"You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."

Humanity is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong, but no matter, the crowd follows it.

Oddly enough, Mark Twain's quote comes from The Mysterious Stranger- in the world of blogs and message boards, mysterious strangers are the norm. Here, for example, I am known as Promise; but,by any name, am a modern day muckraker.

I still believe most do; but, I am no longer so green that I can’t spot a Yellow Kid or recognize comments made by those that reflect the British English application of the word to sensationalist scandal-mongering journalist, not driven by any social principles.

Allegations and indictments have, as Cowboy would say, slabbed the integrity of our State’s legal system. Grief is a natural response, and anger is a natural part of the grieving process. Scandal-mongering, however naturally it may come to some, is not anger – it’s the sensationalized stories or outright lying that caused Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, two icons of American journalism, to be known as the two Yellow Kids.

Pulitzer and Hearst are often credited (or blamed) for drawing the nation into the Spanish-American War…eventually resulting in…the most famous example of the exaggeration…a version of which appears in the Hearst-inspired film Citizen Kane - the apocryphal story that artist Frederic Remington telegrammed Hearst to tell him all was quiet in Cuba and There will be no war. Hearst responded Please remain.You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.

So - Who’s furnishing the pictures of Attorney General Hood and who’s furnishing the war on his integrity?

It would be less than honest not to acknowledge Hood himself is submitting a few snapshots – I didn't care who (Scruggs) supported. I wasn't crazy about being attorney general anyway.. – and equally dishonest not to consider the possibility Twain suggested - Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth.

Yesterday’s edition of the Clarion Ledger generated a total of 160 reader comments from a front page story and three separate blog posts related to the allegation that indicted attorney Dickie Scruggs attempted to influence Hood.

Blogs started developing that picture on the 25th - that Jim Hood story was sitting there in Pacer at 7-8 PM or thereabouts. I started downloading stuff about then, and just didn’t get around to it till midnight.The first post was up early on the 26th and Holy S--t Balducci, State Farm, Jim Hood, Scruggs – all together in one paragraph appeared shortly therafter.

During the day related posts and news stories were linked to those already posted online.

Holy Cow! Do you see what this says? It says that Scruggs paid Balducci and Patterson half a million dollars to get Hood to back off the State Farm grand jury investigation. ..Seems to me that whole business needs to be explored some more, don't you think? If this is true, doesn't it qualify as some sort of improper influence of a public official?

By the evening of the 26th another picture was developing on the blogs – one chiding the old media are 24 hours behind the blogs…Actually, I’m going to frame this question more aggressively…What’s with the pros? – and, on the morning of the 27th, it was ready to print.

As you might expect, that $500,000 that Tim Balducci claims Dickie Scruggs (eventually, grudgingly) paid him and Steve Patterson to get Attorney General Jim Hood’s indictment of State Farm called off has made a splash in Mississippi’s largest newspapers this morning

On the 28th, the Yellow Kid went big time with a level of sensationalism that spread an outright lie coast to coast under the banner of none other than Legal News Line. Had it not been for my all time favorite blog post title - Why Legal News Line is fit only for the bottoms of virtual birdcages – the Yellow Kid’s nose would be longer than Pinocchio’s by now for claiming An FBI report released this week supported the headline Hood allegedly offered bribe from Scruggs.

The modest attempt to set the record straight - Editor’s note: The following story is a corrected version of an earlier article that contained many inaccuracies – fell far short of any measure of retraction. Shortly after daylight today, Legal News Line was back to the bottom of virtual birdcages - Too bad you didn’t notify The Google, LNL. I hope this helps them sue your ass for libel.

Attributing an outright lie to an FBI report can only be called an amazing act of hubris – far stronger evidence than documented in the defense Motion to Change Venue:

the print media blitz has been supplemented by Mississippi-based web logs (blogs) that report, in excruciating detail, every event in the prosecution and defense of the Scruggs criminal case; as well as their finding people piling on. Mr. Merkel. Mr. Tollison. The notion being at last he’s getting his comeuppance.

Judge Biggers called it one of the most thoroughly researched briefs I have ever seen; later adding, but it’s hard for me to believe there were no statements favorable to Dickie and denying the motion.

Considering the unanimous, accurate blog prediction of every ruling Judge Biggers made on the Defense Motions, Judge Biggers unquestioned integrity, and the assaults on Attorney General Hood, one can only wonder who’s providing the pictures and who’s providing the war - and where all these warriors are hidden.

The only thing proven thus far is attributed to Mark Twain:

Injurious truth has no merit over an injurious lie. Neither should ever be uttered. The man who speaks an injurious truth, lest his soul be not saved if he do otherwise, should reflect that that sort of a soul is not strictly worth saving.

