Hood interview on NPR about Scruggs, Balducci, State Farm

I listened to it, not much time right now to comment. But here’s the link. Listen for what he says about being influenced by Mike Moore and how the answers get pretty fuzzy when it comes to what Balducci and Patterson actually said to him. One thing though.  Here he talks about getting word from his folks with the state grand jury that there was insufficient evidence of a crime to indict State Farm.  Exactly when was that?  And why then did he start up another grand jury investigation in July 2007?

 

26 Comments

Filed under Industry Developments

26 Responses to Hood interview on NPR about Scruggs, Balducci, State Farm

  1. doug

    I would guess that he knows he has the right to remain silent. However, at this time it looks like he doesn’t have the ability. If I were him, at this point, I’d shut up. He’s talking in a circle and it doesn’t seem that he can keep his own statements straight.

  2. bellesouth

    “And why then did he start up another grand jury investigation in July 2007?” That is what State Farm wants to know, and I don’t think they ever found out. The speculation is it is because of State Farm’s use of the NFIP.

  3. Belle, that makes no sense. Hood and others were saying long before July 2007 that insurers were ripping off the NFIP. I saw Gene Taylor nearly have a stroke in testimony before Congress about this. So to say that this was something people didn’t know about long before then is to deny reality.

  4. adnamA

    Hood, at Scruggs’ urging, was trying to put pressure on State Farm to get Renfroe to drop their case against the Rigsby sisters in AL. Scruggs did not like it when State Farm said that Renfroe could do what they want, and their case against the sister’s had nothing to do with State Farm.

  5. Oaege

    Ah, of all the wondrous things subject to denial, REALITY seems to be at/near the top of the list for many, especially those closest to the situation (in good company along with IRS audits, annual “complete” physicals, and the like!)

  6. bellesouth

    David, yes, and Hood testified too. Robie, State Farm’s attorney was asking all sorts of questions about Hood’s testimony to Congress. He was fishing all day. At the end of the day I asked the press guy next to me what he thought it was and he said it was obvious it was about NFIP. I really don’t know! Nobody does. It makes SF squirm, that is for sure.

  7. Nomiss

    ADNAMA,you are correct.

  8. MORE COWBELL

    Hood’s office announced today that it has recovered $166 million from corporate wrongdoing, including $8 million today against Merck. By the way, you can find on the AG website the press release of July when the State Farm case was reopened b/c they weren’t complying with the settlement agreement signed in January.

  9. Cowbell, doesn’t seem like you are have your heart in it today. Hood said the grand jury found no evidence of a crime, just because you say someone breached a settlement contract doesn’t mean you start up the grand jury again when you have no good faith belief a crime might have been committed. Come on, I know the answer to my question, it was rhetorical. The second grand jury was supposedly about NFIP abuse, although it was hard for Hood to claim he didn’t know about the supposed NFIP abuse before he shut down the other grand jury beacuse he had been out there talking about it.

  10. WOW

    Jimbo and his crack investigator Ms. Courtney should be the ones squirming right now.
    Any additional fallout over the e-mail that was sent by Sheila Burnbaum?

  11. bellesouth

    It was part of the events, David, they didn’t comply with Judge Senter’s agreement and he found probable cause to bring up another grand jury.

  12. Belle, I published this last comment of yours only as a warning of the kind of stuff that can get folks banned from my site, and that is keep repeating the same stuff that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
    Of course it was part of the sequence of events, that’s why we are talking about it. Obviously no one including Jim Hood, if he thought about what he is saying, would claim you can start a grand jury investigation when you have the belief you have already determined no crime was committed. So let’s have some comments in the future that aren’t just parrotting the Hood line and don’t keep going over ground I have already covered. If you want to comment here, I really would appreciate it if you would at least pretend to read what I write here — I have refuted this malarkey a number of times.

  13. preach on…preach on!

  14. Ironic

    bellesouth, what is your relation to hood?

  15. Ironic

    hood is off his rocker. he does not seem to miss a chance to clam Corp America. in the NPR interview, he implies that Balducci and Patt had to try to pressure him because the Snake was behind all of this. LOL!

