Attorney General Jim Hood issued the following statement.
ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM HOOD ISSUES STATEMENT ON HB 555
JACKSON—Attorney General Jim Hood issued the following statement today regarding House Bill 555:
“A legislator advised us that Entergy demanded another vote on the bill and that it be made retroactive. It’s no coincidence that the State’s case against Entergy is now active again in federal court, and this company fears having to pay more than $1 billion for its illegal acts.
“Obviously, House leadership and proponents of this bill bow down to their corporate masters, and it’s unfortunate that this bill’s supporters put such pressure on conscientious Republican legislators to change their vote. I am grateful for the bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans that saw this bill for what it is: an unconstitutional, political power grab that puts the interests of corporations ahead of Mississippi citizens.”
Copy of bill.
Kingfish note: This is the section of the bill that is at issue:
In matters wherein the amount reasonably sought to be recovered by the state or arm or agency thereof exceeds the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) inclusive of attorney's fees, interest and costs, the Attorney General shall not file suit or otherwise assert such a claim or cause of action or employ special or outside counsel to file such suit or otherwise assert such a claim or cause or action, without the prior written approval of the Outside Counsel Oversight Commission as defined and provided for is Section 7-5-8.
In matters wherein the amount reasonably sought to be recovered by the state or arm or agency thereof exceeds the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousands Dollars ($250,000.00) inclusive of attorney's fees, interest and costs, the Attorney General shall not continue to pursue the matter in any currently pending litigation which has not yet been reduced to final judgment until the Outside Counsel Oversight Commission has reviewed the matter to determine if the Attorney General should proceed, and if so, whether the matter should be pursued before state or federal agency with expertise and primary jurisdiction over the subject of the matter rather than in any state or federal court in which the matter is currently pending. The written decision of the Outside Counsel Oversight Commission shall be required before the Attorney General shall proceed with the matter in any matter.
The bill failed on a vote of 58-60 in the House. However, the bill passed on a 63-56 vote a week later after a motion to reconsider was filed.
24 comments:
Unconstitutional on its face.
Sanctions should be awarded against Tate and phil and mark "piece o crap" baker
This state's legislators, for the most part don't give a rip about the people whom they claim to care for.
Neither does Hood.
James, this is what happens when you abuse your ability to hire outside counsel. The "But look what I was just about to do!" plea isn't going to get you anywhere.
So, two votes shifted and one more vote came in. Sounds like three men got a wild west hunting trip.
Hood's freaked out because he knows this will pass the Senate.
Why would the Governor, Lt. Governor, and Secretary of State be any less abusive than Hood? Are you saying the Republicans don't take care of their own? Have you met Haley Barbour? Why not stick to the Rules of Court and let the trial court determine and the appellate court review the fees of the lawyers? What is wrong with that?
8:18---How is it unconstitutional....you are probably right, but how?
How will they balance the budget? Money from Hood has bailed them out for several years.
9:57
The AG has to get permission from the idiots in the legislative committee to sue anybody if it's going to cost more than 1/4 million
Mark Baker. That's just about all you need to know here.
9:57
It makes the legislative branch the judicial branch.....which erases the separate branches.
What if the Supreme Court had to approve a bill if it exceeded $25 dollars?
Overall, as a voting republican, I think Conway does a good job.
The Repulicans cannot defeat Hood at the ballot box, so their only hope. Is to reduce his authority and power via legislation. This is the same crap that the North Carolina Republican legislature was trying to do to the newly elected Democratic Governor. Mark Baker's statement is that Attorneys have made millions that should have gone to the State of MS. Well, the Attorney's were paid on a contingency. They assumed all the risk and financed the litigation. The attorneys were not working for free. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, understand that power corrupts. This is nothing more than a power play by the Gov and Lt. Gov with Baker executing it in the House.
The Repulicans cannot defeat Hood at the ballot box ...
They will should he run for Governor.