Hello! Hello! Is this the party to whom I am speaking?

Saturday Night Live became Tuesday morning reality when State Farm attorney, the “honorable” Shelia L. Birnbaum, hit the wrong button and sent the media an email asking if Attorney General Jim Hood could be charged with Contempt of Court.

I bet you did Shelia – the panic button – when Hood’s office replied, “No, you can’t!

The case was dismissed because the allegations were false, according to Hood’s spokeswoman, Jan Schaefer.

Living in a travel trailer for two-and-a-half years can make folks crazy; but, it doesn’t make them dumb. No one’s ever called Shelia Birnbaum dumb either – most say she’s smart as a fox.

After yesterday, there’s no reason to doubt they’re right. Birnbaum looked at the clarification Hood’s office sent to the media and noted the General was about to take his coat off - his message to the media meant he was tugging at his tie.

Cowboy, you better saddle up – I do believe the State Farm’s fox is about to find out what Hood had waiting in the henhouse.

Robin' Hood of Support

Blogs are touted as the savior of democracy – a voice for the people, a place where our cherished freedom of speech enjoys the freedom of information.

…and, by the way, did I mention the bridge I’ve got for sale up in Brooklyn?

Blogs are in the information business – news you can use but news that can use you, too.

Last week blogs were big news. The defense team for the King of Torts, indicted Mississippi attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, cited the unfavorable environment created by blogs in the Motion for Change of Venue.

The named blogs responded with a “moment of silence” and noticeable absence of some of his most vicious critics. However, it wasn’t long before they were back in business -feasting on Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood with a side dish of Scruggs and the others for desert.

Hood is a state-wide elected official and his conduct is fair game for public conversation – but this game was anything but fair. Although he recently won reelection by a larger percentage of vote than any other candidate, few of his supporters comment on these blogs. Understandably so - take a look at the titles of these posts: AG Jim Hood Goes on Offense…and Fumbles the Ball; What's the Name for Hood Posts; and Hood Pours Gasoline, Strikes Match, and Sets Self on Fire.

I don’t know who picked up the tab for this feast but I know who paid the price – the people on the Coast – particularly those with State Farm claims unsettled. Banned from one blog and then another, and threatened by yet a third, robbed Hood of his strongest supporter and those who read these blogs of a balance view.

I came to offer Promise – for every voice to be heard. Meet bellesouth a fearless fighter for the people on the Coast – a diva of a defender with a sack full of rock solid fact and a spirited opinion up against a Goliath of critics who turned on her when they had nothing of substance to throw back.

(Note from Sop: To the extent this intersects with insurance we are allowing some Jim Hood discussion. We have begun the process of contacting the Office of the Mississippi Attorney General in hopes Mr Hood will comment to the extent he can on what his office is doing for us on these insurance issues. Given the pilloring he has taken, unfairly in certain respects in our opinions, we intend to provide a blog outlet that will simply allow him to present a differing point of view, just as we welcomed the Rimkus Engineer's viewpoints on our Aiken threads.)

Also a quick hello to Mr CLS and our thanks for reading us. - sop

Xavier University v. Travelers / Chehardy v. Allstate

"The wise man listens to meaning; the fool only gets the noise."
Poet C. P. Cavafy

"Favor distilled thinking, by which I mean the thinking based on information that is around us that is stripped of meaningless but diverting clutter. For the difference between noise and information has an analog: that between journalism and history."
Nassim Nicholas Taleb in Fooled by Randomness

For whatever reason I was reminded of those quotes yesterday while reading the Jim Hood commentary in yesterday's Clarion Ledger, the Folo Blog and David Rossmiller's blog. Those that have actually read Taleb's books understand he harbors a general disdain for "journalists" though the main object of his sarcastic wit in "Fooled" is George Will who is a commentator, rather than a journalist. All in the blogosphere are guilty of being Talebesque noise makers including your authors here at the Insurance Issues Forum. The trick is distilling the commentary, which task all three sources of noise I listed above failed miserably yesterday in my opinion.

So while much of the local blogosphere goes off chasing the Jim Hood br'er rabbit, some fresh off their unsuccessful chase of Billy McCoy, we will stick to our knitting of providing analysis of the insurance news which impacts so many coastal residents across this nation.

I saw this news item in today's Sun Herald and thought it most worthy of mention, mainly because we will surprise some of our readers with our take. It deals with two court cases on appeal out of the New Orleans area related to Katrina and the Supreme Court shooting down the appeals of Xavier University.

The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to offer help to Hurricane Katrina victims who want their insurance companies to pay for flood damage to their homes and businesses.

The justices rejected appeals from Xavier University and 68 other individuals and businesses seeking to allow their lawsuits against the insurers to go forward.

