Gulflive reported that a criminal investigation involving the Singing River Health System is underway:
Singing River Health System is under criminal investigation by District Attorney Tony Lawrence's office, the FBI and the state auditor's office, Lawrence confirmed today.
"An investigative plan has been formed, and it's in its early stages," Lawrence said this morning. "A lot of lawyers have assisted in giving me information that started the questioning process."
Details are few this early in the process.
"The rules and the law of the state of Mississippi limit what can be discussed when there is ongoing criminal investigation, and the reason for that is it's designed to protect the innocent and also to ensure that we get the guilty," Lawrence said. Rest of article.
Tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc-tic-toc
23 comments:
Good the situation is receiving the attention it deserves.
No 'local' D.A. is equipped or qualified to launch or manage a criminal investigation of this scope and nature. That's not a criticism of the D.A. It's just a fact. And the State Auditor will just muck it up. His expertise ends at catching women with their hands in the water-bill drawer.
Anyway, from what I read, it seems to me to be simply bungling and ineptness rather than criminality.
If the FBI is involved, come back for indictments in about 3 years. But only if there is a slam dunk case, since the asst USA's don't want to risk their perfect trial records with a trial they might lose.
The stickering will continue.
Wonder if State Auditor Pickering will have the balls to do something? Or maybe he can get some of the Board members to have a fundraiser for him! Remember DMR and the Walkers. I bet he does nothing!
It seems like bungling until you realize the magnitude. It's a stretch to believe that people could be that negligent. Stay tuned.
745- I remember the Walker's. They're in prison now.
Ask yourself: Did the Jackson County Supervisors actually not read the financial statements (annual audits) of SRHS?
That's a $300 million a year business with over $100 million in bonded debt that Jackson County cosigned for the taxpayers. The pension blowup was there in easy to understand numbers even before anyone figured out there was an $88 million 'mistake'.
I honestly do not know if the Supervisors didn't read the SRHS audits, or if the Supervisors tried to read them and couldn't understand what anyone with a few accounting courses ought to be able to see.
Either way that's a major f*ckup. Maybe someone else can provide a different explanation.
Taxpayers of Jackson County: F*cked.
SRHS retirees: F*cked.
Fatcats: Still getting paid.
Pickering's fundraiser was at the Walker's NEIGHBORS house, not the walkers house.
From what I have heard, the neighbors that had the fundraiser have never gotten along with the Walkers and are not friends at all.
Where is Chris Anderson????
Maybe if we would have accepted Medicaid expansion the good folks at Singing River could have covered this up longer...
/sarcasm
9:42 schmoozing at the Baptist
Until we see evidence of money crossing palms, I refuse to believe 'criminality'. So far, all we have on this site is a buncha goobs harping about nonfeasance or misfeasance. Malfeasance is different.
And who the hell knows how to read these year-end financials and required reports that must be made available to participants? They're intentionally boring and bogged down in minutia that non-accountants don't get excited about. The only people that get erections over those documents are auditors and investors.
Maybe someone ought to look into the various business entities in Florida, Alabama and elsewhere, but not forget MS, involving "Gerald" / Jerry St. Pe (Father of Laurin, of SRHS and father-in-law of Amy, of Dogan and Wilkerson), Edward Trehern, Roy Williams, etc. Then, maybe they ought to look into the various dealings, business or otherwise, involving various other Dogan and Wilkinson lawyers with various pols, judges, DAs, Walkers, etc. One never knows what interesting things might turn up.
"One never knows what interesting things might turn up. "
So, a "fishing expedition" unencumbered by that pesky "probable cause" stuff? The courts take a dim view of that sort of stuff.
As my brother-in-law'a new welcome mat says: "Come back with a warrant" :-)
Well, your brother-in-law may want a newer mat: one that says "My Brother-in-law doesn't know anything about the law."
Seriously, though, there is no need for a warrant to view public records as there is no expectation of privacy if someone fills out a form and files it in public records. And if what is done publicly (filing forms or anything else) constitutes "probable cause" to search somewhere private, law enforcement would be issued a warrant on that basis. It doesn't need to be admissible evidence, just "probable" cause. If the public act, deed, thing, etc. is in and of itself prima facie "probable cause," getting a warrant will be a gimme. Probable cause deals with unreasonable searches of private areas (generally and simply) and seizures of evidence. It does not prevent law enforcement from investigating crimes or potential crimes.
