Gov Walker steals from mortgage settlement fund

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Same summary Wiphan quotes, everyone has read this. You however referenced the exact legal language of the settlement, was hoping to see where you were able to read that.

No, I referenced that the language YOU were making your determination from was not the exact legal language of the settlement.

My point: Don't jump the gun, and say that the published language makes Walker's use legal, because that's not the legal language.

It's been 10 days, and there are 49 states that have to return papers before they can publish it, and now you have the site where you can read it.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

The above isn't the legal language of the settlement, it's the same summary that is listed on the settlement website and news articles.

You might ask the Governor's Attorney General, who was specially consulted to see if the Governor can take the money and use it outside of what is listed, and who is, aside from the Governor, the only one in the state government saying, "yes, I think it would be legal".

That Walker had to ask his Attorney General - and is NOT consulting the legislature or any other legal advice - shows Walker clearly knows his taking the money is outside the settlement use intentions.

But he has the Koch Brothers American's for Prosperity playing hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads saying Walker balanced the budget, and Walker knows that's a lie, and he has a $140 million deficit - so he's grabbing some of this money to try and cover his tracks before his recall election.

And that is why there is a lawsuit being filed against the Gov and Attorney General for it, on behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin. Because the Governor and Attorney General are beyond the accepted use of the monies, using it to pay off last year's bills, and NOT for housing-related city troubles.

Where does this statement reference MY language?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Where does this statement reference MY language?

In the post you wrote that I am responding to and referencing in the one you quoted. Keep up here

You made the point about the section reading "some money could be collected as civil penalties" ... and said it was separate, thus not referencing above, etc.; and I responded, "that's not the legal language of the document".

Don't make legal determinations on non-legal settlement agreement language, as Walker has already done, but realizes is dicey, as he only consulted his own Attorney General (the one that declined to investigate his office where the FBI found felonies); and Schneiderman has been all over talking about what the settle can, and can not, be used for.

But yes, we wait for the legal language, and that's why & when Scott Walker will have a lawsuit filed against his use of the funds to fix his budget deficit, rather than "housing related" problems.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, I referenced that the language YOU were making your determination from was not the exact legal language of the settlement.

My point: Don't jump the gun, and say that the published language makes Walker's use legal, because that's not the legal language.

It's been 10 days, and there are 49 states that have to return papers before they can publish it, and now you have the site where you can read it.

I have had the site since inception hence my wondering where you had seen the official legal language, been hoping to get in there since most houses are no longer worth what they were when purchased. Suck it up, you pretended to know more than you did.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I have had the site since inception hence my wondering where you had seen the official legal language, been hoping to get in there since most houses are no longer worth what they were when purchased. Suck it up, you pretended to know more than you did.

No, suck it up that you misunderstood what I said, falsely thinking I was making a claim I didn't. I never said I'd seen the official language. You mistakenly thought that's what I was intending. Nope. Just saying that's not the official language, which is why I then referenced Walker and his AG, as showing that even Walker and the AG think it will be out of the settlement agreement.

I thought I had seen one state's list of requirements for claimants somewhere, but I can't see how that can be yet.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, suck it up that you misunderstood what I said, falsely thinking I was making a claim I didn't. I never said I'd seen the official language. You mistakenly thought that's what I was intending. Nope. Just saying that's not the official language, which is why I then referenced Walker and his AG, as showing that even Walker and the AG think it will be out of the settlement agreement.

I thought I had seen one state's list of requirements for claimants somewhere, but I can't see how that can be yet.

So basically you are accusing theft of money that doesn't even exist and nobody, even you, knows how it will be distributed or handled once received and under what rules. Sound about right?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Don't make legal determinations on non-legal settlement agreement language, as Walker has already done, but realizes is dicey, as he only consulted his own Attorney General (the one that declined to investigate his office where the FBI found felonies); and Schneiderman has been all over talking about what the settle can, and can not, be used for.

But yes, we wait for the legal language, and that's why & when Scott Walker will have a lawsuit filed against his use of the funds to fix his budget deficit, rather than "housing related" problems.

add Missouri, Pennsylvania, Vermont and possibly California to your imaginary lawsuit.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=147266500

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

add Missouri, Pennsylvania, Vermont and possibly California to your imaginary lawsuit.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=147266500

"Imaginary"? Yet you quote an article that even quotes an attorney general saying it will be opposed, thus it isn't "imaginary" at all?



Yes, Dell - lots of governors and state budgets want to steal this money from the homeowners. Walker isn't the only thief. Use of the money for non-homeowner, non-mortgage related use will be legally fought by many.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

"Imaginary"? Yet you quote an article that even quotes an attorney general saying it will be opposed, thus it isn't "imaginary" at all?



Yes, Dell - lots of governors and state budgets want to steal this money from the homeowners. Walker isn't the only thief. Use of the money for non-homeowner, non-mortgage related use will be legally fought by many.

Lisa Madigan, daughter of Mike Madigan opposing Gov. Quinn? LMAO You've been gone from IL too long!

I see Madigan's public voice of opposition but until someone files; your lawsuit remains imaginary ; par for the course in your case. And how ironic 'What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.'


I'm glad you realize Walker isn't the only Governor attempting to run his State on a balanced budget.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Lisa Madigan, daughter of Mike Madigan opposing Gov. Quinn? LMAO You've been gone from IL too long!

I see Madigan's public voice of opposition but until someone files; your lawsuit remains imaginary ; par for the course in your case. And how ironic 'What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof.'

Dear god, you're weird.

I have said that yes, there are people that have said they will be filing a lawsuit, opposing the distribution of money away from the settlement recipients. You even quoted one. Are words of the future tense too hard for you to understand?

You do realize that the settlement has to be legally signed off upon by all 49 AG's, the money actually dispersed to the states, and money to actually be taken from the account before a lawsuit can be filed to protest that use and freeze it?

You can't file a lawsuit against something that hasn't yet happened? Too hard a concept for you to understand?

Your magic anticipatory vision predicting that nobody who has said they will file a lawsuit, will actually do it, is amazing

Taking a victory dance before the musicians have even assembled - that's pretty typical Dell

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Taking a victory dance before the musicians have even assembled - that's pretty typical Dell

Or before Lisa Madigan files suit but still claiming she's your alibi for filing suit. Butterflies again! Take your medicine even if it's Lithium

Oops sorry I violated HIPPA! But it's for your well being!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Or before Lisa Madigan files suit but still claiming she's your alibi for filing suit. Butterflies again! Take your medicine even if it's Lithium

Oops sorry I violated HIPPA! But it's for your well being!

Dell ... I have said that various AG's and the public have said they are going to file suit against Walker - and yes, other governors, including, btw, Democratic ones - who want to appropriate settlement funds for non-settlement purposes.

You've decided that could never and will never happen. Okay

Sorry. No "lithium" (or alcohol) here. But you go right ahead and keep enjoying.