Xavier asked the court to step in after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the policies did not cover damage from floods, even those that resulted from man-made failures such as the collapsed levees in New Orleans.

Other cases working their way through state courts have so far reached differing conclusions. A Louisiana appeals court has said language excluding water damage from some insurance policies was ambiguous. The Louisiana Supreme Court will hear arguments in that case Feb. 26.

Xavier and the other plaintiffs had asked the federal court to allow the state Supreme Court to rule on their suits as well. The 5th Circuit refused and the U.S. high court upheld that ruling Tuesday.

While we are certainly sympathetic to the arguments of the dubious effect the Chamber of Commerce has exacted on our judiciary we agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The Flood Exclusion found in all private insurance policies is not ambiguous and these suits succeeded only in muddying the waters for all insurance litigation, much of which are far better grounded in insurance law. These Louisiana cases are not wind versus water; rather all the parties seem to agree flooding was the cause of damage. In our minds the obligations of insurers stop when excluded events are the clear cause of damage as is the case in these suits.

Finally we welcome Bellesouth, a real life example of the firehouse syndrome at work in the blogosphere. To their credit the Clarion Ledger has not banned Belle simply because she has a differing viewpoint though I am fairly certain Sid Salter would love to strangle her. Belle is new to the blogosphere and comes equipped with some strong opinions. We hope she will find the environment here conducive to learning the ropes and finer points of effective blogging.

sop

Breaking News: Hood Fires Back

Jim Hood has made the news today with his Friday court filings in response to State Farm trying to prevent a new grand jury from looking into alleged wrong doings on their part in how Katria claims were adjusted here on the coast. I write this post with a heavy heart as we have just learned of Jody Compretta's untimely passing in a parade accident last night in New Orleans. Our thoughts and prayers are with JP and his family.

The AP story:

A lawsuit filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. that accuses Attorney General Jim Hood of using the threat of criminal charges to force settlements in civil lawsuits is based on "lies, speculation, and innuendo," Hood said in court papers.

State Farm sued Hood in September, claiming he violated his part of a January 2007 settlement in which the attorney general's office agreed to end its criminal investigation over the company's handling of Hurricane Katrina claims. A judge ordered Hood to temporarily shut down the probe.

The accusations in court documents have intensified over the past week as both sides prepare for a hearing on Wednesday.

"Before allowing State Farm to use this court as a three ring circus to parade its inflammatory evidentiary rhetoric of innuendo, guilt by association, and smears, there should be some factual basis alleged to support a conclusion of retaliation and/or harassment," Hood said in papers filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Jackson.

Jonathan Freed, a State Farm spokesman told The Associated Press on Friday, that the insurer is ready to "proceed with our case and we're looking forward to airing these issues in court."

Hood asked the court to dissolve the restraining order and allow him to resume his investigation. Hood's 19-page filing came just days after State Farm used some of the strongest language yet in accusing the second-term attorney general of wrongdoing.

The company claimed Hood and wealthy plaintiffs attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, who is facing corruption and contempt charges in other cases, participated in an "extortion conspiracy" by trying to force the company to settle civil litigation with private attorneys.

The court battle heated up when State Farm began urging a judge to allow the company to question Scruggs under oath. Hood has called Scruggs his "confidential informant" and has said Scruggs provided allegedly incriminating information about State Farm."

General Hood is clearly concerned that his co-conspirator will either tell the truth or invoke the Fifth Amendment on specific questions related to their extortion conspiracy," State Farm said in a motion filed Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills on Friday ordered Scruggs to submit to the questioning by 5 p.m. Monday. Scruggs will likely invoke his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination when questioned because of the pending charges against him.

Scruggs, one of the most influential plaintiffs lawyers in the country, is facing federal charges that he conspired with several associates to bribe a judge in an unrelated dispute over $26.5 million in fees from a mass settlement of Katrina claims. He's facing contempt charges in Alabama for allegedly violating a federal judge's order by giving leaked Katrina assessment documents to Hood rather than returning them to the company from which they were taken.

Scruggs has denied wrongdoing in either case. Scruggs is not a party to the lawsuit State Farm filed against Hood, but the company claims he worked in collusion with Hood.

The January 2007 agreement that State Farm claims Hood violated by resuming a criminal investigation was part of a broader settlement that called for State Farm to reopen and possibly pay thousands of policyholder claims. However, a federal judge refused to sign off the terms of deal and State Farm later entered into another agreement with George Dale, who was then Mississippi's Insurance Commissioner.

In August 2007, State Farm received a new subpoena for records from a grand jury. Less than a month later, the company sued Hood in an effort to stop the grand jury's investigation.Hood claims he wasn't reopening the same investigation, rather he was probing new claims.Hood has argued that he never provided "blanket immunity" from future investigations.