenses for its inevitable prosecution. Have you ever known a grand jury not to return “A TRUE BILL?”
February 5, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’m here but certain persons are asking me to venture downtown and obtain information from the Hinds County Courthouse. I guess if I were to be Sheltonized, it would most likely happen there.
February 5, 2008 at 11:16 am
TRUE BILL- in Fed court no, but in State court YES.
February 5, 2008 at 11:20 am
just checkin on ya….
February 5, 2008 at 11:25 am
Thanks UM! I hear ya!
February 5, 2008 at 11:26 am
P.S. I thought the word “repulsive” in the last line was a little strong.
February 5, 2008 at 11:29 am
Now don’t be casting any evil eye in my direction, Jane. Actually, though, YGM about a different potential errand of unmercy to Ed Peters.
February 5, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I made it back without being arrested or mugged. That counts as a good day in Jackson.
February 5, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Bellesouth, if you need help getting up to speed for the hearing, write at nmisscommentor@gmail.com and I’ll help.
February 5, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Researcher and all:
I think SF has a much better chance at an injunction than seems the consensus here, and if so, it is entirely because of spectacular bungling by the AG’s office. It is entirely possible that SF could be satan incarnate and get an injunction. Here’s why:
1) One exception to abstention is where the parties make a deal. That is, if there is a deal to stop the prosecution, SF can enforce it with a federal court injunction. The existence of a deal is hotly contested– Hood’s lawyer says “there is no deal,” and SF says “there is a deal.” That will be a subject of proof at the hearing, and Judge Bramlette will have to decide whether SF has proved likelihood of success (that it is likely they will prove there is a deal in a final hearing) to win on that issue.
2) Another exception to abstention is where the prosecution is in bad faith. LeBlanc from Keker’s firm made a really strong argument about in the deposition hearing– that this bad faith exception has a technical and precise meaning in the context of abstention, and to prove it, SF would have to show bad faith in the sense that the prosecution could not show probable cause. If that is the law, then, first, there is almost no way SF can make out that prove, and, second (this will be good news to Researcher!) the AG gets to fight back by proving that it has probable cause to prosecute SF. In other words, they can do a junior version of a criminal trial to rebut the claim of bad faith. HOWEVER, that was just LeBlanc’s argument, and I have no idea whether it really is the law– I haven’t read the cases. I believe SF is arguing “bad faith” in a more general sense of its meaning, that the AG is in bad faith because they were using the criminal prosecution to obtain a civil settlement.
If I were Hood and Lawton Hester, and if I thought I had the goods on SF, I’d be planning on making it public tomorrow to show the prosecution is in good faith.
If I were SF, I would focus really hard on the deal they say was made, because it has the double-whammy of proving both there is a deal (exception one) and suggesting bad faith (using the criminal case to obtain the settlement, with bad faith being exception two).
Either avenue of proof should be very, very interesting to the Folo community.
February 5, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I’m sure the nice people in the Circuit Court’s office were more than glad to help you! Everytime I’ve ever been over there they sit behind their desks and never greet anyone.
February 5, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Wasn’t there a settlement that was rejected by a federal judge? If so, wouldn’t that make the deal a no deal? Or is Hood coming up with something new wrt the Rigsby sisters?