Plus, reporters and citizens can't get and don't need warrants to investigate whatever they wish (obviously, they cannot commit otherwise-illegal acts in so doing) and are free to go on any "fishing expedition" they wish (again, assuming they break no laws in so doing).
"there is no need for a warrant to view public records as there is no expectation of privacy if someone fills out a form and files it in public records. "
"no expectation of privacy"? Really? Try Googling Rebecca Schaeffer and also Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994. There are plenty of "public records" that are none of your business,
"There are plenty of "public records" that are none of your business."
Oh, lawd, spoken like a Jackson County lawyer.
And then, the "Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994" gets invoked. As far as I know, and at least at this point, no one's driving record or license info (except maybe Scott Walker's or Windy Swetman's) is at issue for either the feds, local LE or the press.
I'm not a FBI agent trying to gather evidence to convince a judge that I have probable cause, but if I were and I needed DL info that was being denied to me, I might cite this to the judge
18 U.S. Code § 2721, exceptions:
b(1) For use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions.
...
(b)(4)For use in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any Federal, State, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body, including the service of process, investigation in anticipation of litigation, and the execution or enforcement of judgments and orders, or pursuant to an order of a Federal, State, or local court.
Seriously, though, there is no need for a warrant to view public records as there is no expectation of privacy if someone fills out a form and files it in public records.
You are what is wrong with America today.
There is no expectation of privacy by you. But I still believe in my RIGHT to privacy.
Being forced to complete required paperwork does not waive one's right to privacy. This notion of being able to get any information just because it's had by the government is illegitimate. Court records that serve no public interest, except for shaming, is an invasion of one's privacy. Detailing the proclivities of a divorce via court record and then dispersing that information and hiding behind "freedom of information" is a sham.
Especially in a day where the responsibility of the press is subjugated by obfuscation for ratings. Perusing "public" information and disseminating such, for entertainment purposes, surely isn't the baseline for determining one's expectation of privacy.
Just because one is curious doesn't mean one should get the information. While there are a multitude of things that should be open, things that deal with individual citizens private lives, when it has not bearing on public interest, should remain private.
Then don't use our public courts funded by our money.
On January 26, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Anonymous suggested:
"You are what is wrong with America today."
Yeah, when that durn negro got elected, all them there privacy rights got all taken away, what with all them new-fangled lib-u-ral open trials and she-it.
There is no expectation of privacy by you. But I still believe in my RIGHT to privacy.
Not only do I expect privacy, I would support your right to yours UNTIL you do something that the constitution(s) (US and MS, assuming you are in both/either) allows be reasonably "invaded" for legitimate law enforcement purposes - i.e., to protect a civil society from acts it has deemed illegal. If you don't agree with what is deemed "illegal," that is a separate issue.
and
"Being forced to complete required paperwork does not waive one's right to privacy."
I don't see that anyone has suggested that it does. I haven't. But if one or more people willingly file something into the public record (such as business formation(s) with the SOS), they cannot reasonably expect that it isn't "public information."
and
"This notion of being able to get any information just because it's had by the government is illegitimate. Court records that serve no public interest, except for shaming, is an invasion of one's privacy."
Yeah, nothing like secret tribunals to show how a free society and its people operate.
11:18 you lost me when you dragged racism into it. Not one mention of race in the post you were supposedly addressing.
"Then don't use our public courts funded by our money. "
KF - how much can I pay to get your (or anyone's) sealed divorce records unsealed? My taxes paid for the proceedings right?
Kingfish,
Your statement is completely stupid, if not intentionally obtuse.
By your reasoning, because you pay taxes, my right to privacy should be removed when it serves you, or anyone else's interest other than personal entertainment. One is forced to court by law, one is forced to many things by law as part of a supposed societal contract. The notion of freedom has long since gone and you acquiesce to removal of one's privacy right because it serves you.
One has to pay and register their information for property ownership, marriage, divorce, property improvement, to pay taxes, to exercise God given rights, etc. Private personal matters is none of your business.
Post a Comment