10:45 & 10:50 (assume you are one and the same)
Get back to work over there in the Sillers Building - know you can spend time on the state computers since your boss is in Chickasaw County not watching.
But if you can't determine constitutionality any better than this, you need to be looking for another job.
This does not require the AG to get permission from a legislative committee.
This does not put the legislature in the Executive Branch.
Evidently you not only are an incompetent lawyer, you can't even read. Must have taken Obama's Constitutional Law class.
The bill specifically avoids your 'constitutional crises' - sounds like you are trying to run your piehole to confuse people with fake facts.
The Oversight Commission consists of: The Governor (Executive), The Lt. Governor (Executive) and the Secretary of State (Executive). There is no legislative committee involved. And there is no crossing of the separate branches of government.
Thanks for playing though. You can get your participation trophy on your way out this afternoon. Better luck next time.
322... surprised that you could get off of Feels nutz long enough to write that response. Bottom line is that this bill would not exist except for Hood being a Democrat; right wrong or indifferent.
8:59, unlike you and Hood, I don't hang onto anybody's nutz, much less Feel's. This bill would not exist except for Hood trying to sue the world so that his trial lawyer financiers (you know, the ones that claim they are contributing to his campaign account - the one he lives out of during all years of his term) can get the big payouts.
Frankly, I think the AG should be appointed by the Governor, no matter who the Governor is or what party the Governor is. The AG should be the state's lawyer and not be constantly at odds with the rest of the state leadership that he is supposed to be representing. I don't give a damn about Hood's party; I do give a damn about the state operating on a somewhat level field.
But that doesn't change the fact that this bill is not unconstitutional, which I believe is what I was answering. Your trying to deflect from that point just shows you don't even have a doughnut hole to pay off the fact that you were wrong with your so-called constitutional argument.
3:22 pm I'm not in the Sillers building or the person(s) you attacked.
But,it is clear to me this committee is executive interference in the judicial branch and should not exist.
This " oversight" committee could easily use such power to keep an AG from an opposing party from doing due diligence for political reasons.
IF an outside counsel accepts a case ( especially this large) from the AG, you can be sure that counsel expects to win and win big because frankly, it's too expense for a small firm or even a large one to pursue cases against a large corporate entity. The small will go broke and the law one will lose money they could be making on cases that pay. Big corporate law firms will paper another law firm to the extent they can't pursue any other case and drive up legal fees with discovery and delays. They can even try to delay it for longer than an AG is in office.
And, it should occur to you that the AG office we have and will have cannot deal with ordinary responsibilities and a case of this magnitude . They can just barely fulfill their duties to the state agencies and law enforcement.
No "outside counsel" will take such cases unless the expected reward will far exceed the years they will be starved of billable income with overkill by the corporation. The corporate lawyers can be on a sizable retainer to guarantee that law firms constant availability plus hours and expenses that exceed that retainer. That is just the realities these days. The State and thus the ordinary citizen is at a disadvantage from the " get go".
Turn about on tactics is fair play, so how are things at Entergy or are you just a hired lobbyist?
It all comes down to a lot of crooks looking to gain more power than another bunch of crooks. You don't need a high school diploma to know politicians are crooked and power hungry. They would not be politicians if they were not that way.
The crooks will try to get power over the other crooks and in the end the people will pay. Always have and always will as the people continually choose crooks for leaders.
8:14, obviously not a staffer in Hood's office. Clearly one of the trial lawyers that are on his gravy train of contingent fees. Thanks for chiming in to protect your bank account
Go find an Entergy atty w expertise who will work for $86,000 a year on a multi billion $ litigation. They do not exist!
3:22 pm
You are quite the jerk huh?
Does the AG work for the executive branch or the state/people?
Why won't the legislature just fire Hood? Get rid of his office?
The answer is because they cannot.
This is an unconstitutional over reach.
High Street will show you....so get back to licking Phils shoes.
Hood and his 'Santa's Bag Of Toys And Gifts' is the Rudy Warnock of State Government.
Post a Comment