  16. MORE COWBELL

    David, I just caught the fever again watching the abc tv dramady Eli Stone this evening. (Apparently Boston Legal won’t be back until April). Tonights show was about a engineer whistleblower who was tracked down in Hawaii. The engineer asks Eli “didn’t you see the movie The Insider? You know how this country treats whistleblowers.” You think some tv writer picked up a story idea from reading this blog?

  17. bellesouth

    David, I am sorry. You asked “And why then did he start up another grand jury investigation in July 2007?”
    I don’t know. You don’t know. State Farm doesn’t know. Nobody knows. I was just throwing out what I had heard. I am not taking a position because I don’t know. All you and I know is what we _do_ know so if we put it together maybe we can figure it out. I am not presuming anything.

  18. Mac

    David, recall the odd pleading Mike Moore made in one of the cases several weeks ago? Was that intended to distance himself from the implications Hood made about Moore earlier today?

  19. Injustice4all

    Notice no where does Hood claim he could not get indictment as it was basically already done if ask for. Of course, you can indict a ham sandwich.
    David, what is your postion on SF making Scruggs getting the indictment dismissed as part of their global settlement as per Balducci?
    Looks to me as if they are in same league.

  20. Seacrest

    I am a newbie to all of this and catching up, but I am puzzling about something. (sorry in advance if this observation is not new, novel or I missed something)
    I can’t seem to find any indication of “payment” to Balducci for his middleman work on the Judge Lackey bribery except for a extra 10 thousand lingering from Scruggs reimbursement to Balducci for his payments to the judge. Once Balducci found out Lackey asking price he THEN called the Scruggs firm to confirm the amount and confirm they would reimburse. Balducci picked up 50 g’s from Scruggs office for the 40 G bribery.
    The tab went up – $500 grand (to 2 people) just to chat with Hood?

  21. Injustice4all, I see no particular problem with someone who is under criminal investigation making a deal to get out from under such a threat. I would due exactly the same thing in State Farm’s shoes, especially in that we heard in this interview with Hood that he only agreed to give up the criminal investigation after hearing there was no criminal activity. So wherein is the problem with making a deal when the guy running the prosecution says there is no crime?

  22. Beau

    Seems like the good General tried to distance himself from Balducci big time when TB 1st plead guilty and I remember something coming from him or his office that he barely knew him and only because he was an employee of Langston at one time. Anyone else remember such a cop out? Now is seems that he may have known TB a little bit more then that if there are dinner get togethers, meetings in the office and the good General doesn’t want to prosecute TB because he is too close to him and it would be like prosecuting family. Come on Jimmy, which is it, too close to him he is like family or only know the man because he was an employee in one of your special assistant prosecutor’s office (who also plead guilty shortly after the comments were made back when)

  23. sickandfedup

    Seacrest,
    I lurk here mostly, reading when I have the time but I think Balducci has said in one of his statements that he and Patterson were counting on the 500,000 from Scruggs on the Hood deal. Scruggs was not forthcoming with the money promised (imagine that) and so Balducci felt that in order to collect he would have to use his friendship with Lackey to help Scruggs with yet another matter.
    By all means, don’t quote me…lol..I have been wrong before, but that is what I understood from reading some of the transcripts.

  24. Seacrest

    sickandfedup
    Thank you very much. I figured there was a component I had missedor hadn’t got to. That helps. It’s a complicated little matter isn’t it?

  25. dixie68

    Don’t forget. The good general was facing a very good opponent in his re-election effort, so what better way to remind the peons of his outstanding ability to collect money from the big, bad corporations. Worse yet, it worked.

  26. injustice4all

    David,
    I still have a problem with it. It seems like trading money in exchange for relief from a criminal charge to me. Of course, you are correct if you believe Hood then they were being “shaking down” so no harm no foul. But either Hood is a liar or not. I just don’t believe Hood.
    To me and many of the lawyers I know, if there was a crime indict. If not shut up.